Climate change data dumped - Times Online
These guys at the CRU are the honchos of Climate Change. They freely admit that the data has to be massaged and homogenized (adjust numbers and throw contrary data) in order to prove that the Earth is warming.
Here we start out with a guess that the Earth may actually be warming when most scientists think that it is actually cooling. Over the last 50 years the temperature has fallen about a half a degree. We have actual records of that not hypothesis.
Even though we are not even sure that there is a global warming or a global cooling going on we have decided that we know what is causing it… err, the warming I mean. Never mind that we’re not sure it is going on.
The part of the Earth that we inhabit and have an effect on is more like the shell of an egg. Humans are minuscule in their occupation of the Earth and effect on it. The truth is that the Earth warms and cools in a gentle cycle and has for millions of years. Ice ages have come and gone and will probably come again before warming occurs and the truth is that we as humans can’t do anything about it. We will cool over the next thirty years not warm according to most science on the subject.
The important thing to remember here is that any time you see what appears to be a contradiction you have to reassess your premise. When the premise conflicts with the actual outcome… Follow the money. The burden of proof should always be on the side of the objective. I cannot prove that there is no man made global warming and the truth is that no one can prove that there is.
Call your congressman and demand that they vote against any laws promoting Cap and Tax.
Tony S. Hines,
November 29th 2009.
The devil is in the details
Monday, November 30, 2009
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Positive Change
Change can be good as long as you have a good idea what is broken and how the change will fix it.
All too often we confuse motion with progress. A great example of this is the mantra of the current health care reform debate. The premise that health care has to be reformed is built upon by saying that it has to be the government that changes it. Then the argument is presented with the new premise that health care must be reformed by adding bureaucracy and if you don't agree with that then you must not want anything to happen and therefore you are evil, want children to die and probably kick puppies when no one is looking.
Any time you start with a bad premise you have a weak and most of the time unsupportable argument. Change is only good if it improves a process. As any good lawyer will tell you, you never ask a question that you don't know the answer to. The same can be said of changing our system of health care. You only change it to something that you know will improve the process so in this case I say no change is better than a change in the direction of the current plans in Washington.
Here are some simple steps that will cost the tax payers nothing:
Tort Reform.
Sell Insurance across State lines to increase competition.
Multiply tax credits for business that provide insurance to workers.
Remove quotas from medical schools to increase the number of doctors. An increase in the supply of doctors will lower the cost by increasing competition.
Push the Medicare/caid and Social Security eligibility age up by five years.
Ban all publicly funded medical care for non-emergency treatment of illegal aliens.
Allow for the creation of non-business related insurance groups and provide tax credits for individuals or groups who buy personal insurance for themselves or relatives and friends.
Not a single one of these line items costs tax payers a penny that they do not volunteer. These are simple to implement and would be a good start. The bill would be about 20 pages long and everyone could read it before they vote on it.
Tony Hines
November 24th 2009
All too often we confuse motion with progress. A great example of this is the mantra of the current health care reform debate. The premise that health care has to be reformed is built upon by saying that it has to be the government that changes it. Then the argument is presented with the new premise that health care must be reformed by adding bureaucracy and if you don't agree with that then you must not want anything to happen and therefore you are evil, want children to die and probably kick puppies when no one is looking.
Any time you start with a bad premise you have a weak and most of the time unsupportable argument. Change is only good if it improves a process. As any good lawyer will tell you, you never ask a question that you don't know the answer to. The same can be said of changing our system of health care. You only change it to something that you know will improve the process so in this case I say no change is better than a change in the direction of the current plans in Washington.
Here are some simple steps that will cost the tax payers nothing:
Tort Reform.
Sell Insurance across State lines to increase competition.
Multiply tax credits for business that provide insurance to workers.
Remove quotas from medical schools to increase the number of doctors. An increase in the supply of doctors will lower the cost by increasing competition.
Push the Medicare/caid and Social Security eligibility age up by five years.
Ban all publicly funded medical care for non-emergency treatment of illegal aliens.
Allow for the creation of non-business related insurance groups and provide tax credits for individuals or groups who buy personal insurance for themselves or relatives and friends.
Not a single one of these line items costs tax payers a penny that they do not volunteer. These are simple to implement and would be a good start. The bill would be about 20 pages long and everyone could read it before they vote on it.
Tony Hines
November 24th 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
White House Takes Aim at Critics of New Breast Cancer Guidelines
White House Takes Aim at Critics of New Breast Cancer Guidelines - FOXNews.com
The USPSTF, which reports to the Department of Health and Human Services, released its updated 2009 guidelines on Monday. It recommended against routine screening of women aged 40 to 49 years -- despite acknowledging evidence in the report that mammograms have reduced the mortality rate in younger women.
The task force advises that women aged 50 to 74 receive mammograms every other year and recommends against teaching breast self-examinations. The task force recommended in 2002 that all women over 40 should undergo a mammography every one to two years.
The panel says the recommendations apply to women 40 years or older "who are not at increased risk for breast cancer by virtue of a known underlying genetic mutation or a history of chest radiation."
In response, the American Cancer Society issued a statement Tuesday saying it still recommends annual mammograms for women 40 and over.
"Our experts make this recommendation having reviewed virtually all the same data reviewed by the USPSTF, but also additional data that the USPSTF did not consider," ACS said. "The USPSTF says that screening 1,339 women in their 50s to save one life makes screening worthwhile in that age group. Yet USPSTF also says screening 1,904 women ages 40 to 49 in order to save one life is not worthwhile. ... With its new recommendations, the USPSTF is essentially telling women that mammography at age 40 to 49 saves lives; just not enough of them."
The USPSTF, which reports to the Department of Health and Human Services, released its updated 2009 guidelines on Monday. It recommended against routine screening of women aged 40 to 49 years -- despite acknowledging evidence in the report that mammograms have reduced the mortality rate in younger women.
The task force advises that women aged 50 to 74 receive mammograms every other year and recommends against teaching breast self-examinations. The task force recommended in 2002 that all women over 40 should undergo a mammography every one to two years.
The panel says the recommendations apply to women 40 years or older "who are not at increased risk for breast cancer by virtue of a known underlying genetic mutation or a history of chest radiation."
In response, the American Cancer Society issued a statement Tuesday saying it still recommends annual mammograms for women 40 and over.
"Our experts make this recommendation having reviewed virtually all the same data reviewed by the USPSTF, but also additional data that the USPSTF did not consider," ACS said. "The USPSTF says that screening 1,339 women in their 50s to save one life makes screening worthwhile in that age group. Yet USPSTF also says screening 1,904 women ages 40 to 49 in order to save one life is not worthwhile. ... With its new recommendations, the USPSTF is essentially telling women that mammography at age 40 to 49 saves lives; just not enough of them."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)