Settled Science?

First of all there is no such thing as ‘settled science.’ The scientific method calls for constant questioning and re-evaluating. Second, if something is declared settled science, you can be sure that someone with a potential financial gain is promoting it (sorry for my cynicism).

On Sunday, WattsUpWithThat reported that the idea of net zero carbon is based on insufficient date. Wow. We are crippling some of the world’s major economies based on insufficient data.

The article quotes and article from The Telegraph posted on Saturday:

Britain’s climate watchdog has privately admitted that a number of its key net zero recommendations may have relied on insufficient data, it has been claimed.

Sir Chris Llewellyn Smith, who led a recent Royal Society study on future energy supply, said that the Climate Change Committee only “looked at a single year” of data showing the number of windy days in a year when it made pronouncements on the extent to which the UK could rely on wind and solar farms to meet net zero.

“They have conceded privately that that was a mistake,” Sir Chris said in a presentation seen by this newspaper. In contrast, the Royal Society review examined 37 years worth of weather data.

Last week Sir Chris, an emeritus professor and former director of energy research at Oxford University, said that the remarks to which he was referring were made by Chris Stark, the Climate Change Committee’s chief executive. He said: “Might be best to say that Chris Stark conceded that my comment that the CCC relied on modelling that only uses a single year of weather data … is ‘an entirely valid criticism’.”

The CCC said that Sir Chris’s comments, in a presentation given in a personal capacity in October, following the publication of his review, related solely to a particular report it published last year on how to deliver “a reliable decarbonised power system”.

The article at WattsUpWithThat concludes:

It is now clear that Parliament authorised Net Zero without any proper assessment, whether financial or energy, and the whole Net Zero legislation must now be suspended until a full independent assessment is carried out.

In addition, the whole of the CC should now be disbanded. Unfortunately it is still required by law, but it should now be staffed by truly independent members, with a remit to prioritise energy security and cost/benefit goals. The ideological pursuit of Net Zero must not override the wellbeing of the British public, put its energy security at risk or make the public worse off.

But the current and past members of the CCC who have overseen this attempt to bamboozle and defraud the public must be held to account, and excluded from any further influence over the country’s energy policy, or indeed on any issue of public policy.

So why are we even thinking about doing some of the things we are doing to bring down carbon?

Losing The Battle Against The Administrative State

On June 24th, The American Thinker posted an article titled, “A Century of Impotency: Conservative Failure and the Administrative State.” I hate that title, but it is true. The article makes the case that Conservatives have failed to restrain the administrative state because they have accepted that it is a necessary governmental innovation required by the complexity of modern society. Please follow the link to read the entire article. It is a long article, but I will quote a few very important points here,

The article notes:

James Landis is widely credited with crafting the theoretical architecture supporting President Roosevelt’s radical reconstruction—and expansion—of the federal government. Landis shrewdly both established and legitimized the regulatory state, including Roosevelt’s creation of new federal administrative agencies, by offering the regulatory state as the solution to the problem of modern governance: the administrative state “is, in essence, our generation’s answer to the inadequacy of the judicial and legislative process.” The Landis premise took concrete shape through Roosevelt’s expansion of the regulatory state, and in doing so, it brought to fruition Woodrow Wilson’s progressive intellectual project: rule by experts, insulated from the popular will

Landis believed the “the administrative process” for which he advocated would “spring from the inadequacy of a simply tripartite form of government to deal with modern problems” because modern problems were simply too large and complex to be entrusted to the system based on the separation of powers instituted by our nation’s founders. Landis framed this innovation as consistent with separation of powers principles because he believed the separation of powers called both for separation but also coordination among the branches, and he saw the administrative state as essential to creating that coordination:

“If the doctrine of separation of power implies division, it also implies balance, and balance calls for equality. The creation of administrative power may be the means for the preservation of that balance, so that paradoxically enough, though it may seem in theoretic violation of the doctrine of the separation of powers, it may in matter of fact be the means for the preservation of the content of that doctrine.”

Please follow the link to read the article for further explanation. I think we have diagnosed the problem. The question is, “What are we going to do about it?”

Conservatism vs Marxism: Who is Winning?

Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D 

The fight to save our country is essentially a struggle between Conservatism and Marxism.  However, many of our elected officials either do not agree or fail to understand the threat.   Conservatism entails individual freedom, small government and fiscal responsibility.  Marxism entails government control, ever expanding government and indebtedness.  Another key essential difference is that of individual responsibility.   Conservatism requires each person to be responsible for themselves whereas in Marxism taxpayers are required to pay for services for others.    

