Hiding The Decline At NCDC

18 Responses to Hiding The Decline At NCDC

1. Owen says:

   February 2, 2015 at 2:38 pm

   Your presentation of the temperature fudging is clear and simple – simple enough that even the morons we call journalists can understand it. But I won’t hold my breath waiting for the media scum to understand what really is going on. They don’t want to know. They are paid to lie. They have the integrity and conscience of the sociopathic Climate Lying scientists. I hope these people rot in hell when their time comes.

   Reply
2. omanuel says:

   February 2, 2015 at 4:19 pm

   We are watching a TRAGIC-COMEDY unfold at the limit of human comprehension:

   World leaders tried to save themselves and the world from nuclear annihilation in 1945 by:

   1. Forming the UN to take totalitarian control of society, and

   2. Changing solar and nuclear physics to hide neutron repulsion in cores of atoms, planets, stars and galaxies heavier than 150 atomic mass units (where nuclear structure changes [1] to neutrons in the core and neutron-proton pairs at the surface).

   At the limit of our comprehension, at the intersection of spiritual and scientific knowledge, is an “intelligent and creative Mind” (Max Planck) that guides force fields from the Sun’s pulsar core in creating and sustaining every atom, life and world in the Solar System . . .

   a volume of space greater than the combined volumes of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 Earth’s!

   I.e., world leaders are trying to hide a force of creation, incomprehensibly more powerful than anything they could have imagined.

   Whether or not we succeed, world leaders will fail to control God’s force of creation.

   1. See page 3, “Solar energy,” Adv. Astronomy (submitted for on-line review, 6 JAN 2015): https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Solar_Energy_For_Review.pdf

   Reply
3. gator69 says:

   February 2, 2015 at 5:40 pm

   Now if we could only make that blip in the White House disappear.

   Reply
4. darrylb says:

   February 2, 2015 at 9:47 pm

   Looking at what you presented- especially the last ‘moving’ graph makes me wish I had more computer schools.
   Interesting
   I was born too early!

   Reply
5. darrylb says:

   February 2, 2015 at 9:53 pm

   gator——Unfortunately, it has not been the only blip, but I think that perhaps the worst, at least that I know of since Truman. and for the most part before.
   I sometimes think he is anti American and sometimes simply a spoiled child.
   At least I know of some who voted for him and now despise him. Lies will get you every where some times. Romney made some poor decisions in politicking, but I believe for the most part he would have been a good President, mega times better in foreign affairs.

   Reply
   • gator69 says:

     February 2, 2015 at 10:39 pm

     Just about everything Romney predicted has come true. Sadly there were just too many people who do not trust Mormons, and too many haters of the successful. So we voted in a SOS with faith in nothing but himself, and a track record of being present and wrong.

     Reply
     • kuhnkat says:

       February 3, 2015 at 1:02 am

       Romney still thinks his RomneyCare was a good idea. Please let it go…

       Reply
       • gator69 says:

         February 3, 2015 at 1:30 am

         Romneycare vs Obamacare

         Apples vs Oranges
       • kuhnkat says:

         February 8, 2015 at 12:01 am

         Gator, stick to 69. Romneycare is breaking the bank in Massachusettes just as Barrycare will for the nation. Although there are many differences the problem is the same type of morons running bureaucrapcies. If they aren’t corrupt they are too stupid to do the job, and, people who get “free” health care overuse the services when there aren’t enough to go around in the first place. The companies will bribe the gubmint to get their fees protected, etc.

         Romneycare is just as bad an idea as Barry Care although it is not unconstitutional in as many ways.

         In fact, at one point Romney was stupid enough to claim BarryCare was a child, or similar stupidity, of RomneyCare.

         Fascist takeover of private enterprise is ALWAYS insane. Even if they do manage to run it reasonably for a while, it helps reduce the population to dependent sheep who must beg the gubmint for help as it fails.
       • gator69 says:

         February 8, 2015 at 10:01 am

         Here we go again…

         1- Mitt Romney was GOVERNOR of the STATE of Massachusetts, and not a DICTATOR.

