Tag Archives: Socialism

Comparison of hockey stick graph data to a larger data set in the same area

I noticed this post up at Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit.

Steve recently disproved the hockey stick graph which is the cornerstone of all global warming alarmism. The hockey stick graph is based on the “Yamal” data set. It conceals the well-known Medieval Warming Period and shows a sudden spike in temperatures in the last few decades. In his latest post, Steve compares the tiny cherry-picked “Yamal” data set to a larger “Polar Urals” data set from the same geographic area.

You can click through to his analysis, but I will just show you one graph to give you an idea of what he found.

GWComparison

Wow, notice how the cherry-picked Yamal data set (in black) makes the Medieval Warming Period disappear, and adds a hockey stick upturn at the end. And notice how the larger non-cherry-picked Polar Urals data set (in red) reveals the Medieval Warming Period and no hockey stick upturn. Here is a good summary of how things went wrong with the hockey stick graph.

4500 weather records set nationwide in cold start to fall season

In other news, Watts Up With That notes that over 4500 new snowfall, low temperature, and lowest maximum temperature records where set in the USA this week. (Click to see the map with all 4500 records)

Here’s the breakdown:

Record Events for Sat Oct 10, 2009 through Fri Oct 16, 2009
Total Records: 6257
Rainfall: 859
Snowfall: 297
High Temperatures: 369
Low Temperatures: 785
Lowest Max Temperatures: 3473
Highest Min Temperatures: 474

Source: Hamweather Climate Center and NOAA/NWS

How green jobs policies have failed in Spain and Germany

Obama is planning to do “green” our economy, based on evidence like the fake hockey stick graph, and in spite of the extremely low temperatures we had in the summer and the fall this year. But how well has green jobs programs worked in Germany?

Big Government features a post evaluating of “green jobs” programs in Spain and Germany.

Consider the results of the green jobs policies in Spain.

Excerpt:

Yet in Spain, the economy suffered when efforts to create green jobs destroyed nearly 110,000 jobs in other industries according to a study released last month from Spain’s King Juan Carlos University.  It suggests that the Democrats’ plan for economic renewal through ‘green collar’ jobs may hurt the economy far more than it helps. Gabriel Calzada Alvarez, a professor of applied environmental economics, explains that Spanish citizens currently suffer from higher taxes, more public deficit and ever-increasing energy prices—all the result of the government’s efforts to create a green economy.

This report from the Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung think tank explains what happened in Germany.

Excerpt:

German renewable energy policy, and in particular the adopted feed-in tariff scheme, has failed to harness the market incentives needed to ensure a viable and cost-effective introduction of renewable energies into the country’s energy portfolio.  To the contrary, the government’s support mechanisms have in many respects subverted these incentives, resulting in massive expenditures that show little long-term promise for stimulating the economy, protecting the environment, or increasing energy security.

In the end, Germany’s PV promotion has become a subsidization regime that, on a per-worker basis, has reached a level that far exceeds average wages, with per worker subsidies as high as 175,000 € (US $ 240,000).

It is most likely that whatever jobs are created by renewable energy promotion would vanish as soon as government support is terminated, leaving only Germany’s export sector to benefit from the possible continuation of renewables support in other countries such as the US.

You can read more about Obama’s radically leftist science czar and radically leftist former green jobs czar to understand why Obama is doing this. He is surrounded by radical extremists.

NHS employees leapfrog their own waiting lists to access private health care

Story from the UK Times. (H/T The American Thinker via ECM)

Excerpt:

The National Health Service has spent £1.5m paying for hundreds of its staff to have private health treatment so they can leapfrog their own waiting lists.
More than 3,000 staff, including doctors and nurses, have gone private at the taxpayers’ expense in the past three years because the queues at the clinics and hospitals where they work are too long.

Figures released under the Freedom of Information act show that NHS administrative staff, paramedics and ambulance drivers have also been given free private healthcare. This has covered physiotherapy, osteopathy, psychiatric care and counselling – all widely available on the NHS.

[…]The health department defended the practice and said sending doctors, nurses and other key staff for private treatment helped to get them back to work.

This is actually standard for socialized medicine. In Canada, leftists fly to the United States for health care. They know they’ve wrecked the Canadian system. It’s like Barack Obama and public school teachers sending their own children to private schools. It’s just hypocrisy.

Why did 77% of young unmarried women vote for Obama in 2008?

Consider this analysis from a left-wing site of the 2008 election.

Excerpt:

On Tuesday, the nation made history. It made history in electing the first African American president; it made history in building a bigger margin for the first female Speaker of the House; it made history in delivering the biggest Democratic margin since 1964; it made history in sending a record number of people to the polls and the highest percentage turnout since the 1960 election.

[…]But one thing is immediately clear. Unmarried women played a pivotal role in making this history and in changing this nation. They delivered a stunning 70 to 29 percent margin to Barack Obama and delivered similarly strong margins in races for Congress and the U.S. Senate. Although unmarried women have voted Democratic consistently since marital status has been was tracked, this election represents the highest margin recorded and a 16-point net gain at the Presidential level from 2004.

In particular, note the chart that shows that younger unmarried women voted 77-22 for Obama. 77-22 for Obama. This is actually in keeping with my previous post on this topic, which documented how women have continuously voted for bigger and bigger government since they started voting. The problem with big government policies is that they drain money from the family which is then redistributed outside of the family.

To have a strong family, you need more than just money. You need independence so that you can keep your vision distinct and separate from the vision of the government. If a family depends on the government, then they are beholden to the government’s values. The government can even overrule conscience rights and religious liberty. Keeping the family strong and separate from government is especially important for Christian parents who have a specific goal of passing on their faith to their children.

Here are just a few of the things I thought of that help make a marriage strong: (there are many more)

  • low taxes so the household has more money to spend on the things we need for our plan
  • access to low cost energy provided by domestic energy production by private firms
  • access to low cost, high quality consumer goods through increased free trade
  • the ability to choose homeschooling or private schools (and the more school choice, the better)
  • the ability to fund a retirement plan that covers the family – not anyone else
  • the ability to purchase a health care plan that covers the family – not anyone else
  • the ability to own firearms for protection of the home and the family
  • the ability to pass Christian convictions on to children without interference from the state
  • the ability to speak and act as a Christian in public without reprisals from secular left special interest groups
  • low threat of being the victim of criminal activity
  • low threat of being bankrupted by the costs of divorce court
  • low threat of being arrested on a false domestic violence charge (e.g. – verbal abuse)
  • low threat of never seeing your children because of loss of custody after a divorce
  • low threat of being imprisoned due to failure to pay alimony and child support after a job loss

It seems to me that a vote for Obama is a vote against all of these things. So then why did unmarried women (especially Christian women) vote for him? It seems as thought they are less interested in marriage and family and more interested in having the government provide incentives for anti-child, anti-family behaviors like pre-marital sex, contraceptives, abortions, welfare for single mothers, divorce courts, government coercion of husbands, state-run day-care, government-run schools, in-vitro fertilization, etc. I don’t mind if people need these things, but they should pay for it themselves. but I don’t see why unmarried women should favor family money being spent on government programs that help other people to avoid the cost and consequences of their own decisions.