Proposed Missouri Tea Party, a political party dedicated to the Constitutional principles upon which this country was formed: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Citizens of a Constitutional Republic cannot enjoy their God-given liberty if it’s constantly being taken away from them by corrupt political insiders.
General Statement:
We The People of the several States created a federal government to serve as our limited agent, delegating to the federal government only those limited and few powers listed in the Constitution, and no others.
We recognize the federal government has seized unlimited power over virtually every aspect of Americans’ lives in violation of the Constitution of the United States, specifically with respect to the Tenth Amendment.
We call upon freedom-loving citizens everywhere to stand with us, as candidates for state,local and federal offices, to pass meaningful and sensible legislation to restore the most critical check and balance deliberately designed into our constitutional republic: that of strong, sovereign states.
We pledge to limit and restrain all federal government exercise of power that exceeds in any way the plain language of those few powers listed in the Constitution and to nullify all others that exceed such limit.
When we restore the balance of power between the states and the federal government according to the Constitution, our country will enjoy the dynamic blessings of liberty and prosperity.
The statement above was drafted and approved by candidates participating in the Tenth Amendment Summit – February 25, 2010 in Atlanta Georgia.
In the 2010 mid-term elections, Americans concerned about their country, and the future in store for their prodigy, undertook significant grass-roots efforts to stem the tide of government gone astray. The government of the United States has expanded itself well beyond its Constitutional limits, endangering freedom, liberty, and our future as a nation. These groups greatly enhanced the typical mid-term congressional election swing, as well as state and local elections, reverberating its power throughout all levels of elected government.
However, groups that were seeking to maintain their power tried to control the various autonomous tea parties with various levels of success. We the People need to chart the course of our national and local future, not well-funded, and well-connected insiders.
The Missouri Tea Party [Party] intends to give these independent, local tea parties the legal protection that only a political party can provide. All legitimate power begins locally, and as such, participating local tea parties are empowered with candidate selections in their areas, from candidates that adhere with accepted tea party principles.
We do not wish to create layers of leadership and hierarchy common to typical political parties, instead legitimate, documented local Tea Parties and similar groups (9-12 etc.) will provide input and candidates, with each having input within the [proposed] party.
Our [proposed] platform:
1. Sovereign States. The several States created the federal government to serve them, delegating to a federal government only those limited and few powers listed in the Constitution, and no others. Concerned about abuse of powers, they further added a Bill of Rights to further contain that federal government. Over the years, it has expanded to the point that no living American has lived under that original contract as intended. Much of what we call a federal government is Unconstitutional, and those agencies and programs that fall outside the enumerated powers, as written in the Constitution should be handed over to the states, the rightful owners of those programs and agencies as per the 10th Amendment. The states however are also limited by the 14th Amendment they ratified, to include the Bill of Rights within state law, as it is also federal law.
2. No deficit spending. If the federal government doesn’t have the money they cannot beg, borrow, and steal to get it. No Unconstitutional spending. The Constitution allows for two years of debt, and that is limited to use for the Military.
3. No fiat Money. A return to a gold standard or a non-fiat equivalent.
Elimination of the Federal Reserve, placing that responsibility back with the Congress where the Constitution placed it. Restricting the ability to print “free” money will protect the value of our dollar and greatly reduce the ability of the government to tax citizens without their permission. A phase out of our current fiat money that only has brought inflation, loss of buying power and stability.
4. No term limits. While term limits are tempting, replacing elected officials with lifetime background bureaucrats is no improvement. We do not think Amending the Constitution is something to take lightly, and therefore would like to greatly reduce the power and scope of federal offices, (as intended by the Constitution) so there is no great desire for power brokers to stay forever. Also strict limits on government employees to limit “insider” brokering.
5. Reduction of the size and scope of the federal government. The elimination of Unconstitutional federal agencies and the elimination of all government run “corporations”. Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, PBS/NPR, Amtrak and other quasi government agencies, they cannot be permitted funds or special access. Railroads for example are given rights-of way to provide the public good, they need to work out passenger rail among themselves as they did for 100 years before the government took over passenger rail. Similarly over the air media has a responsibility to provide for the public good in exchange for air space. Similarly no subsidies for industries or businesses. Make money in the public arena, or fail. Therefore the federal agencies must be eliminated and their powers removed, and the agencies/programs passed off to the states to do with as they wish.
6. End abuse of the “Commerce Clause” and “Supremacy clause” of the United States Constitution. Congress has abused these clauses to regulate everything imaginable. The Constitution allows the federal government certain “enumerated powers” and the Bill of rights contains the federal government’s power to only those things, reserving everything else to the states respectively or the people. The “Commerce clause” just as with the “Supremacy clause” is to only apply to the 18 things enumerated within the Constitution.