         2- The people of Massachusetts WANTED Romneycare, by a wide majority, and he delivered what the people asked for in a CONSTITUTIONALLY SOUND manner. Obamacare was shoved down our throats, against the will of the people and is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

         3- Romneycare did EXACTLY what our founders intended, it is all part of the experiment, “laboratories for democracy”.

         4- Romneycare ACTUALLY COVERED 10% MORE of the population once enacted, Obamacare REDUCED the number of those covered.

         5- Romneycare was not only widely approved, but remained popular with the majority of Massachusetts residents. Obamacare was NEVER popular, and support has DWINDLED since the law was passed.

         I could go on, but those are the major differences. As governor of the state, Romney did exactly what his job description dictated, he gave the people what they wanted in a constitutionally sound manner. That is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what Obama did.

         Earth grown apples vs Oranges from outer space! 😆
       • kuhnkat says:

         March 3, 2015 at 7:28 am

         http://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2008/lessons-fall-romneycare

         http://www.newsmax.com/US/Obama-healthcare-Romney/2009/10/16/id/335635/

         http://insureblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/romneycare-then-and-now.html

         “”There is nothing inherent in the economics of Massachusetts that should be singled out,” said Gruber. “There’s only two things that should be singled out in Massachusetts- one is we did have widespread acceptance of the mandate, which may not be true elsewhere. But the biggest thing that Romney’s not talking about is in Massachusetts the federal government paid for about half of our plan. We didn’t pay for it all on our own.” ”

         http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/romneycare-massachusetts-years/story?id=16614522
       • Gail Combs says:

         February 8, 2015 at 11:16 am

         Gator,

         All you say is true BUT to make RomneyCare work ROMNEY and Kennedy STOLE tax payer funds from the US government. He also FORCED people to buy insurance they did not want.

         Interview with Jonathan Gruber
         …So basically you have a health care system where you have a law called EMTALA; I forget what it stands for [Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act]. And basically what this law says is that if hospitals want to get Medicare reimbursement, which every hospital does — that’s a major source of financing at any hospital — they have to be willing to treat anyone who comes to their emergency room regardless of insurance status.

         What that means is that it essentially provides sort of a form of catastrophic coverage if you’re a young, healthy person. You know, when I was a 25-year-old guy, I never needed to go to the doctor except if I got hit by a car. …

         Mitt Romney’s big selling point, as he was preparing to sell health care reform, was: “Look, a lot of the uninsured in Massachusetts can afford health insurance. They could afford it if they were willing to buy it. But they are not because they are free-riding on the system. They just wait until they get sick and then [are] getting coverage.”

         Please note that Medicaid is NOT free. the government TAKES that money from your estate. Medicaid’s fine print holds surprise: ‘payback’ from estate after death

         Third, we had a major source of financing in place, which we had formerly had a pretty powerful senator named Ted Kennedy who had been delivering about $400 million a year in slush funds to our safety-net hospitals that the Bush administration was threatening to take away.

         The Romney administration, to their credit, went to Washington and said, “Can we keep this money if we use it to cover the uninsured?” And the Bush administration, to their credit, said yes.

         So those pieces pulled together made a really interesting opportunity to actually cover the uninsured and fix a broken, non-group market on the federal dime.

         So WHO are the FEDS going to steal from to make Obummer care work? Oh that is right the Federal government is going to steal from the healthcare moneys taxed from the baby boomers and set aside to cover retirees and use that money to cover the lazy shifrless bums they want to buy votes from. No wonder Obama wants to give the vote to the Illegal Criminals swarming across our borders.

         Association of American Physicians & Surgeons

         Not just Barack Obama, but all politicians promise to protect Medicare—even if they are robbing it to pay for ObamaCare. They don’t promise that you can keep your Medicare doctor, however.

         And they don’t address the question of what happens if you don’t like your Medicare.

         You can drop Medicare Part B, though there is a penalty for getting back in. But to drop Medicare Part A, you have to give back all the Social Security payments you ever received, as well as forgoing future payments.

