About Me

Name: Frank Canzolino
Location: Elmhurst, IL
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Modeling Global Warming - The CRU Scandal

For years, I have been telling anyone that would listen that the global warming models are horrific. I have first hand knowledge of such modeling from my bygone days as an engineer, where similar models are used to predict behaviors of structures and materials and very complex systems. Such models are totally reliant on "boundary conditions" which are a series of assumptions that are made to define the environment in which you are modeling. Long explanation made short, if your boundary conditions are wrong, your model will never be able to correctly predict behavior. If your measured data is hosed, you can never check the accuracy of your model.

There is an easy check to see if you are in the ballpark with a model. If the element you are modeling actually behaves in the real world in the way the model predicts (say a structure under load and the stresses and deflections you measure during tests), you can have decent confidence level that your model can be used to predict other non-tested situations.

Moving on to global warming. The climatologists use the historical data to provide insights into the boundary conditions that are inputted into the model, then use the data again to check and see if you are modeling reality. Fudging the data changes the boundary conditions and the milestones that are needed to check the accuracy of the model. You can now see why corrupting the data, which the CRU scandal is exposing, has a twofer affect on the accuracy of the model.

Once you have created a climate model, running it allows the predictions of the model to be checked against past historical climate data. I have challenged several people to point me to one study where any of the dozen or so commonly used climate models accurately represents PAST behavior. Reiterating, not a single model I know of currently being used predicts the PAST, which has, and correct me if I'm wrong here, already happened. This being the case, the model doesn't have a chance in the world of being used to confidently predict the FUTURE.

So CRU is fudging the numbers being used to create a model, then fudging the numbers (again?) trying to show the models they use are accurate. Being kind, these people show a considerable lack of judgement, honesty and integrity. And let's not even go into their heavy-handed attempts to marginalize anyone bold enough to question their behavior.

One final thought; a comment I use to frustrate global warming fanatics. What is the perfect climate you are trying to create, and why? Who is to say that the climate of today is better or worse than that of the Jurassic era (where life flourished), or the Ice Age (where Homo Sapiens really took off), or whenever? Perhaps the climate is changing (questionable though that assumption may be) to be even more beneficial to mankind that it currently is. I can never understand the God-like understanding these people think they have.

The bottom line is I think these people, through their own arrogance, ignorance or political agenda, are simply trying to impose their view on others in the typical elitist manner always used by the left. I further think that they are really trying to achieve perfect weather and have no clue what they are talking about when it comes to climate. I suggest they move to San Diego.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Tea Party + GOP - Is it possible?

In May, I originally blogged these two posts. (http://luciusquinctius.blogspot.com/)

The Tea Party movement is something I could never have done myself. There is no way I have the skills and the contacts to get it off the ground. I doubt that I could get 350,000 people across the US to attend the 500 or so Tea Parties that took place around Tax Day. We owe a debt of gratitude to the original organizers that got this movement going. They have shown us one way to move forward as Americans become more vocal in their dissent of the current policies being implemented in DC.

I did some data entry for the organizers. We exchanged emails. I began to ask them questions: “What are you trying to accomplish?” “Where do you want the movement to go after the first wave of Tea Parties takes place?” “Are you reaching out to elected officials?” I never really received an answer that made sense to me, when I received an answer at all.

Perhaps the original organizers and the many participants never asked themselves these questions. Perhaps they never considered a plan on where they wanted to go. The spontaneity of the Tea Parties may actually explain their success as people acted on their widespread frustration with the establishment. I think the organizers and the participants were unprepared for their success. However, after a few weeks, the big questions remain unanswered. The participants of the Tea Parties still don’t have a cause around which to rally.

Don’t look to the Fourth Estate for an exploration of the Tea Party Movement in any reasonable depth. The Main Stream Media (MSM) missed the boat completely. Watching the MSM coverage, with the notable exception of FoxNews, you would think that Tea Party participants were right-wing whack jobs who are consistent with President Obama’s views he outlined at a fund raiser in San Francisco: "they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

What nonsense. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

I can tell you first-hand that the Chicago Tea Party was anything but a confluence of bitter people. Businessmen, mothers, construction workers, students, kids, blacks whites. You name it and they were there. You would have been hard pressed to find a demographic not represented in Chicago all of whom were protesting in a serious but good-natured manner. From my experience, the only bitter person may have been Susan Roesgen, the CNN reporter who embarrassed herself with her obviously biased reporting of the event.