7. Freedom of free speech and political donations. Private individuals should be allowed to give as much as they desire in keeping with the 1st Amendment, However all political donations or like-kind gifts need to be 100% traceable, but in keeping with the 1st Amendment, unlimited. No corporate donations, or passing money to individuals by proxy.
8. Repeal of the 16th Amendment. Replace it with a flat tax or “Fair Tax that is not easily adjustable upwards, yet automatically decreases as federal expenses are reduced. This will allow a fair playing field, as well as removing the ability of politicians to pick winners and losers using the tax code. This must be implemented with a mutually exclusive clause so that there can never be both an income and sales/fair tax at the same time.
9. Repeal the 17th Amendment. Originally state’s legislators chose their Senators, choosing their Senators as originally intended gave the states a voice in Washington. Removing this necessary check-and-balance, has greatly weakened our great nation, by bloating the federal government far beyond its Constitutional powers.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
If voters send a Republican or a Democrat to washington this November, what will the people of the 7th District get in return? A tireless fundraiser in a cubicle? what a great deal. No wonder I have been so disappointed by new freshmen who went to congress to fight for the people, and make a change. They were too busy working for the party to fight for the people. Even good guys sent to represent, will wind up representing the party first, and the people second.
Just another good reason to send a NON-PARTY person to Washington. I intend to come home to Missouri every weekend possible, and spend as much time here as possible, talking to the citizens I would represent us, and working for us, not to raise money from select donors. I think that being present in the district on a regular basis is better to get honestly re-elected than begging for money.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34244.html
At least one part of former Rep. Eric Massa’s hourlong, train-wreck interview with cable-television host Glenn Beck rang true to his fellow House freshmen Tuesday: the grim description of the intense and time-consuming fundraising pressures that dominate the lives of junior members.
“Congressmen spend between five and seven hours a day on the phone, begging for money,” Massa (D-N.Y.) told Beck, before launching into a detailed account of the arduous fundraising routine — a demeaning process, Massa said — that includes filling out call sheets, detailing the amount of money raised per hour and conferring with fundraising coaches who advise them on how to wring even more money out of donor calls.
“I don’t have the life’s energy to get up at 5 in the morning and work until midnight [and] spend five hours on the phone begging for money,” said Massa, estimating that he worked 120 hours a week as a congressman. “I have completely abandoned my family for five years.”
To his fellow members of the Class of 2008 — many of whom are also looking to solidify their grip on newly won seats while convincing party leaders of their political chops —Massa’s account was all too familiar.
In interviews with a dozen House freshmen, nearly all of whom requested anonymity to discuss their fundraising practices candidly, members said Massa’s estimate of five to seven hours of daily fundraising call time was something of a stretch. But they agreed that his account wasn’t that far off the mark.
They described days packed with research about potential donors, trips down the block to the boiler-room-style call centers operated by the campaign committees and hours of mind-numbing calls dialed from cramped cubicles.
“How much do I like doing it? I hate it. It’s the worst,” one House freshman remarked to POLITICO during a vote this week. “I hate fundraising. I make no bones about it.”
“It’s kind of like going from alpha to omega,” said the first-termer, pointing from the House floor to the direction of the campaign committee headquarters where he makes his fundraising calls. “I don’t know many people who like it. And if they do like it, there is probably something wrong with them.”
“It’s actually sad,” lamented a freshman Democrat who spends one to two hours a day dialing for dollars. “I don’t think most of us when we ran for office thought we’d be spending so much time raising money.”
Most members interviewed for this article said they spend anywhere from 10 to 15 hours a week on the phone raising money or holding fundraising events in the restaurants, offices or clubs that surround the Capitol — a remarkable time commitment, but one that freshmen describe as the reality of the lives they lead.
“It’s no different than the campaign. I’m in a tough district. It takes a lot of money to win,” said one freshman Democrat who said he schedules about 15 hours of fundraising time per week. “There’s a direct correlation to the time you spend on the phone and the money you raise.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34244.html#ixzz0htRYkZHh
Just another good reason to send a NON-PARTY person to Washington. I intend to come home to Missouri every weekend possible, and spend as much time here as possible, talking to the citizens I would represent us, and working for us, not to raise money from select donors. I think that being present in the district on a regular basis is better to get honestly re-elected than begging for money.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34244.html
At least one part of former Rep. Eric Massa’s hourlong, train-wreck interview with cable-television host Glenn Beck rang true to his fellow House freshmen Tuesday: the grim description of the intense and time-consuming fundraising pressures that dominate the lives of junior members.