         ….Why would anybody want to turn down free insurance, you may well wonder—especially when there is no private substitute for it. (President Johnson saw to that, to be sure that “his” program was successful.)

         That has to do with your Medicare doctor, and your actual care. Medicare rules are forcing many independent physicians to give up their practice, and either retire early or become employees. Physicians who do remain in practice may not accept Medicare patients, or limit the number they see. If you are a Medicare patient, the entire Medicare regime is in the examining room or hospital room with you, like it or not. You are not allowed to be free for a day. Neither is the doctor. There is a way out (opting out or disenrolling), but that’s an all-or-nothing choice for the doctor.

         A Medicare beneficiary can see a non-Medicare doctor as a private patient, but is very unlikely to be able to collect any Medicare reimbursement. A Medicare doctor cannot see Medicare-eligible patients as private patients.

         Medicare is also making it increasingly difficult for Medicare patients to get tests, consultations, oxygen or other home-health items, or medications prescribed by a non-Medicare doctor, sometimes even if the patient is willing to pay privately…..

         Now that payroll tax receipts are less than payouts, benefits are coming out of general tax revenues, which redeem the IOUs in the “Trust Fund.” And the ever-increasing Part B premiums pay only 25 percent of benefits. If you are on Medicare, you are a liability—to your doctor and to society.….

         Actually Medicare makes it impossible to get some tests done period if you are over seventy. Hubby had his doctor tell him “I would like to have this test done but you are now over seventy so I can’t….”
       • gator69 says:

         February 8, 2015 at 1:21 pm

         Wow. One issue regarding federal funds.

         “Romneycare got tweaked over the years, including in ways that control costs. As a result, the Providence newspaper points out, the fiscally conservative Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation has called Romneycare “a well thought-out piece of legislation.”

         “There’s a lot of wild accusations that the law is breaking the bank in Massachusetts, and that is simply not the case,” foundation president Michael Widmer told Forbes during the 2012 presidential campaign. “I think the state’s healthcare reform has been a huge success and is probably the best policy achievement in the last 25 years.”

         A recent poll by the Massachusetts Medical Society, a statewide physician group, finds that most people in Massachusetts today are generally satisfied with the health-care system there.

         “Eighty-four percent of residents expressed satisfaction with the care they received over the last year, including 56 percent who indicated they are ‘very satisfied’ and 28 percent who are ‘somewhat satisfied,’” the survey report states. Seventy-three percent of residents reported that gaining access to health care they need is “not difficult,” and for serious medical problems, 86 percent said the amount of time they needed to wait was not a problem.”

         Romneycare: Whole bill was 70 pages

         -Romney vetoed significant sections of the bill including the employer penalty for not providing health insurance

         -Romney favored an “opt out” provision from the mandate

         -No federal gov. insurance option

         -Intended as a market driven solution to healthcare

         Obamacare: Whole bill was 2,074 pages

         -Very broad regulation of the insurance industry including an employer penalty for not providing health insurance and no “opt out” provision

         -Leaves open the option of creating single-payer gov. insurance in the future

         -Intended as a step toward gov. run insurance
       • kuhnkat says:

         March 3, 2015 at 7:23 am

         Oh, and Gator69, I really don’r know where you got the idea that Romneycare was effective at all, but, you might want to read this from back in 2008. Since BarryCare it has only gotten worse because numbnutz were going to use Medicare/Medicaid funds which BarryCare is cutting among other problems:

         http://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2008/lessons-fall-romneycare

         http://insureblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/romneycare-then-and-now.html
       • kuhnkat says:

         March 3, 2015 at 6:48 am

         gator69,

         the fact is Romney is supportive of BarryCare and still thinks his Romneycare, with the necessary changes to expand and fund it, is really neat and is the pappy of Barrycare. You can talk around it for years but that is ROMNEY’s opinion. He is NOT so proud of the fact that it has neither covered everyone nor is it financially supportable. Do you homework boy. Even if they had not changed it the thing would still be eating the budget now. After the first 5 years it wasn’t so bad. Guess what, costs go up especially when people realize they can run to the doctor for every little sniffle and get drugged into relative happiness.