The questions I asked the Tea Party organizers still hang out there, waiting to be answered. Let us start with the most fundamental question: What are the Tea Parties trying to accomplish? If you ask x-number of people, you will get at least x+1 responses. You will hear a litany of complaints about spending, taxes, bailouts and gun control, abortion and politically correct education. But while there are problems associated with all of those things, the REAL problem is none of those things.

Oink, Oink

Local guy, Jonathan Hoenig, managing member of Capitalistpig Assent Management, LLC, spoke at the Tax Day Tea Party in Chicago’s Federal Center (VideoText). Hoenig outlined the problems in America, and precisely defined that feeling about the direction of America you have in your gut, “It has been described as socialism, fascism or communism. In various contexts, all are true, but let's refine it. From loans to the automakers to the bailouts for the banks, the taxation, spending and control, the primary philosophy that's powering the country now is collectivism.” That’s exactly it.

The root problem that all of the Tea Party organizers and participants are concerned about is the creeping adoption of the philosophy behind those that are haphazardly instituting change in America.

The most recent election may be about a lot of things, but I do not recall it being about the abrogation of our individual rights. In your gut, you feel that your fundamental beliefs are under attack, the way you live your life is no longer mainstream, and the way you earn your living is somehow immoral. You feel that your connection with the future generations of Americans is somehow severed.

Every element of American life is under attack: from without (terrorism, international courts of law, the UN, our allies and our enemies), and from within (spending, taxes, unions, special interests, fat-cat lawyers and your elected officials). Everything you felt were sure things in your life no longer are; your safety, your job, your income, your home, your upward mobility, your retirement. All of these things are now uncertain.

As Hoenig said, “over the past few years, America has gone from a country that “was the once land of ‘rugged individualism,’” to a country where “the ‘will of the people’ is implemented by force, not by voluntary trade.” Not only are our individual rights under constant attack, so is the republican form of government which was created to protect our individual rights.

We now live in a country ruled by the soft tyranny of self-appointed masters of the universe.

Professional politicians, jurists and opinion makers have slowly marshaled the power formerly held by individuals. In the Declaration of Independence, the Founding Fathers proclaimed individual rights to belong to the individual, not the group. In the Constitution, the Framers enumerated the limits of government to prohibit infringement on those rights.

On a daily basis we are ill-served by our elected politicians who have been entrusted to honestly represent us, lied to by a MSM that has Constitutionally protected status to assist with their duty to report, and betrayed by the organizations that were formed to protect our rights.

The Tea Parties were held on Tax Day, but they were not about taxes. I will hazard a guess about why the organizers worked so hard to make the Tea Parties a success. I will risk saying that I know why the participants from all over the U. S. descended on 500 locations.

All were expressing their deep frustration about the arrogance of opinion-makers who are creating a series of events that are overtaking our civilization and our culture. All were dismayed about the behavior of their elected officials. All of them want the Tea Parties to be the first step. They want to stop the power grab that they see on a daily basis: by the President, by the Congress, and by the Courts.

Is it naïve to believe that the Tea Parties are that necessary first step? If not, we shall most assuredly hang separately.

And:

Does the GOP gets it?

By now, you have heard that several prominent Republicans have formed a new organization. The National Council for a New Americahas a stated goal of uniting “leaders from across the country to begin a dialog about how to meet our common challenges and build a strong country through common-sense ideas and solutions that will help every American.” The effort, spearheaded by House minority whip Eric Cantor, intends to bring together party leaders, a panel of prominent experts, and citizen activists in an informal setting for a robust debate. The first such town hall style meeting was held on May 2, 2009 in a suburban DC pizzeria. Cantor was joined by Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, more citizens than the number of Senate Republicans, and several pepperoni pizzas.

Rep. Cantor should be applauded for his efforts to revitalize the GOP from the bottom up. Prediction: Cantor does not fall into the camp of those Republicans who think it is only necessary to simply “re-brand” the GOP. You know as well as I do, that the “brand” is not the problem. The GOP is in the classic position of what happens to every political party after a butt-kicking. The party flounders for a while, struggles to regain its footing, then finds its voice as a leader emerges that leads it out of the darkness.

Optimist that I am, I know it is just a matter of time before the Republicans assume the leadership role. Almost every poll shows that core American values align more closely with those of the Republican party than those of the Democrats. The most recent Rasmussen polls confirm this. It shows that Republicans outpoll Democrats in theGeneric Congressional Ballot Republicans are trending upward with Americans as Obama and the Democrats reveal their true collectivist stripes.

