Another Essay on Global Warming

Earlier this week, in a conversation that was intended as a humorous look at Global Warming in a winter of record low temperatures, I was accused of not knowing the difference between climate and weather.  Being the pig headed pseudo-scholar that I am I immediately consulted a dictionary.

I discovered the following from Webster’s Dictionary:

Climate –

1.  A region of the earth having specified climatic conditions

2. a. the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation

b. the prevailing set of conditions (as of temperature and humidity) indoors  climate-controlled office>

3. The prevailing influence or environmental conditions characterizing a group or period  

Weather –

1. The state of the atmosphere with respect to heat or cold, wetness or dryness, calm or storm, clearness or cloudiness

2. State or vicissitude of life or fortune

3. Disagreeable atmospheric conditions

Being thus fortified in my knowledge, I decided to rise above the current “weather” and to have a look back at the “average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years”.

The Western Region Climate Center provided me with data regarding Brownfield, Texas (where I live) from 1914 to 1954.  Unfortunately, for some unknown reason, they did not have the data from 1954 to the present date available.  Therefore, I sought out my data from weather.com for information on the last 30 years, 1980 to 2010.

My methodology was thus:

I took the average high temperatures and the average low temperatures from both data sets and created the table below:

Month	H1	H2	L1	L2
1	56	54	26	26
2	64	60	30	30
3	70	68	36	35
4	76	76	44	44
5	82	84	53	54
6	90	91	61	63
7	93	93	64	67
8	90	91	61	63
9	84	85	57	58
10	77	76	47	47
11	66	64	35	35
12	57	56	26	26

Utilizing this data, I averaged the monthly highs and lows for each data set.

Data set H1 (1914-1954) had an Annual Average High Temperature of 75.4F

Data set H2 (1980-2010) had an Annual Average High Temperature of 74.8F

Data set L1 (1914-1954) had an Annual Average Low Temperature of 45.3F

Data set L2 (1980-2010) had an Annual Average Low Temperature of 45.3F

By adding and averaging the complementary data sets (H1+L1) and (H2+L2) I discovered the following:

Annual Average Temperature for Data set One (H1+L1/2) was 60.35F

Annual Average Temperature for Data set Two (H2+L2/2) was 60.05F

This would indicate that the Annual Average Temperature for Brownfield, Texas has DECREASED .3 degrees in the past 96 years.

Now before any of you begin to rant and rave about me being a “denier” and a believer in a flat earth, let me share something that I was taught in Basic Statistical Analysis in college:

“Statistics can be made to exhibit ANY outcome desired.”

My desire was to show that there was NO global warming for the past 96 years.  Using the scientific method and carefully selected statistics, I have fulfilled my desire.

I am not a “scientist”, but I understand the scientific method.  I understand that science is the exploration of the unknown and that no answer or theory is permanent.  The concept that “Global Warming” is “settled science” is ridiculous. 

If there were such a thing as “settled science”, physics would have stopped with Einstein.

TRUE scientists are ALWAYS seeking a better answer, not trying to convince everyone that everything has been discovered, settled upon and all the questions answered.  They certainly do not try to hide data that conflicts with their theory as the climate researchers at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, the propertied “experts” on climate change did.

TRUE scientists do not concoct easily disprovable but frightening stories about the melting of glaciers and the impending doom of rising sea levels inundating cities and countries and splash them theatrically across the movies, television, radio, internet and print media. 

They certainly don’t select a washed up politician who, by his own admission “did not do well in science classes while in college” to be their spokesperson.

Speaking as a Political SCIENTIST, one who studies politics, governments, governmental systems and the people who engage in them, I see politicians trying to lead, not by inspiration, not by explanation, but by fear mongering and half truths.  When these efforts do not succeed, they persist in their desires by implementing laws, rules and regulations IN SPITE of the public desire.

When that happens, it ceases to be about the possibility of a changing climate or dangers to our world and becomes all about CONTROL.

I for one believe that the government already has more than enough control of our lives.

Unions going to Pot?

Let me start out by saying that I am NOT a Union member.

During my career, I have, in turns, been invited, encouraged, cajoled and somewhat intimidated into joining a Union.  I have always declined.  It has always been my belief that unionization “levels” the playing field to such an extent that the “hard chargers” and “go getters” are penalized by having to share pay and benefit increases with those who are less so.

Even so, even here in Texas, some “union” priorities have been incorporated into State benefits.  Several years ago, the State created a “Sick Leave Pool” to which employees could “contribute” a small amount of their sick time.  Ideally, if one were faced with a catastrophic illness where they exhaust their own sick leave, they could draw from the pool in order to maintain their paycheck for a period of time, hopefully long enough for them to return to work.

Many of my co-workers flocked to the idea, contributing small amounts of their time to the pool, generally the minimal time required to participate.  It didn’t take me long to realize that these were the people who never seemed to be able to accrue more than a couple of days of sick leave because they were taking it almost as soon as they got it.

I felt that, were I to contribute my time to the pool, chances were that it would be distributed to persons who, through their own mismanagement, had squandered their own time, thereby providing them with a benefit that they neither earned nor deserved.

When I left state employment after almost 10 years, I had over 240 hours of sick time on the books.  That is AFTER I took 120 hours off for “Paternity Leave” after my daughter was born.

To say the least, the lure of unionization has never held any kind of interest for me.