“Congressmen spend between five and seven hours a day on the phone, begging for money,” Massa (D-N.Y.) told Beck, before launching into a detailed account of the arduous fundraising routine — a demeaning process, Massa said — that includes filling out call sheets, detailing the amount of money raised per hour and conferring with fundraising coaches who advise them on how to wring even more money out of donor calls.
“I don’t have the life’s energy to get up at 5 in the morning and work until midnight [and] spend five hours on the phone begging for money,” said Massa, estimating that he worked 120 hours a week as a congressman. “I have completely abandoned my family for five years.”
To his fellow members of the Class of 2008 — many of whom are also looking to solidify their grip on newly won seats while convincing party leaders of their political chops —Massa’s account was all too familiar.
In interviews with a dozen House freshmen, nearly all of whom requested anonymity to discuss their fundraising practices candidly, members said Massa’s estimate of five to seven hours of daily fundraising call time was something of a stretch. But they agreed that his account wasn’t that far off the mark.
They described days packed with research about potential donors, trips down the block to the boiler-room-style call centers operated by the campaign committees and hours of mind-numbing calls dialed from cramped cubicles.
“How much do I like doing it? I hate it. It’s the worst,” one House freshman remarked to POLITICO during a vote this week. “I hate fundraising. I make no bones about it.”
“It’s kind of like going from alpha to omega,” said the first-termer, pointing from the House floor to the direction of the campaign committee headquarters where he makes his fundraising calls. “I don’t know many people who like it. And if they do like it, there is probably something wrong with them.”
“It’s actually sad,” lamented a freshman Democrat who spends one to two hours a day dialing for dollars. “I don’t think most of us when we ran for office thought we’d be spending so much time raising money.”
Most members interviewed for this article said they spend anywhere from 10 to 15 hours a week on the phone raising money or holding fundraising events in the restaurants, offices or clubs that surround the Capitol — a remarkable time commitment, but one that freshmen describe as the reality of the lives they lead.
“It’s no different than the campaign. I’m in a tough district. It takes a lot of money to win,” said one freshman Democrat who said he schedules about 15 hours of fundraising time per week. “There’s a direct correlation to the time you spend on the phone and the money you raise.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34244.html#ixzz0htRYkZHh
Thursday, December 17, 2009
http://www.fitsnews.com/2009/12/08/tea-party-overtakes-republicans-in-poll/
From Rasmussen Reports:
In a three-way Generic Ballot test, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds Democrats attracting 36% of the vote. The Tea Party candidate picks up 23%, and Republicans finish third at 18%. Another 22% are undecided.
Among voters not affiliated with either major party, the Tea Party comes out on top. Thirty-three percent (33%) prefer the Tea Party candidate, and 30% are undecided. Twenty-five percent (25%) would vote for a Democrat, and just 12% prefer the GOP.
Among Republican voters, 39% say they’d vote for the GOP candidate, but 33% favor the Tea Party option.
Wowzers.
The poll also found that 41% of all voters nationwide say Republicans and Democrats are so much alike that a new party is needed to represent the American people.
Obviously, a “Tea Party” is a long way off, and third parties have typically underperformed at the ballot box.
Still, this polling data – which reinforces the results of an October Gallup poll on voter ideology – should scare the ever living crap out of big-spending “establishment” Republicans.
“The stunning Rasmussen Poll showing the Republican Party finishing a decided third to a hypothetical ‘Tea Party’ candidate should send shock waves through the GOP,” said Bill Wilson, president of Americans for Limited Government. “It demonstrates once again that the timid, tepid Republican leadership is leading its party to the brink of disaster.”
True that.
Republicans’ inability to stick to their party’s fiscally conservative platform cost the party dearly in the 2006 and 2008 elections. In the 2008 presidential race, specifically, the GOP had nothing with which to counter President Barack Obama’s since-abandoned promise of middle class tax relief.
Additionally, Republicans have thus far failed miserably to articulate a vision for government that would contrast the socialist push of the Obama administration.
And since I'm running as an Independent for congress, and I believe that the United States is a pretty rugged country that can take another year of this garbage, so I say to the two dinasour parties, keep it up!!
From Rasmussen Reports:
In a three-way Generic Ballot test, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds Democrats attracting 36% of the vote. The Tea Party candidate picks up 23%, and Republicans finish third at 18%. Another 22% are undecided.
Among voters not affiliated with either major party, the Tea Party comes out on top. Thirty-three percent (33%) prefer the Tea Party candidate, and 30% are undecided. Twenty-five percent (25%) would vote for a Democrat, and just 12% prefer the GOP.
