budbromley

“From this remarkable 30-year archive of satellite imagery, we thus see evidence of a greening trend. Monitoring the evolution of this will be an important task for the next 30 years of earth observation.” This is the conclusion of this peer reviewed study by 5 scientists who reviewed and analyzed 30 years of NASA satellite images.

Whatever climate changes are happening, and whatever the causes of those changes, our planet is getting greener.

Eastman, J.R., Sangermano, F., Machado, E.A., Rogan, J. and Anyamba, A. 2013. Global trends in seasonality of Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), 1982-2011. Remote Sensing 5: 4799-4818.

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/5/10/4799/pdf

Watch this 12 minute video and learn about the massive fraud being being perpetrated against you.

According to the U.S. government (see link below), “Direct federal funding to address global climate change totaled approximately $77 billion from FY2008 through FY2013…The President’s request for FY2014 contains $11.6 billion for federal expenditures on programs.”  President Obama acts under his executive orders and under laws which were never intended for climate change. Educate yourself and take action to stop this fraud. The federal spending is only the beginning of the cost of this fraud. States, counties, cities are also spending your money. The prices of all forms of energy (gasoline, electricity, natural gas, heating oil) are increasing unnecessarily due to the cost of compliance with unnecessary regulations, and when the cost of energy increases, the prices of almost all products and services increase. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43227.pdf

War is a racket. Obama and Putin are on the same ideological side…they both actively work against liberty on behalf of cronies. They are both dedicated socialists. They were both elected by corrupt voting and political processes. Both run their country by executive order, disregard laws, and manipulate their people through the press. They share more in common than they differ. 

Crimea is defined as an autonomous region of Ukraine. Autonomous means self-governing; independent; subject to its own laws only. The Crimean people VOTED overwhelmingly to re-join with the Russian nation. Let them learn from their own mistakes. 

According to our Declaration of Independence, the people are sovereign and they have the right to overthrow their government. People have the right to determine their own government. The U.S., NATO, EU and Russia should not interfere. Crimea, Ukraine, Syria, Iran, Libya, Egypt, etc, these are not our battles. Our founders strongly recommended that America not become involved in such international affairs, wisely recognizing that democracies do not do well in wars of international intrigue and empire. America must get back to that heritage. 

I am not endorsing isolationism. I reject international meddling, regime change, undeclared drone wars and assassination, pervasive spying, and the global debt regime of international banking and supranational organizations. I endorse a strong national defense. Making the world safe for petrodollars is not national defense, it is crony defense. According to this official 2010 report from the Pentagon, “Base Structure Report, Fiscal 2010 Baseline,” the U.S. has 662 overseas bases in 38 foreign countries; this is not peace making, this is empire building, “We the People” reject empires and empire building.

I stand with Major General Smedley Butler, President Dwight Eisenhower and many others. 

“War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.”

“I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we’ll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.”

“I wouldn’t go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.” ~ Major General Smedley Butler, USMC., 1933 

http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/download/bsr/bsr2010baseline.pdf

“Implicit in [the Constitution’s] structure, in the very idea of ordered liberty, was a rejection of absolute truth, the infallibility of any idea or ideology or theology or “ism,” any tyrannical consistency that might lock future generations into a single, unalterable course . . ” quote from President Obama’s 2006 book The Audacity of Hope.

How did Barack Obama come to believe something so foreign to America’s heritage as the idea that in the name of liberty we must reject absolute truths… And how is it that not once in the course of two long presidential campaigns did an opponent of Barack Obama think to point out his unequivocal disagreement with the principles we celebrate as a nation on the Fourth of July?  ~ Larry P Arnn, President of Hillsdale College.

Here is some wisdom for a floundering American republic.  http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/file/archives/pdf/2013_12_Imprimis.pdf

Today there is no meaningful difference between what President Reagan called “the evil empire” of Russia and the evil empire that the American people have created by their votes and non-votes. Both are warlike nations run by and for government/business oligarchies. Both act militarily, bureaucratically, financially, secretly and through propaganda to spy on and suppress their own people. Both act militarily, bureaucratically, financially, secretly and through propaganda to affect regime change in other countries. Both kill and imprison their own people and citizens of other nations and steal private property while covering their acts through the color of law, control of the press and control of banking. Both define “national interest” as consolidation of power and hegemony. Elections during the lifetimes of the majority of citizens in both countries have been controlled/bought by extremely wealthy oligarchs.

ObamaCare Exchanges: Less Choice, Higher Prices

by David Hogberg, Ph.D.

“Many supporters of ObamaCare insisted that the health insurance exchanges created by the law would result in consumers having a greater choice among insurance policies and lower prices.