Clearly, the Democrat Party is moving us dramatically towards Marxism, and just as disturbingly, there are some Republican Party elected officials who are not reliably true conservatives.   We would not be in the current crisis in which we find ourselves if this was not the case.  The recent approval of Medicaid expansion in North Carolina is a perfect example.   After years of opposition to Medicaid expansion, many Republicans led by Phil Berger and Tim Moore voted to approve this Marxist action.   Of course, they did not bother to determine what their constituents wanted (a limited poll in Craven county was overwhelmingly against expanding Medicaid) and came up with a justification, essentially about federal funding, and ignored the fact that this program is a Marxist program expansion that makes an estimated 600,000 additional people dependent on the government and forces other taxpayers to pay for it.   By the way, there is no requirement in the state or federal constitution requiring taxpayers to pay for medical services for others. 

Another example is House Bill DRH30118-TC-21A that supposedly will prevent students from harm in our public schools.  What the bill does is expand the responsibility of teachers to socialize our children instead of focusing on their true mission of teaching traditional academic subjects.   While preventing student harm is a laudable goal, this bill is Marxist to the extent that it shifts the responsibility for socializing and disciplining our children from the parents to the government run schools.  Marxism always attempts to weaken the role  and authority of the parents/family and take over that role by the government.   Remember the old saying that the road to h—- is paved with good intentions.   The public schools in North Carolina in many cases are failing to teach academics adequately, and this situation will not be helped by adding additional burdens on the teachers that rightfully belong to parents.     Another worrisome factor is that once the schools assume the role of parents, the content of what they teach can be anything the school officials decide.  Not good. 

The bottom line is we need to support elected officials who reliably put conservative principles first and vote the will of their constituents.  Otherwise, the slide to Marxism is assured. 

One of Many Reasons The Democrats May Be Worried

The Daily Signal posted an article today titled, “19 Black Americans Explain Why They’re Conservative.” Please follow the link to the article to read the details, I am simply posting the list:

  1. W.B. Allen: Good Sense Needs No Explanation
  2. Brian Bledsoe: Most Fair for All
  3. The Rev. Arnold M. Culbreath: Not Sellouts, but Solutions
  4. Michael E. Kerridge: Reasonable Human Imperative
  5. Liz Matory: From Liberal to Liberated
  6. Lenny McAllister: Advancing Freedom for All
  7. Emery McClendon: Working for Everyone
  8. Charlotte D. McGuire: Against All Odds
  9. The Rev. Dean Nelson: Best for All People
  10. Sophia A. Nelson: Sustained Opportunity
  11. Autry J. Pruitt: Maximum Protection
  12. C.J. Sailor: Essential to Thriving Communities
  13. Carol M. Swain: Hope and Encouragement
  14. A.J. Swinson: Self-Sufficient, Entrepreneurial, Morally Strong
  15. Jimmy Tillman: Christian Values and Critical Thinking
  16. Terris E. Todd: Way of Life
  17. Deana Bass Williams: 3 True North Principles
  18. Dee Dee Bass Wilbon: Founding Principles
  19. Daren Williams: Origins of Conservatism

Please follow the link to read their explanations. They are well thought out and provide a lot of insight as to how all of them came to the conclusions they have come to.

 

 

Freedom Of Viewpoint Upheld

College campuses are not known for their conservative speech. In more than one instance, conservative speakers have been banned from college campuses or shouted down. Conservative professors have also been known to have a hard time.

The American Thinker posted an article today about University of North Carolina Wilmington professor Mike Adams, who sued the school for discrimination.

The article reports:

A federal court Wednesday ordered the University of North Carolina-Wilmington to promote and give $50,000 in back pay to a conservative professor in what is described as a landmark anti-discrimination case.

The restitution was ordered three weeks after a jury found the university guilty of retaliating against criminology professor Mike Adams, a popular conservative columnist on Townhall.com, after denying him a promotion to full professor in 2006.

“This ruling sends a message to public universities: Academic freedom isn’t just for the Left, it’s a constitutional right for all professors — even Christian conservatives,” said David French, senior counsel at the conservative American Center for Law and Justice, which represented Mr. Adams.

College campuses used to be known as places where different ideas were debated. In recent years, they have become more interested in promoting a single point of view. It is nice to see at least one university held accountable.

Enhanced by Zemanta

When Government Works

Yes, government can actually work. You haven’t heard about this one example because it really does not illustrate what the media wants illustrated, but government can work.

Yesterday The Blaze reported on some comments made by Rush Limbaugh about what is happening in Wisconsin. You haven’t heard much about this, but the state has done an amazing turn around.

The story reports:

The state of Wisconsin’s unemployment rate is “rapidly falling” and the government’s budget ended the year with a $912 million surplus, Limbaugh explained. He says the dramatic turnaround is due in large part to the conservative policies of Gov. Scott Walker.

What’s even more amazing, he continued, is the fact that Walker is going to “rebate the money in the form of tax cuts to the people, who he said own the money.” Limbaugh says the news is “earth-shattering” because, in one of the bluest states, Walker was targeted for removal twice but continued to implement conservative policies that he was confident would help his state — and his strategy appears to be working.

If you think back a little bit, you remember what Governor Walker went through to implement his plans for the state. He had protestors trashing the capitol, he survived recall elections, and personal attacks, but he just kept on moving forward.

The article reminds us:

“He’s going to cut income taxes and property taxes, and he made the point that it’s not just a gimmick of budgeting or accounting. It’s the result of serious, significant policy changes,” Limbaugh argued.

“Now, folks, what I just told you was not reported once anywhere in what you would consider mainstream media. It was not reported on one cable network, much less all of them. It was not reported in the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the LA Times,” he added. “It was reported in Wisconsin. There was an AP story on it, maybe some local papers picked it up, but just as a filler.”

“And to me, for us as conservatives, Wisconsin and Governor Walker, I mean, everything that we want to happen, happened there,” the radio host concluded.

When government is done right, unemployment goes down, taxes go down, and everyone gains. When government is done wrong, unemployment goes up, taxes go up, the number of people receiving food stamps goes up, and everyone loses.

It is, in the long run, up to the voters to decide what they want.

“He’s going to cut income taxes and property taxes, and he made the point that it’s not just a gimmick of budgeting or accounting. It’s the result of serious, significant policy changes,” Limbaugh argued.

“Now, folks, what I just told you was not reported once anywhere in what you would consider mainstream media. It was not reported on one cable network, much less all of them. It was not reported in the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the LA Times,” he added. “It was reported in Wisconsin. There was an AP story on it, maybe some local papers picked it up, but just as a filler.”

“And to me, for us as conservatives, Wisconsin and Governor Walker, I mean, everything that we want to happen, happened there,” the radio host concluded.

Listen to the segment via the Daily Rushbo:

Walker is proposing a $504 million property and income tax cut plan as a means to return some of the surplus money to the people of Wisconsin. Some Democrats and Republicans are already criticizing the plan and are calling for changes.

“The budget surplus is really your money,” Walker recently said at a meeting of the Wisconsin Grocers Association. “You earned it.”

However, some lawmakers are concerned that Walker’s tax cut plan would increase the state’s projected budget shortfall from $700 million to $800,000 million. The Republican governor argues the estimates don’t take into account any revenue growth, which he says will cover the difference.

The unemployment rate in Wisconsin dropped to 6.2 percent in December and has been dropping steadily since 2011.

Featured Comments

  • Shreknangst

    A $912 million surplus, turns into a projected $700-$800 million deficit … a $1.6 Trillion negative shift.
    Somehow that sounds like Reagan era traditional GOP math and economics … Where are the Tea Party and their idea of cutting deficits? This guy seems to be creating a massive one, and, naturally, Rush doesn’t see it.
    A 6.2% unemployment rate doesn’t leave much room for growth in the economy. To wipe out that $1.6 Trillion negative shift, the state would need to get to nearly zero unemployment.

    Shreknangst

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Only Solution To This Is An Educated Voter Willing To Speak Out

Yesterday the New York Post reported that a leak from the IRS investigation states that the FBI does not expect to file criminal charges in the IRS targeting of conservative groups. As someone who had my taxes audited for the first time ever as a result of the URS targeting conservatives, I object. I really object.

The actions taken by the Obama Administration through the IRS were aimed at limiting free speech during an election cycle. The Obama Administration is currently busy writing a series of laws to make sure conservative free speech will also be squelched in the upcoming election.

Freedomworks reported on January 6th:

“While you were all celebrating Thanksgiving with family and friends, the Obama Administration was quietly releasing a new set of draconian IRS regulations that would make it virtually impossible for tea parties that want to participate in the political process to do their business. They’re going after conservative groups, they’re going after libertarian groups, and they’re going after citizen groups that want to organize people based on the values of the constitution; based on the ideas of freedom and have an impact on the political conversation.”

The article further explains:

“If that sounds familiar, what they’re doing is formalizing the same persecution, the same targeting that we saw coming out of the IRS leading up to the 2012 election. We need to do something about this. The time frame is very short; they are trying to jam this through the process. If we don’t make our voices heard, they are going to get away with it.”

Concerned citizens can access the IRS comment page through the website www.IRSTarget.com.

The IRS’s deadline for public responses is February 27, 2014.

If you want your freedom of speech in the future, now is the time to make some noise. Our freedom of speech is truly in danger.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Conservative Voice Worth Hearing

This is the mission statement of the website Conservative Junction:

To unite Conservatives in order to win elections so that we can re-establish Constitutitional pinnciples and Conservative values to the Republican party. We will do that by supporting Conservative candidates who will uphold the Constitution and the laws provided therein.

We will seek to rid the nation of all such elected officials who are not responsive to their Constituents, but instead wish to write policy and act in a manner that is against the people in which they serve, in ways that are deemed to be beneficial to only their own self-interests or to the interest of a friend, family member or one that lobbies their office for favors.

This website and others like it are desperately needed right now. Please follow the link above to visit the website and see how you can help restore the role of the Constitution in America.

Enhanced by Zemanta