I wonder if the government mindset that equates 1–2 inches of snow as “Heavy Snow” is the same as that which sees global warming in every fraction of weather change?

Last weekend while you were preparing for the holidays with your family, Harry Reid’s Senate was making shady backroom deals to ram through the Democrat health care take-over.  The Senate ended debate on this bill without even reading it.  That and midnight weekend votes seem to be standard operating procedures in D.C.  No one is certain of what’s in the bill, but Senator Jim DeMint spotted one shocking revelation regarding the section in the bill describing the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (now called the Independent Payment Advisory Board), which is a panel of bureaucrats charged with cutting health care costs on the backs of patients – also known as rationing.  Apparently Reid and friends have changed the rules of the Senate so that the section of the bill dealing with this board can’t be repealed or amended without a 2/3 supermajority vote. Senator DeMint said:

“This is a rule change.  It’s a pretty big deal.  We will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law.  I’m not even sure that it’s constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate rule.  I don’t see why the majority party wouldn’t put this in every bill.  If you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates.  I mean, we want to bind future congresses.  This goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future congresses.”

In other words, Democrats are protecting this rationing “death panel” from future change with a procedural hurdle.  You have to ask why they’re so concerned about protecting this particular provision.  Could it be because bureaucratic rationing is one important way Democrats want to “bend the cost curve” and keep health care spending down?

The Congressional Budget Office seems to think that such rationing has something to do with cost.  In a letter to Harry Reid last week, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf noted (with a number of caveats) that the bill’s calculations call for a reduction in Medicare’s spending rate by about 2 percent in the next two decades, but then he writes the kicker:

“It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved, and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care.”

Though Nancy Pelosi and friends have tried to call “death panels” the “lie of the year,” this type of rationing – what the CBO calls “reduc[ed] access to care” and “diminish[ed] quality of care” – is precisely what I meant when I used that metaphor.

This health care bill is one of the most far-reaching and expensive expansions of the role of government into our lives.  We’re talking about putting one-seventh of our economy under the government’s thumb.  We’re also talking about something as intimate to our personal well-being as medical care.

This bill is so unpopular that people on the right and the left hate it.  So why go through with it?  The Senate is planning to vote on this on Christmas Eve.  Why the rush?  Though we will begin paying for this bill immediately, we will see no benefits for years.  (That’s the trick that allowed the CBO to state that the bill won’t grow the deficit for the next ten years.)

The administration’s promises of transparency and bipartisanship have been broken one by one.  This entire process has been defined by midnight votes on weekends, closed-door meetings with industry lobbyists, and payoffs to politicians willing to sell their principles for sweetheart deals.  Is it any wonder that Americans are so disillusioned with their leaders in Washington?

This is about politics, not health care.  Americans don’t want this bill.  Americans don’t like this bill.  Washington has stopped listening to us.  But we’re paying attention, and 2010 is coming.

Source: Governor Sarah Palin, Midnight Votes, Backroom Deals, and a Death Panel, The Governor’s Facebook page.

• WeatherUnderground:  http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/hdfForecast?query=12953&searchType=WEATHER
   
• APRS:  http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/wxpage.cgi?call=CW6998

Update:

I switched to Ambient Weather’s Virtual Weather Station software after being unable to resolve continued challenges with incorrect barometric pressure, humidity, and dew point readings, especially at low temperatures.  The change was long overdue.  It appears that all of my weather station readings are now being handled correctly and within APRS data QA norms.

My weather station:

• Oregon Scientific WMR-968
• Ambient Weather Virtual Weather Station

With the publication of damaging e-mails from a climate research center in Britain, the radical environmental movement appears to face a tipping point. The revelation of appalling actions by so-called climate change experts allows the American public to finally understand the concerns so many of us have articulated on this issue.

“Climate-gate,” as the e-mails and other documents from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have become known, exposes a highly politicized scientific circle — the same circle whose work underlies efforts at the Copenhagen climate change conference. The agenda-driven policies being pushed in Copenhagen won’t change the weather, but they would change our economy for the worse.

The e-mails reveal that leading climate “experts” deliberately destroyed records, manipulated data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures, and tried to silence their critics by preventing them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. What’s more, the documents show that there was no real consensus even within the CRU crowd. Some scientists had strong doubts about the accuracy of estimates of temperatures from centuries ago, estimates used to back claims that more recent temperatures are rising at an alarming rate.

This scandal obviously calls into question the proposals being pushed in Copenhagen. I’ve always believed that policy should be based on sound science, not politics. As governor of Alaska, I took a stand against politicized science when I sued the federal government over its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population had more than doubled. I got clobbered for my actions by radical environmentalists nationwide, but I stood by my view that adding a healthy species to the endangered list under the guise of “climate change impacts” was an abuse of the Endangered Species Act. This would have irreversibly hurt both Alaska’s economy and the nation’s, while also reducing opportunities for responsible development.

Our representatives in Copenhagen should remember that good environmental policymaking is about weighing real-world costs and benefits — not pursuing a political agenda. That’s not to say I deny the reality of some changes in climate — far from it. I saw the impact of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as governor of our only Arctic state. I was one of the first governors to create a subcabinet to deal specifically with the issue and to recommend common-sense policies to respond to the coastal erosion, thawing permafrost and retreating sea ice that affect Alaska’s communities and infrastructure.

