Sunday May 29, 2016
Jump to content
Scientists at two of the world’s leading climate centers – NASA and NOAA – have been caught manipulating temperature data to overstate the extent of the 20th century “global warming”.
The evidence of their tinkering can clearly be seen at Real Science, where blogger Steven Goddard has posted a series of graphs which show “climate change” before and after the adjustments.
When the raw data is used, there is little if any evidence of global warming and some evidence of global cooling. However, once the data has been adjusted – ie fabricated by computer models – 20th century ‘global warming’ suddenly looks much more dramatic.
This is especially noticeable on the US temperature records. Before 2000, it was generally accepted – even by climate activists like NASA’s James Hansen – that the hottest decade in the US was the 1930s.
"How many fish yield the best angler experience...?" I can't help but wonder what member of the Federal Brain Trust came up with THIS idiotic experiment! However many hundreds of thousands of dollars this study is costing the taxpayer, it all could have been saved with a one-word answer = More.
Without even trying to address the incongruous leap of logic in conflating the dollars spent to repair a small town water main to the massive federal debt, suffice it to say that it does no good to feign shock and dismay when we keep electing the same Big Government Big Spenders (of both major parties), while expecting them to act differently. If we just keep changing the players without fixing the playing field, we, in a democracy, end up with precicely the government we deserve.
Pat... The Zane Grey Highway (SR 260) out of Camp Verde climbs eastward up on top of the Rim and intersects with SR 87 about 10 miles north of Strawberry in Coconino County, then the two highways run together south into Payson where SR 260 breaks away to the east and SR 87 continues south, becoming the Beeline Highway, down to Mesa. The geography is confusing, but no more confusing than DPS' policy.
I think you hit the nail on the head, Pat... if YOU don't know who the Good Guy is, then neither does the Bad Guy. Checkmate.
Someone once told me not to call anyone an idiot, no matter how idiotic they may be, unless I am prepared to deal with the response one might expect from such an insult. In my experience, my use of that word has almost always been done in haste, and I ended up apologizing for not selecting a more proper term. So far, that has worked out well for me.
But leaving that aside for the moment, I find the notion of "two people starting a shoot-out" rather amusing. If memory serves, not since there were quick-draw duels in the dusty streets of the Territory have two people "started" a gun fight... it's almost always one person, and if others do get involved, it's in response, and the intention is to end the gunfight, not start it.
Now granted, in a horrific shooting incident where one crazed individual attends a public gathering, like a town council meeting, with the intention of shooting one or more innocents, and does so, that person deserves being called "the idiot in the room with a gun."
If, on the other hand, there's another guy in the room with a gun who stops the idiot before he can completely unload his weapon into a room full of innocents, then it is hardly proper or mannerly to include him on the list of "idiots" in the room with a gun.
You know you've won the debate, Don, when your opponent attacks the messenger and completely ignores the message. Excellent rebuttal!
In Mr JB Shelvin's thoughtful reply on December 9 to my earlier remarks, he admonishes Washington, D.C., for not adhering to the limitations of the Tenth Amendment, wherein the powers not delegated to the Federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the States. He rightly condemns countless Executive Branch agency-level regulatory actions - rules with the force of law - that have no constitutional legitimacy, and concludes with the classic bumper-sticker slogan: "Our Constitution is NOT a list of suggestions!"
I couldn't agree with him more, as long as he is not suggesting that simply pointing to existing law and demanding compliance is enough. The Supreme Court looks at existing law and exploits it every day, finding loopholes in the beautiful but often vague and ambiguous language of the Constitution, creating more power and authority for the Federal government, power that the Founders never envisioned nor intended, allowing interference in public education, land use and building codes, water resources, energy production, medical and health issues, lending practices, the possession and sale of firearms, and voting rights, just to name a few.
Those loopholes can be closed, the language can be clarified, and the original intent of the Framers of that great document can be restored.
But it can only be done publicly, openly, in the free marketplace of ideas… a national Article V amendments convention led by our state legislatures, the government closest to “We, the People.” Examine and support the Convention of States Project.
It can happen, Tom, but only if we make it happen.
We currently have a crop of state senators and representatives who support the idea of a state-led Article V amendments convention to propose issues like Term Limits for federal officials, including judges; a Balanced Budget Budget Amendment, and Campaign Finance Reform, just to name a few. Since each of these issues effectively reduces the power and jurisdiction of the establishment, there is no way that these matters are ever going to be addressed voluntarily by Congress.
The problem I see is not with garnering support for the legislation - which at this point is simply a bill to add Arizona's vote to those of other states applying to Congress for a convention - but with our Republican "leadership" in the state senate.
The bill has not been allowed to come up for debate, let alone a floor vote, because leadership is beholden to the establishment... they prefer the status quo rather than allowing a debate on genuine reform. I suppose this is to expected from career politicians of either party affiliation, but it's discouraging to see this in someone who attests to being a "constitutional conservative."
There is hope, though, if enough who care do as suggested in the OP... call or eMail our representatives and encourage them to fight leadership on this issue, to stand up for what's right, not necessarily politically, but constitutionally. If those members know we are behind them, they will act. Without our support and encouragement, Arizona may be left behind as other states take the lead in this historic national movement.
Last year down at the Capitol, this same legislation passed in the House, but failed in the Senate due to "fear" of the senate president... that is to say, his own fear. He says publicly that he is "afraid" of the decisions that might come out of an amendments convention, when all that can possibly come out are proposals... suggested amendments that would then be further debated by the legislatures of all 50 states and either rejected or ratified.
It's the way the Founders designed our government to work, and he is afraid. We call this leadership?
The votes are there in both chambers. They were there last session and this year is no different, maybe even better. The bill will be introduced soon in the House, and it will pass. It will then be reported out to the Senate where its fate will rest with the President who may or may not assign it to committee. It seems to me to be something less than the American Way for one man to be in a position to decide whether or not my senator and yours and every other duly elected member of that chamber will or will not have an opportunity to debate this issue.
The members can stand up and demand that he calendar the bill... but only if we stand up and let them know that's what we want them to do.
This is our country, Tom, our government... unless we've forgotten.
Last login: Tuesday, May 24, 2016