Among Republican voters, 39% say they’d vote for the GOP candidate, but 33% favor the Tea Party option.
Wowzers.
The poll also found that 41% of all voters nationwide say Republicans and Democrats are so much alike that a new party is needed to represent the American people.
Obviously, a “Tea Party” is a long way off, and third parties have typically underperformed at the ballot box.
Still, this polling data – which reinforces the results of an October Gallup poll on voter ideology – should scare the ever living crap out of big-spending “establishment” Republicans.
“The stunning Rasmussen Poll showing the Republican Party finishing a decided third to a hypothetical ‘Tea Party’ candidate should send shock waves through the GOP,” said Bill Wilson, president of Americans for Limited Government. “It demonstrates once again that the timid, tepid Republican leadership is leading its party to the brink of disaster.”
True that.
Republicans’ inability to stick to their party’s fiscally conservative platform cost the party dearly in the 2006 and 2008 elections. In the 2008 presidential race, specifically, the GOP had nothing with which to counter President Barack Obama’s since-abandoned promise of middle class tax relief.
Additionally, Republicans have thus far failed miserably to articulate a vision for government that would contrast the socialist push of the Obama administration.
And since I'm running as an Independent for congress, and I believe that the United States is a pretty rugged country that can take another year of this garbage, so I say to the two dinasour parties, keep it up!!
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Samuel D'Arcangelis. holds a Ph.D in chemistry from The Johns Hopkins University.
You may search for me on the Internet. In 1994, when I received my degree, there was no such thing as a climate scientist. Climate scientists (until recently, with Universities under pressure, I suspect) are self-proclaimed in their field. I have no direct experience in meteorology (the true Earth science relevant here) What I do have is a full understanding of reaction chemistry, molecular spectroscopy and photochemistry, and reaction kinetics, with enough experience thermodynamics and physics to speak on any level of authority, and I will put my qualifications up against "san quentin" or pretty much anyone else, for comparison so long as I live. It should also be understood that if I can't comprehend an explanation in excruciating detail about how a self-proclaimed climate scientists knows something is true, then you can hardly expect me to jump on the bandwagon. We'll start there.
I have seen precisely zero evidence that global warning is an artifice of Mankind. In fact, I have seen little evidence, much of which is specious (before Climategate), that warming is occuring at all. That CO2 levels are rising, and indeed they can be shown to be, and coincidentally the human population is growing, is a false correlation. "Proof" of that relationship has come in the form of a great deal of data, in which hugh assumptions about relationships are made (e.g. tree ring size to temperature) Also, another false correlation (one that becomes weaker in the last decade) is that between rising temperatures and rising levels of carbon dioxide.
The foundations laid down by these false correlations in the grand double correlation is: that Mankind has increased in numbers and consumes more and more fossil fuels, causing a rise in the CO2 component in the atmosphere. The increased CO2 traps more and more heat causing the average world temperature to rise.
Carbon dioxide is a minor component of our very complex atmosphere. It absorbs precisely three narrow bands of infrared light in a huge manifold of light up through the ultraviolet, that come from the Sun, much of which passes effortlessly to the planet surface. If CO2 and the rest of the atmosphere were that effective in trapping, or arresting incoming solar irradiation, then sunshine wouldn't feel warm on your face.
Water can be (should be)regarded in precisely the same way as CO2, with three bands, (close to the CO2 bands), absorbing infrared light. The main difference is, while there is anywhere from 250 to 350 ppm CO2 in the air (0.03%), distributed essentially equally across the globe, there can be anywhere up to 4 parts per hundred (4.00%) of excess water, distributed inhomogeneously, and locally, across the Earth. But there is much more water than that.
At the earth surface, oceans await to be heated by the solar influs. Consequently, clouds form. Clouds can, in fact, rob one of the sensation of warming one's face during the day. Clouds in turn can block out the sun (or lock in heat) completely. (This is why deserts get so hot in the daytime and cool so quickly at night, not because of the lack of atmospheric CO2, which is everywhere, but because of the lack of water vapor and bodies of liquid water trapping heat or resisting heating and cooling.)
(Direct evidence is seen in infrared radar, used to heighten contrast in weather precipitation. It doesn't see all that excess CO2 rising from industrial regions, but sees atmospheric water vapor, isolated or in clouds.)
Water is by far a more effective "greenhouse gas", and in fact, is the pre-eminent greenhouse gas on the planet, and so shall it always be.