Synergy

Some argue that the best use of the TeaParty momentum is to focus on local level politics. Others promote third parties as a place to throw support. By all means, we need to win municipal and state elections. It is from these local levels that our national politicians and leaders are born. The true long-term viability of the conservative movement resides with these local leaders. But I see in a unique circumstance to rebuild the party, and to clip years off the normal cycle for conservatives to regain power.

In my last post, I posit that the TeaParties may be the first step in a groundswell of conservative governance that fights the collectivist trends we see in America. I think that now, today, this minute is the time for TeaParty conservatives and the GOP to join forces.

Huge barriers exist, and it is incumbent that that the true leaders on both sides step forward to break down those barriers. That’s what leaders do. They recognize an opening, marshal their forces and exploit the opportunity.

I propose that the National Council for a New America and the Republican Conferences in both the Senate and the House adopt a "TeaParty Model.” The TeaParty Model can be loosely defined as a confederation of local leaders who are given local level responsibility to generate local level enthusiasm for a national goal. The hundreds of TeaParty organizers showed this could be accomplished in a short period of time with limited resources to a huge effect. TeaParties generated active participation of over half a million people, and from their workplaces and homes, the support of multiple millions more.

Now is the time for outreach. Outreach from the GOP to the TeaParty activists. Outreach from the TeaParty activists to the GOP. With the infrastructure in place at the GOP and the new ideas and enthusiasm of the TeaParties, a powerful force for good in American politics can be created. The TeaParties have showed the way. The TeaParties have shown us the theme around which to unite. Together activists can stop the creeping collectivism of the Democrats in Congress and the Obama Administration.

Here is how it can work:

I propose that the GOP sponsor town hall meetings similar to the one the National Council for a New America just held. These town halls are held during the same week, and preferably on the same day in every congressional district in the US. High profile districts get high profile nationally recognized speakers. Where possible, the events are coincident with election/re-election campaign announcements.

The organization of each meeting is the titular responsibility of the Congressional District’s House of Representative member. In those districts without Republican representation, the highest ranking local Republican spearheads the effort. While the Member is responsible for making it happen, he is tasked with working intimately with a TeaParty activist who, using the experience and contact lists from the Tax Day TeaParties, actually coordinates the event. The Member provides input and support, but the activist sets the agenda.

No pissing contests allowed.

The GOP provides technical (e.g. webcasts, message boards, points of contact) assistance and provides the technology. The GOP would also provide financial assistance. The TeaParty activists frame the issues and the debate. They provide the enthusiasm and the motivation for the individuals.

I think the time is ripe to integrate GOP and TeaParty activists. Barack Obama went from a junior second tier liberal Senator to President in just 20 months. There are 19 months until the 2010 Congressional elections. We have time to move wisely and make major gains in the House and Senate.

Is Cantor taking the second step on the road to recovery? Contact him and let him know. He may well be taking that second step, but only time will tell.

Tags: tea party  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Am I Blue?

The Blue Dog Coalition defines itself as, "The fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition was formed in 1995 with the goal of representing the center of the House of Representatives and appealing to the mainstream values of the American public." So where exactly do the sleeping Blue Dogs lie when it comes to the ratings of theAmerican Conservative Union and the Americans for Democratic Action, respectively the prominent conservative and liberal ratings organizations?

Each organization selects a number of votes considered to be of paramount importance to their constituencies. They then track the votes of all members of Congress. Each organization uses 100 as the "perfect" score, with the ACU defining the "perfect" conservative, and the ADA doing the same for the "perfect" liberal. Using the latest published data (ACUADA), for those members of Congress present during the 2008 legislative session, we can calculate the bona fides of the Blue Dogs.