This study tests those claims by examining policies on the exchanges in metropolitan areas across 45 states for a single 27-year-old and a 57-year-old couple. It then compares those with the policies available in those same areas on eHealthInsurance.com (eHealth) and Finder.healthcare.gov (Finder) in 2013.

The results show that the claims that the ObamaCare exchanges would offer greater choice and lower prices did not hold up.

…

Across all areas examined, the exchanges have resulted in a substantial reduction in choice.

…

Consumers also previously had more lower-cost options than they now have on the exchanges.

…

An examination of subsidies that consumers can receive to purchase insurance on the exchanges produced mixed results on costs.

Conclusion

The claims by ObamaCare supporters that the ObamaCare exchanges would result in greater choice of policies and lower premiums are not supported by the evidence. This study shows that consumers were much more likely to have more insurance options on eHealth and Finder than on the exchanges. They also had access to many plans that cost less than the cheapest plans on the exchanges. That holds true not only for those who have to pay full price on the exchange but even for some who have access to subsidies.

That is the predictable result of regulations that standardize plans and impose community rating and guaranteed issue. Indeed, in the years to come, community rating and guaranteed issue will likely lead to even higher premiums and less choice on the exchange. History shows that community rating and guaranteed issue often lead to the “death spiral” of a health insurance market. A death spiral occurs when the young and healthy drop out of the “insurance pool.” This leads to “adverse selection” in which insurance is primarily attractive to those who tend to be older and sicker. If the insurance pool is comprised largely of older and sicker people, then insurance prices naturally rise to cover their costs. That rate increase results in even more young and healthy people dropping their insurance, leaving the pools even older and sicker than before, and so forth.  As the insurance pool becomes smaller and more expensive to cover, many insurers face huge losses. Eventually, they exit the market, which leaves, at most, a few large insurers still doing business. Fewer insurers in the market means a reduction in insurance options for consumers.

ObamaCare’s exchanges have already taken their first steps toward a death spiral.   The Obama Administration estimates that 38 percent of the exchange insurance pool must comprise of 18-to-34-year-olds to prevent a death spiral. Thus far, 25 percent of exchange enrollees are aged 18-34. – See more at: http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA656.html#sthash.QUxqM4nn.b3Fi9AqK.dpuf

– See full report here : http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA656.html#sthash.QUxqM4nn.dpuf

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304675504579389492229581738?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304675504579389492229581738.html

Perverted Logic

Thanks to GA Tech climatology professor Judith Curry for her stalwart defense of freedom of speech, academic freedom and media access. The following is from her blog.

All this is becoming quite the soap opera. Apart from the entertainment being provided for the climate blogosphere, there are three really important issues at stake here:

freedom of speech
academic freedom
media access to information
I come down stalwartly on the side freedom of speech and media access to information.

The academic freedom issue is murkier. Academic freedom, as per the Wikipedia:

Academic freedom is the belief that the freedom of inquiry by faculty members is essential to the mission of the academy as well as the principles of academia, and that scholars should have freedom to teach or communicate ideas or facts (including those that are inconvenient to external political groups or to authorities) without being targeted for repression, job loss, or imprisonment. Academic freedom is a contested issue and, therefore, has limitations in practice. 

With regards to climate science, IMO the key issue regarding academic freedom is this: no scientist should have to fall on their sword to follow the science where they see it leading or to challenge the consensus. I’ve fallen on my dagger (not the full sword), in that my challenge to the consensus has precluded any further professional recognition and a career as a university administrator. That said, I have tenure, and am senior enough to be able retire if things genuinely were to get awful for me. I am very very worried about younger scientists, and I hear from a number of them that have these concerns.

Tenure is an amazing privilege for academics. And now we see in the Mann/UVa case, that the establishment academics are worried about fear of embarrassment by public disclosure and fear that those who dislike their findings will conduct invasive fishing expeditions in search of a pretext to discredit them. Come on, big boy pants please. We are talking about publicly funded research, and a primary concern is supposed to be avoiding embarrassing the scientists?

For the past decade, scientists have come to the defense of Michael Mann, somehow thinking that defending Michael Mann is fighting against the ‘war on science’ and is standing up for academic freedom. Its time to let Michael Mann sink or swim on his own. Michael Mann is having all these problems because he chooses to try to muzzle people that are critical of Mann’s science, critical of Mann’s professional and personal behavior, and critical of Mann’s behavior as revealed in the climategate emails. All this has nothing to do with defending climate science or academic freedom.

The climate science field, and the broader community of academics, have received an enormous black eye as a result of defending the hockey stick and his behavior. Its time to increase the integrity of climate research particularly with regards to increasing transparency, calling out irresponsible advocacy, and truly promoting academic freedom so that scientists are free to pursue research without fear of recriminations from the gatekeepers and consensus police.http://judithcurry.com/2014/02/22/steyn-et-al-versus-mann/