So why not consider water as a componenet in the latest EPA endangerment finding, when CO2 has been labeled such. Because, that would be absurd to the layperson, and rightfully so. CO2 is singled out because it is policitally expedient to do so. Too bad the contribution of water is neglected in every AGW proponents' work. Their modelling might work out to be much more predictive.
Speaking of modelling, until Climate gate, the algorithms for their models have been a closely held secret. This is a shame to the scientfic community. I suspect that they are hiding something, but can't prove it, and that doubt works in their favor.
I DO know for a fact (because we really don't have a good way of doing it now) that the biosphere is completely neglected from the calculations, which again is absurd on its face. Green plants not only remove CO2 from the air, they do so endothermically, that is to say in the process of removal, they ALSO REMOVE HEAT from the system, the atmosphere. This is why forests, even rain forests in the equatorial tropics, are temperate. They'd be much warmer if they photosynthesis didn't consume light directly and convert water and CO2 into sugar and oxygen. At night, the reverse reaction happens and plant warm the cooling atmosphere and trap the heat with the CO2 and water they release. In the ocean, CO2 is taken directly from the water by green plants and algae and replaced by atmospheric CO2, fairly quickly, through wave agitation. This happens wherever plant life exists, everywhere on the planet, with some variances in season, and mode of photosynthesis
This process is the single most important factor in quantifying the kinetics of CO2. Modellers don't have sufficient algorithms to represent forests and green plants (and oceanic photosynthesis for that matter), SO THEY DON'T. What they must do is this: treat the world in the absence of human influence as forever in balance, and static, and assign whatever changes they find to human activity. This is a dangerous, incorrect, and neglectful set of assumptions, presuming that the world doesn't change unless Humans change it. Assuming that the terrestrial arena and the biosphere coupled to it are harmoniously constant is patently absurd. Any conclusions from this mindset are automatically hung on the evils of human activity (which was the original point, I think).
Anyone who knows something about chemistry and physics knows that first you must have the relationship right, then you design an experiment in isolation to derive an immutable, meaningful constant. Take, for instance, CO2. How many times have AGW proponents had to revise a "forcing constant"? "forcing constants" are proposed based on the assumption that the world is being forced out of an established equilibrium by human activity. The very definition of a "forcing constant" reveals it bias. The constant is based on a correlation between temperature rise, and CO2 concentration. Thanks to wealth of dispute data, and an inability to reconcile the original value for the constant with a lack of predicted event coming true, the constant has been changed. This is a pity. I have a better constant, a known, immutable one, to apply to carbon dioxide as a green house gas. Carbon dioxide can have, like every other substance that absorbs light, a molar absorptivity constant ascribed to it. Colored compounds have them, and so too can substances that absorb in the infrared but not in the visible. CO2 would have three such constants permanently affixed to it, one for each band of absorption. The constants would define, using a derived century-old law (Beer-Lambert), just how much light would be absorbed per molecule of CO2. Molar absorptivity. It's little wonder why climate scientists needed a new set of constants: they can't manipulate the true ones.
Just as a taste, we have false correlations, from multivariate data, with lots of room for statistical interpretation. The treatment of CO2 as a input variable and not a output. The negligence of factors which actually dominate the deterination of heat and carbon dioxide, namely photosynthesis and the dominance of water. Models whose algorithms are subjected to outside scrutiny. Manufactured constants.
Climategate is merely the end result of all these machinations, a bunch of liars getting thrust into the sunshine who are now trying to cover their deliberate attempt to dupe the world into doing what their told, by complaining about how they'd been robbed of their confidentiality.
They are fraud writ large and they should be stopped for once and for good.
Samuel D'Arcangelis, Ph.D.
on November 29, 2009
at 10:49 PM
You may search for me on the Internet. In 1994, when I received my degree, there was no such thing as a climate scientist. Climate scientists (until recently, with Universities under pressure, I suspect) are self-proclaimed in their field. I have no direct experience in meteorology (the true Earth science relevant here) What I do have is a full understanding of reaction chemistry, molecular spectroscopy and photochemistry, and reaction kinetics, with enough experience thermodynamics and physics to speak on any level of authority, and I will put my qualifications up against "san quentin" or pretty much anyone else, for comparison so long as I live. It should also be understood that if I can't comprehend an explanation in excruciating detail about how a self-proclaimed climate scientists knows something is true, then you can hardly expect me to jump on the bandwagon. We'll start there.