Now there is the great news on the Union front from California, where workers in the “Medical Marijuana” industry are flocking to the Unions in order to gain collective bargaining powers.

The New York Times reported in May, that the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 5 in Oakland had enrolled about 100 employees in the “Medical Marijuana” industry into their Union.  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/29/us/29pot.html?_r=1

“This is a natural for us,” said Ron Lind, the president of Local 5, who’s 26,000 other members work primarily in groceries and the meat industry. “Our union’s primary jurisdiction is retail.”

As reported this week by Fox News, about 40 workers in the marijuana cultivation industry have joined the Teamsters Union, Local 70.  http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/10/11/in-california-unions-go-to-pot/

Now remember, I am not a Union man, but these recent acquisitions of these particular workers beg answers to a few questions.

1. Since marijuana cultivation and distribution remains a Federal Felony (despite the lack of enforcement), couldn’t the Unions be seen as entering into a criminal conspiracy to violate Federal Law by encouraging and facilitating the cultivation and distribution of an illegal product?

2. If California passes Proposition 19 in November, will the Union provide legal representation to the marijuana growers and distributors in the lawsuits that are guaranteed to come?

Some of you are old enough to remember during the Vietnam War when the Union leadership came totally under the influence of the Democrat Anti-war Leftists.  Thousands of union workers LEFT their unions because they could not support what their supposed leaders were doing.

There was film on the television and photographs in the newspapers and magazines of the “hard hats” counter-protesting at anti-war rallies.  “America, Love it or Leave it” was their common slogan and there were documented incidents of these people assaulting the “hippies” who sat in doorways smoking marijuana.

Do you think that the Middle America union member who is just trying to keep his job at a decent wage is going to embrace these people who make their living in an illegal trade?

I wonder…

The New Poor?

I was reading an article from the Associated Press today that states that the gap between the rich and the poor is growing.  Specifically, that the top 20 percent of Americans (those making more than $100,000 per year) received 49.4 percent of all income while those living below the government established “Poverty Line” made only 3.4 percent of all income. “That ratio of 14.5-to-1 was… nearly double a low of 7.69-to-1 in 1968.

I wonder how many TRILLIONS of dollars have been transferred to the “Poor” in anti-poverty programs since 1968 in order to make the problem WORSE than it was?

I think that our problem in the United States now is not that we have an increase in the number of “Poor” people, or that they are making less of the national income than others, but that our DEFINITION of “Poor” has changed so much as to be unrecognizable.

I know that anecdotal evidence is never the best basis for an argument, but how many times have you experienced being behind a person at the grocery store who, after using their “food stamp” card to pay for the milk, bread, cereal, cheese, etc., then reaches into their wallet to produce cash to pay for their beer, cigarettes, steaks, etc?  Then the bag boy/girl takes their purchases out to their less than three year old vehicle?

So, I am going to disregard what you and I see with our own eyes, and look at the statistics provided by our own government.

The government set the 2009 “Poverty Line” at $21,954.00 for a family of four or $1,829.50 per month.  This is just about $11 per hour for a standard 168 hour work month.  But wait, this is ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME.  So, this family of four actually makes about $12,000.00 more just based on what standard exemption/standard deduction removes from their taxable income.  So we are looking at a salary of about $34,000.00.  That brings us up to $2,841.67 per month or almost $17 per hour.

According to the 2009 IRS Tax Tables, this family of four should owe $2,454.00 in income taxes.  But wait, we forget about the Child Tax Credit of $1,000.00 per child, thereby reducing their tax burden to $454.00.  That sounds reasonable.  But WAIT!  We forget about the Earned Income Tax Credit!

Again, according to the 2009 Earned Income Tax Credit Tables, this family of four is eligible for $3,648.00 in Earned Income Tax Credit.

That means, this family of four would pay NO INCOME TAX and would RECEIVE a check from the government of $3,194.00.  This would make their ACTUAL ANNUAL INCOME to $37,194.00.  Are these people POOR?

Remember, that this is BEFORE we consider eligibility for the “anti-poverty” programs of SCHIP, AFDC, Section 8 Housing assistance, Free and Reduced School Lunch Program, etc., the value of which could exceed $20,000 per year.

When my Father was a child in the 1930’s, during the Great Depression, living with his Parents and 12 brothers and sisters on a hardscrabble farm south of Grapevine, Texas talks about being Poor, he knows what he is talking about:  No running water in the house,  an outhouse in the back yard,  one new pair of shoes every year.  Most of our Parents can tell similar stories.

What is poor today?  I don’t really think anyone knows, particularly not the government.

Should a “poor” person receiving federal assistance have: a new car, an HD TV, a Cell Phone, a $200 pair of sneakers, gold and diamond jewelry?

Is the American taxpayer, through the provision of monetary and non-monetary assistance, taking away the incentive of people to work hard and improve their lot in life?

Are we providing a level of support that is allowing people to spend their income on luxuries because they know that the government will provide for their basic needs?

I think that we, as a country, need to reevaluate what we consider to be poor and better target the benefits to those who actually have needs that cannot otherwise be fulfilled.

I also think that everyone who has ANY income, no matter how little, has an obligation to pay SOMETHING in income taxes to help defray their costs to the rest of society.

Nearly HALF of Americans pay NOTHING in income tax.

My friends, something is very wrong with that.