Blue Dog ACU Lifetime Rating ADA 2008 Rating
Altmire, Jason (PA-04)  26.00 80.00
Arcuri, Mike (NY-24) 2.00 90.00
Baca, Joe (CA-43) 16.44 90.00
Barrow, John (GA-12) 41.00 75.00
Berry, Marion (AR-01) 36.81 75.00
Bishop, Sanford (GA-02) 32.30 90.00
Boren, Dan (OK-02) 54.25 65.00
Boswell, Leonard (IA-03)  27.52 95.00
Boyd, Allen (FL-02) 35.53 75.00
Bright, Bobby (AL-02) New NA
Cardoza, Dennis (CA-18) 28.50 85.00
Carney, C. (PA-10) 24.00 85.00
Chandler, Ben (KY-06) 26.50 85.00
Childers, Travis (MS-01) 41.00 NA
Cooper, Jim (TN-05) 24.17 60.00
Costa, Jim (CA-20) 25.25 80.00
Cuellar, Henry (TX-28) 38.10 80.00
Dahlkemper, Kathy (PA-03) New NA
Davis, Lincoln (TN-04) 52.54 80.00
Donnelly, Joe (IN-02) 36.00 70.00
Ellsworth, Brad (IN-08) 26.00 75.00
Giffords, Gabrielle (AZ-08) 12.00 80.00
Gordon, Bart (TN-06) 28.76 80.00
Griffith, Parker (AL-05)  New NA
Harman, Jane (CA-36) 22.23 95.00
Herseth Sandlin, S. (SD) 41.11 70.00
Hill, Baron (IN-09) 24.50 75.00
Holden, Tim (PA-17) 40.23 85.00
Kratovil, Jr., Frank (MD-01) New N/A
McIntyre, Mike (NC-07) 51.50 85.00
Marshall, Jim (GA-03) 47.14 70.00
Matheson, Jim (UT-02) 42.75 55.00
Melancon, Charlie (LA-03) 46.22 80.00
Michaud, Mike (ME-02) 16.00 90.00
Minnick, Walt (ID-01) New NA
Mitchell, Harry (AZ-05) 20.00 75.00
Moore, Dennis (KS-03) 17.10 80.00
Murphy, Patrick (PA-08) 8.00 85.00
Nye, Glenn (VA-02)  New NA
Peterson, Collin (MN-07) 45.41 80.00
Pomeroy, Earl (ND) 23.08 85.00
Ross, Mike (AR-04) 38.00 85.00
Salazar, John (CO-03) 27.00 85.00
Sanchez, Loretta (CA-47) 3.33 100.00
Schiff, Adam (CA-29) 8.56 90.00
Scott, David (GA-13) 23.92 95.00
Shuler, Heath (NC-11) 5.92 75.00
Space, Zack (OH-18) 16.00 80.00
Tanner, John (TN-08) 41.49 80.00
Taylor, Gene (MS-04) 66.11 75.00
Thompson, Mike (CA-01) 11.38 90.00
Wilson, Charles (OH-06) 12.50 80.00

Average 29.00 80.89

Unfortunately, even while there is some overlap in the issues used by each organization to rate Congressmen, each organization uses a different set of votes to do its calculations, and therefore it is difficult to directly compare ratings. But both sets of numbers allow trends to be identified. A Representative such as Jim Matheson, representing the relatively conservative second district of Utah comes in somewhere in the middle of the road in both ratings, while Loretta Sanchez, representing the relatively liberal Orange County stands out as a die-hard liberal in both ratings. Just for comparison, John McCain carries an 82.3 ACU rating and a 15.00 ADA rating, and while in the Senate, Barack Obama had an 8 ACU and 95 ADA rating.

We now know that Obama deserved his extremely liberal rating as we witness his attempt to overhaul the Constitution and change the American experiment to a collectivist path. Looking at the corresponding ratings numbers for the Blue Dogs, we see they are much more closely aligned to Obama than they are to McCain. While a small number of Blue Dogs are undoubtedly in the center of the political spectrum, as a group we must call them liberal and it is arguable that they are aligned closely to the center of America.

Paraphrasing Rep. Peter Roskam, the Blue Dogs are really just traditional Democrats by another name. The numbers seem to agree.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Law of Pies

Let's say you have six people over for dessert, and you have a delicious cherry pie. You slice it up into six pieces, serve it up with coffee and everyone is happy. Now let's say six more people suddenly drop by. You can slice up the existing pie into twelve tiny, unsatisfying pieces where nobody is happy, or you can bake another pie for the six newcomers. You have now bumped up against the Law of Pies.

Apparently, lawmakers do not understand the Law of Pies. You cannot satisfactorily feed six more people unless you have additional pie. You cannot just redistribute the pie you have to more people, you need more pie. The same is true for government spending.