I have seen precisely zero evidence that global warning is an artifice of Mankind. In fact, I have seen little evidence, much of which is specious (before Climategate), that warming is occuring at all. That CO2 levels are rising, and indeed they can be shown to be, and coincidentally the human population is growing, is a false correlation. "Proof" of that relationship has come in the form of a great deal of data, in which hugh assumptions about relationships are made (e.g. tree ring size to temperature) Also, another false correlation (one that becomes weaker in the last decade) is that between rising temperatures and rising levels of carbon dioxide.
The foundations laid down by these false correlations in the grand double correlation is: that Mankind has increased in numbers and consumes more and more fossil fuels, causing a rise in the CO2 component in the atmosphere. The increased CO2 traps more and more heat causing the average world temperature to rise.
Carbon dioxide is a minor component of our very complex atmosphere. It absorbs precisely three narrow bands of infrared light in a huge manifold of light up through the ultraviolet, that come from the Sun, much of which passes effortlessly to the planet surface. If CO2 and the rest of the atmosphere were that effective in trapping, or arresting incoming solar irradiation, then sunshine wouldn't feel warm on your face.
Water can be (should be)regarded in precisely the same way as CO2, with three bands, (close to the CO2 bands), absorbing infrared light. The main difference is, while there is anywhere from 250 to 350 ppm CO2 in the air (0.03%), distributed essentially equally across the globe, there can be anywhere up to 4 parts per hundred (4.00%) of excess water, distributed inhomogeneously, and locally, across the Earth. But there is much more water than that.
At the earth surface, oceans await to be heated by the solar influs. Consequently, clouds form. Clouds can, in fact, rob one of the sensation of warming one's face during the day. Clouds in turn can block out the sun (or lock in heat) completely. (This is why deserts get so hot in the daytime and cool so quickly at night, not because of the lack of atmospheric CO2, which is everywhere, but because of the lack of water vapor and bodies of liquid water trapping heat or resisting heating and cooling.)
(Direct evidence is seen in infrared radar, used to heighten contrast in weather precipitation. It doesn't see all that excess CO2 rising from industrial regions, but sees atmospheric water vapor, isolated or in clouds.)
Water is by far a more effective "greenhouse gas", and in fact, is the pre-eminent greenhouse gas on the planet, and so shall it always be.
So why not consider water as a componenet in the latest EPA endangerment finding, when CO2 has been labeled such. Because, that would be absurd to the layperson, and rightfully so. CO2 is singled out because it is policitally expedient to do so. Too bad the contribution of water is neglected in every AGW proponents' work. Their modelling might work out to be much more predictive.
Speaking of modelling, until Climate gate, the algorithms for their models have been a closely held secret. This is a shame to the scientfic community. I suspect that they are hiding something, but can't prove it, and that doubt works in their favor.
I DO know for a fact (because we really don't have a good way of doing it now) that the biosphere is completely neglected from the calculations, which again is absurd on its face. Green plants not only remove CO2 from the air, they do so endothermically, that is to say in the process of removal, they ALSO REMOVE HEAT from the system, the atmosphere. This is why forests, even rain forests in the equatorial tropics, are temperate. They'd be much warmer if they photosynthesis didn't consume light directly and convert water and CO2 into sugar and oxygen. At night, the reverse reaction happens and plant warm the cooling atmosphere and trap the heat with the CO2 and water they release. In the ocean, CO2 is taken directly from the water by green plants and algae and replaced by atmospheric CO2, fairly quickly, through wave agitation. This happens wherever plant life exists, everywhere on the planet, with some variances in season, and mode of photosynthesis
This process is the single most important factor in quantifying the kinetics of CO2. Modellers don't have sufficient algorithms to represent forests and green plants (and oceanic photosynthesis for that matter), SO THEY DON'T. What they must do is this: treat the world in the absence of human influence as forever in balance, and static, and assign whatever changes they find to human activity. This is a dangerous, incorrect, and neglectful set of assumptions, presuming that the world doesn't change unless Humans change it. Assuming that the terrestrial arena and the biosphere coupled to it are harmoniously constant is patently absurd. Any conclusions from this mindset are automatically hung on the evils of human activity (which was the original point, I think).
Anyone who knows something about chemistry and physics knows that first you must have the relationship right, then you design an experiment in isolation to derive an immutable, meaningful constant. Take, for instance, CO2. How many times have AGW proponents had to revise a "forcing constant"? "forcing constants" are proposed based on the assumption that the world is being forced out of an established equilibrium by human activity. The very definition of a "forcing constant" reveals it bias. The constant is based on a correlation between temperature rise, and CO2 concentration. Thanks to wealth of dispute data, and an inability to reconcile the original value for the constant with a lack of predicted event coming true, the constant has been changed. This is a pity. I have a better constant, a known, immutable one, to apply to carbon dioxide as a green house gas. Carbon dioxide can have, like every other substance that absorbs light, a molar absorptivity constant ascribed to it. Colored compounds have them, and so too can substances that absorb in the infrared but not in the visible. CO2 would have three such constants permanently affixed to it, one for each band of absorption. The constants would define, using a derived century-old law (Beer-Lambert), just how much light would be absorbed per molecule of CO2. Molar absorptivity. It's little wonder why climate scientists needed a new set of constants: they can't manipulate the true ones.