But while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical environmental trends, we can’t say with assurance that man’s activities cause weather changes. We can say, however, that any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs. And those costs are real. Unlike the proposals China and India offered prior to Copenhagen — which actually allow them to increase their emissions — President Obama’s proposal calls for serious cuts in our own long-term carbon emissions. Meeting such targets would require Congress to pass its cap-and-tax plans, which will result in job losses and higher energy costs (as Obama admitted during the campaign). That’s not exactly what most Americans are hoping for these days. And as public opposition continues to stall Congress’s cap-and-tax legislation, Environmental Protection Agency bureaucrats plan to regulate carbon emissions themselves, doing an end run around the American people.

In fact, we’re not the only nation whose people are questioning climate change schemes. In the European Union, energy prices skyrocketed after it began a cap-and-tax program. Meanwhile, Australia’s Parliament recently defeated a cap-and-tax bill. Surely other nations will follow suit, particularly as the climate e-mail scandal continues to unfold.

In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to “restore science to its rightful place.” But instead of staying home from Copenhagen and sending a message that the United States will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices, the president has upped the ante. He plans to fly in at the climax of the conference in hopes of sealing a “deal.” Whatever deal he gets, it will be no deal for the American people. What Obama really hopes to bring home from Copenhagen is more pressure to pass the Democrats’ cap-and-tax proposal. This is a political move. The last thing America needs is misguided legislation that will raise taxes and cost jobs — particularly when the push for such legislation rests on agenda-driven science.

Without trustworthy science and with so much at stake, Americans should be wary about what comes out of this politicized conference. The president should boycott Copenhagen.

Source:  Sarah Palin, “Copenhagen’s political science,” Washington Post, December 9, 2009

No, I am not for amnesty. .… Illegal aliens are called illegal for a reason.  .… If they are not going to follow the rules they need to get out.–Sarah Palin

Clear, direct, and absolutely correct.

 
Source:  Radio interview with Lars Larson, December 3, 2009.

The president’s decision to attend the international climate conference in Copenhagen needs to be reconsidered in light of the unfolding Climategate scandal. The leaked e-mails involved in Climategate expose the unscientific behavior of leading climate scientists who deliberately destroyed records to block information requests, manipulated data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures, and conspired to silence the critics of man-made global warming. I support Senator James Inhofe’s call for a full investigation into this scandal. Because it involves many of the same personalities and entities behind the Copenhagen conference, Climategate calls into question many of the proposals being pushed there, including anything that would lead to a cap and tax plan. Policy should be based on sound science, not snake oil. I took a stand against such snake oil science when I sued the federal government over its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population has increased. I’ve never denied the reality of climate change; in fact, I was the first governor to create a subcabinet position to deal specifically with the issue. I saw the impact of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as governor of our only Arctic state. But while we recognize the effects of changing water levels, erosion patterns, and glacial ice melt, we cannot primarily blame man’s activities for the earth’s cyclical weather changes. The drastic economic measures being pushed by dogmatic environmentalists won’t change the weather, but will dramatically change our economy for the worse. Policy decisions require real science and real solutions, not junk science and doomsday scare tactics pushed by an environmental priesthood that capitalizes on the public’s worry and makes them feel that owning an SUV is a “sin” against the planet. In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to “restore science to its rightful place.” Boycotting Copenhagen while this scandal is thoroughly investigated would send a strong message that the United States government will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices. Saying no to Copenhagen and cap and tax are first steps in “restoring science to its rightful place.

• First, the military asked for as much as 60,000 troops, Obama gives them half, and
• Second, while Obama says and repeats that his goal is “defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies”, he spends more time Vietnamizing the war with talk of how he’s going to shift the effort (and responsibility of achieving his goal) to the Karzai’s hapless and corrupt government. As he clearly states “these additionalAmerican and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011.”

What does this mean?

Well, Obama spelled that out:

These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.

Unfortunately, Obama never said our goal is to win the war we are now in against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.  He seems only interested in countering them.  Does he expect them to wither away as he pulls US troops out?  Especially as he’s made clear elsewhere through his spokesman Gibbs that he wants all the troops out by January 2013.

This is a war of 1,000 cuts.  Karzai barely controls Kabul, the Taliban have the run of the rest of the rest of the country, and in the middle are US troops with a half-hearted mission.  Yes, there are small representative contingents British, German, and other troops but they have even less role that Karzai.  It is a war of 1,000 cuts because what is presented is a win by attrition for the Taliban as nothing in Obama’s plans spell out a strategy for the US to win the war–no one is going to surrender, except us in our winless departure.  At the end of the war the Afghani government may still control Kabul but the Taliban will very likely still have the run of the rest of the country.  Us, we’ll have brought home tens of thousands of US troops on stretchers or in body bags.

McCain reportedly directly challenged Obama on his strategy in a White House meeting before his speech.  Sarah Palin, the defacto voice of the Republican Party, writes to note that Obama has come a long ways in responding to her and other’s calls to provide the necessary resources to achieve our goals in Afghanistan.  She clearly sees Obama’s move as a starting point and, while appreciating it, states the obvious in her blog:

…fewer troops mean assuming more risk. Talk of an exit date also risks sending the wrong message. We should be in Afghanistan to win, not to set a timetable for withdrawal that signals a lack of resolve to our friends, and lets our enemies believe they can wait us out.

Palin doesn’t reconcile her interpretation of win with Obama’s strategy to instead withdraw but she nevertheless concludes:

As long as we’re in to win, and as long as troop level decisions are based on conditions on the ground and the advice of our military commanders, I support President Obama’s decision.

I am not a politician and not as gracious.  Obama cannot sit on the fence in matters of war.  If his goals are to win a war–in this case to rout the Taliban and Al-Qaeda–he should so state and commit the troops and resources necessary to do so.  If, as it instead appears, he wants to simply contain them to allow a future US withdraw, then he should explain why this serves America’s interests and why any further loss of American blood is not in vain.