         You really need to pick better people to defend. Romney is a confirmed Progressive and will never change. Only a freaking Progressive or worse would even consider this type of crap much less design and push it through. The fact that people in Massachewshits are too STUPID to understand how they are cutting their states economic throat is NOT an argument for it and is not an argument separating RomneyCare and BarryCare. I think there are plenty of Illegals and no/low income types who like BarryCare. There are also a lot of politicians, media, and corporations that love Barrycare. That is still not an argument separating Romneycare and Barrycare.

         Yes I understand and support the idea that the States were to be independent and their own test beds for different ideas. Again, that does not mean in any way that RomneyCare is different from BarryCare or that it is good in some way, only that it MIGHT not have all the legal blocks against it. What you are apparently too STUPID to understand is that like BarryCare it has a mandate REQUIRING everyone to have health insurance. I am 62, healthy, and DON’T WANT GOVERNMENT OR ANY OTHER KIND OF INSURANCE!! This is a RIGHTS ISSUE that no amount of BS can get around. The government does NOT have the authority to tell me what to buy although they have taken powers we have stupidly given them to FORCE us to obey!!

         Oh yeah, what you left out is that it is still Socialist crap that reduces the peoples need to depend on themselves and allows the gubmint to prey on them due to their learned stupidity. Again, no different from BarryCare.

         In other words, your reply was mostly irrelevant.
       • gator69 says:

         March 3, 2015 at 10:51 am

         Wow!

         I despise Obamacareless. It is unconstitutional, and was rejected by the majority.

         Romneycare was supported by the majority and is constitutional.

         Big difference, and maybe you are too stupid to see that.

         I am not defending Romney. What I am saying is that one is legal and supported by the citizenry and the other isn’t. One worked to covered the uninsured, and the other looked to take over the healthcare industry.

         But I guess you are too stupid to get that.

         Had enough childish name calling yet?
6. chili palmer says:

   February 3, 2015 at 12:50 am

   In 1981 per NY Times report on James Hansen led study, excuse for cooling from 1940s was that yes, Northern Hemisphere cooled, but Southern Hemisphere warmed: ‘The common misconception that the world is cooling,” they say, ”is based on Northern Hemisphere experience to 1970.”
   8/22/1981, “STUDY FINDS WARMING TREND THAT COULD RAISE SEA LEVELS,” NY Times, Walter Sullivan
   “”A team of Federal scientists says it has detected an overall warming trend in the earth’s atmosphere extending back to the year 1880. They regard this as evidence of the validity of the ”greenhouse” effect, in which increasing amounts of carbon dioxide cause steady temperature increases….The major difficulty in accepting the greenhouse theory ”has been the absence of observed warming coincident with the historic carbon dioxide increase,” the scientists wrote.

   Researchers were further confounded by an apparent cooling trend since 1940. As a result, many atmospheric scientists concluded that the climatic effects of increased carbon dioxide might not become detectable for many decades. But the Government scientists say they see clear evidence that carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution has already warmed the climate. “…

   Seven years later, in 1988 on NY Times front page, Hansen tells the Times the heat will be in the Northern Hemisphere, not the Southern: “This rise in temperature is not expected to be uniform around the globe but to be greater in the higher latitudes, reaching as much as 20 degrees, and lower at the Equator.”

   In 1981 Hansen cited Mars and Venus as proof of the so-called greenhouse effect: “Dr. Hansen and his colleagues cite the observed surface temperatures of Mars and, particularly, Venus as support for their predicted greenhouse effect. The surface of Venus, with an atmosphere formed largely of carbon dioxide, is at about 900 degrees Fahrenheit.”

   Reply
7. Centinel2012 says:

   February 3, 2015 at 1:54 am

   Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
   There has been so much of the data manipulation going on that its now almost impossible to know what is really happening.

   Reply