Just as a taste, we have false correlations, from multivariate data, with lots of room for statistical interpretation. The treatment of CO2 as a input variable and not a output. The negligence of factors which actually dominate the deterination of heat and carbon dioxide, namely photosynthesis and the dominance of water. Models whose algorithms are subjected to outside scrutiny. Manufactured constants.
Climategate is merely the end result of all these machinations, a bunch of liars getting thrust into the sunshine who are now trying to cover their deliberate attempt to dupe the world into doing what their told, by complaining about how they'd been robbed of their confidentiality.
They are fraud writ large and they should be stopped for once and for good.
Samuel D'Arcangelis, Ph.D.
on November 29, 2009
at 10:49 PM
Thursday, November 19, 2009
I know “heathcare reform” is a big topic right now, but one aspect not often written about is health insurance is cheaper in some states. In others it costs as much as the lease on a Ferrari. This isn't because of any flaw in the free market. It's because we don't have a free market! What we have instead are laws that reward corporate welfare benefits to special interests and insurance companies.
The average medical plan in New Jersey costs $37,164 per year. The monthly premiums exceed the lease for a Ferrari! By comparison, Indiana has far fewer corporate welfare mandates dictating what health insurance must cover. People in that state can choose between 43 plans costing less than $5,400 annually!
If the New Jersey family could buy medical insurance from an Indiana provider, they'd save over $31,000 a year! Extend this to the entire country and the results would be dramatic. Simply dropping the law that prohibits insurance companies from selling across state lines, would cover more Americans that this trillion dollar debacle in congress, and it would do it for no cost to the taxpayers, and save everyone who has coverage a lot of money.
One study indicates that this simple reform would make medical insurance instantly affordable for over 12 million “uninsured Americans”. If Americans had the freedom of insurance choice, the State legislatures will have to start competing with other states to repeal their corporate welfare mandates. And insurance companies will compete to provide better coverage at lower prices
All Americans should have free market choices in health insurance! No American should have to pay corporate welfare benefits through their insurance premiums, or have to go without insurance. You can make this possible, so call your senators and make your opinion known. Oppose the cancerous healthcare bill being pushed in the House and Senate. Oppose complicated insurance buying pools. Instead, please just fix the problems politicians created!
This issue is important to people here in the 7th district, and people want to be represented by someone who shares their appreciation of market solutions instead of failed political “solutions”
The average medical plan in New Jersey costs $37,164 per year. The monthly premiums exceed the lease for a Ferrari! By comparison, Indiana has far fewer corporate welfare mandates dictating what health insurance must cover. People in that state can choose between 43 plans costing less than $5,400 annually!
If the New Jersey family could buy medical insurance from an Indiana provider, they'd save over $31,000 a year! Extend this to the entire country and the results would be dramatic. Simply dropping the law that prohibits insurance companies from selling across state lines, would cover more Americans that this trillion dollar debacle in congress, and it would do it for no cost to the taxpayers, and save everyone who has coverage a lot of money.
One study indicates that this simple reform would make medical insurance instantly affordable for over 12 million “uninsured Americans”. If Americans had the freedom of insurance choice, the State legislatures will have to start competing with other states to repeal their corporate welfare mandates. And insurance companies will compete to provide better coverage at lower prices
All Americans should have free market choices in health insurance! No American should have to pay corporate welfare benefits through their insurance premiums, or have to go without insurance. You can make this possible, so call your senators and make your opinion known. Oppose the cancerous healthcare bill being pushed in the House and Senate. Oppose complicated insurance buying pools. Instead, please just fix the problems politicians created!
This issue is important to people here in the 7th district, and people want to be represented by someone who shares their appreciation of market solutions instead of failed political “solutions”
Monday, September 21, 2009
I was reading http://www.biggovernment.com/ and came upon a reply that really made sence, so I wanted to share it with y'all.
There seems to be an obsession on the left to understand the mind of evil people.
All of MSNBC's programming between their daytime and primetime anchoring duties is devoted to analyzing either Charlie Manson's mind, being inside of a high security prison, or catching a sexual predator.
On the other side of the coin FOX looks at war heroes with Oliver North.
If you ever want to understand the difference between a mind of a liberal and a mind of a conservative, this is it.
No wonder the left seems so open to evil people like Chavez and Castro, and willing to bring people like Ahmadinejad from Iran to the table. They're walking into the abyss and don't know the way back.
watchman - September 19th, 2009 at 12:15 am
http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/18/dateline-nbc-to-catch-an-acorn-organizer/#more-5074
There seems to be an obsession on the left to understand the mind of evil people.
All of MSNBC's programming between their daytime and primetime anchoring duties is devoted to analyzing either Charlie Manson's mind, being inside of a high security prison, or catching a sexual predator.
On the other side of the coin FOX looks at war heroes with Oliver North.
If you ever want to understand the difference between a mind of a liberal and a mind of a conservative, this is it.
No wonder the left seems so open to evil people like Chavez and Castro, and willing to bring people like Ahmadinejad from Iran to the table. They're walking into the abyss and don't know the way back.
watchman - September 19th, 2009 at 12:15 am
http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/18/dateline-nbc-to-catch-an-acorn-organizer/#more-5074
Saturday, September 19, 2009
INDIANAPOLIS -- The Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled that Indiana's voter identification law is unconstitutional.
6News is looking through the 29-page ruling now and will provide details from it as soon as possible.
The decision comes after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the state's voter ID law in 2008, a week before the presidential primary, in a splintered 6-3 ruling.
Backers of the law, which requires a voter to present a photo identification to cast a ballot, said it curbs voter fraud.
Those against the law contend that it keeps poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots.
The law passed in 2005 with the ardent support of Gov. Mitch Daniels and other Republicans in state government.
The argument is that its not fair that absentee voters aren't held to the same standard as in-person voters. (Because the supreme court has already ruled that the way IDs are handled for in-person voters is permissible, so they are tossing up a bogus complaint that absentee ballots are treated differently. easy fix, ask for the same ID requirements for absentee ballots)
The supreme court has ruled that its permissible to ask for ID if the state allows for free ID for those without means.
(In this day and age, who can do anything without ID? How do you cash a check? get on a bus, or plane?)
Two thoughts,
1. Those of you in Indiana must contact your State legislator immediately , and change the absentee ballot process by adding a requirement to add a state ID number, and adding a state procedure wherein county registrars cross verify that the ID number matches the name and address. Military ID similar, asking them for military ID number on the affidavit.
2. Missouri residents, our voter ID law is related and similar enough that the folks that rely on voter fraud to get elected will encourage the ACLU to file a suit to throw our law out on similar grounds. So the same thing for us, call your state rep, explain the problem, and ask for a bill to standardize ballot access between in-person and absentee voters.
This will affect the 2010 mid-term elections if not fixed quickly.
If I am elected to the house of Representatives, my first effort will be to work to enact similar federal requirements for federal elections.
Dean Moore
www.deanmoore.us
6News is looking through the 29-page ruling now and will provide details from it as soon as possible.
The decision comes after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the state's voter ID law in 2008, a week before the presidential primary, in a splintered 6-3 ruling.
Backers of the law, which requires a voter to present a photo identification to cast a ballot, said it curbs voter fraud.
Those against the law contend that it keeps poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots.
The law passed in 2005 with the ardent support of Gov. Mitch Daniels and other Republicans in state government.
The argument is that its not fair that absentee voters aren't held to the same standard as in-person voters. (Because the supreme court has already ruled that the way IDs are handled for in-person voters is permissible, so they are tossing up a bogus complaint that absentee ballots are treated differently. easy fix, ask for the same ID requirements for absentee ballots)
The supreme court has ruled that its permissible to ask for ID if the state allows for free ID for those without means.
(In this day and age, who can do anything without ID? How do you cash a check? get on a bus, or plane?)
Two thoughts,
1. Those of you in Indiana must contact your State legislator immediately , and change the absentee ballot process by adding a requirement to add a state ID number, and adding a state procedure wherein county registrars cross verify that the ID number matches the name and address. Military ID similar, asking them for military ID number on the affidavit.
2. Missouri residents, our voter ID law is related and similar enough that the folks that rely on voter fraud to get elected will encourage the ACLU to file a suit to throw our law out on similar grounds. So the same thing for us, call your state rep, explain the problem, and ask for a bill to standardize ballot access between in-person and absentee voters.
This will affect the 2010 mid-term elections if not fixed quickly.
If I am elected to the house of Representatives, my first effort will be to work to enact similar federal requirements for federal elections.
Dean Moore
www.deanmoore.us
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