Whether or not you agree with the spending on TARP, Auto Bailouts, Stimulus, Cap and Trade, ObamaCare, and the countless other spending priorities of the liberal agenda, there can be no doubt in anyone's mind that there is insufficient Federal revenue to slice up to handle all of these new and expanded spending programs. There just ain't enough pie.

Liberals would say that the answer is simple, "Let's tax the taxpayers more and increase the Federal revenue." Nice try. There is a glaring problem with this approach, the Law of Pies stands in the way.

By taxing more, are we really increasing the size of the pie? Show me one main-stream economist (liberal or conservative) that does not agree with the proposition that if you take disposable income from people in the form of taxes, they react by investing and spending less money. The decrease in spending results in a decrease in the national GDP (the overall measure of the value of transactions in goods and services). So, while the Federal pie gets bigger, the GDP pie gets smaller at approximately the same rate. The size of the overall pie remains the same. Remember the reason for wanting the Federal pie to get bigger? It was so more people can eat the Federal lemon meringue. And like our example above, we end up trying to feed 12 people at the Federal dessert party with an overall GDP pie that formerly served six.

In the 1970's, Art Laffer proposed that "[t]he basic idea behind the relationship between tax rates and tax revenues is that changes in tax rates have two effects on revenues: the arithmetic effect and the economic effect." Simply stated, the arithmetic effect says that as tax rates go down, revenue goes down, and as tax rates go up, revenue go up. Superficially, this seems to make sense to everyone and it is the primary justification used by liberals when establishing tax policy.

Laffer's breakthrough is the concept of the economic effect. Laffer explained that if tax rates are lowered, people will act in their best self-interest. They will earn, invest and spend more money since the government would not be raking it in the form of taxes. This growth in consumer wealth, under the right conditions, increases the amount of money subject to taxes and, under the right circumstances, may actually INCREASE the amount of revenue to the government. The overall GDP pie gets bigger, and government receipts go up. Laffer's theory has been tested three times in modern history. Tax rates were lowered in the mid-20's, the early-60's and the mid-80's. All three intervals were times of significant growth in government revenues. Only profligate spending by legislators cause problems resulting in a deficit and its cousins, inflation and recession.

In 1993, Kurt Hauser, a San Francisco economist, offered an idea now known as Hauser's Law. Based on decades of data, Hauser observed that no matter what the tax structure, no matter how high or low the tax rates are, Federal revenue is about 19.5% of the national GDP.

Surprising?

Not really. The rises and falls in GDP correspond to the rises and falls of the amount of money subject to taxation. If more money is available to be taxed, the government will have increased revenue, as the GDP falls, government revenue falls. This observation is way more than just a restatement of Laffer's ideas.

Hauser's Law sends a strong message to legislators. It doesn't matter what the tax rate is, the government will generate revenue of about 19.5% of GDP. If legislators choose policies that decrease GDP, there will be less overall Federal revenue. If they choose policies that increase GDP, there will be more Federal revenues (Let's not even talk about fiscal policies of spending more than you receive, or the priorities of those expenditures.).

The long-standing economic assumption of Laffer and others is that people act in their own best interests and that GDP will rise and fall as a function of the environment established by the government. It is clear that the more money that remains in people's hands results in more money available for government to tax, and the higher the available Federal revenues. If spent wisely, sufficient revenues are available for the necessary operation of government.

People like investors, and businessmen, entrepreneurs and inventors create wealth. It is these people, spurred on by innovation and consumer spending that control the size of the pie. Government does not create, it redistributes. Government does not bake pie, it slices up what is available. Government consumes pie, and consumes it with a voracious appetite.

Legislators must realize that no matter what the tax rate, they will have only about 19.5% of GDP in Federal revenues to spend. Any policy (on taxes or other priorities) politicians make that reduces GDP (like the Nixon Wage-Price controls and the Obama Cap and Trade proposal) shrinks the pie and ultimately hamstrings politician's ability to push their political agenda, no matter what it is. The bigger the agenda, the more revenue needed and the more economic growth must be stimulated. Our lesson here is that if you want government to spend money, you must want the government to create an environment of incentives that spur economic growth.

There is absolutely no evidence that Obama and the Democrats in Congress have an understanding of these simple economic concepts.

Democrats are feasting on a large menu of their own creation (whether or not you agree with the selections), and it would seem they demand a piece of your pie for dessert. They obviously don't know they need to get in the heat of the kitchen and bake more pie. They need to limit the amount of people at the party, as well as institute pro-growth initiatives. It's the Law of Pies.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »