Up to the minute Amber Alert Information

Thursday, January 31, 2008

The Back Stabber

Source: Varvel

Clinton says Global Warming is Real

"Everybody knows that global warming is real," Bill Clinton said today. And he identified the cause of that global warming when he said, ". . . we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.'"

This is pathetic advice coming from an ex-president. He is gullible enough to swallow global warming and that it is caused by greenhouse gas emissions. Or if he doesn’t believe it, he is using it to achieve his goals for all of us. Apparently our economy, which the liberals are trying to make into a near recession, is not slow enough for Bubba. The economy must be slowed to save Mother Earth.

This is lousy advice from the Bill part of the team when the Hill part of the team will undoubtedly vote for the ridiculous stimulus package that is designed to stoke up the economy. This pair of drivers will get the whole country in trouble. Hill has her foot on the accelerator while Bill is stomping on the brake. The revved engine sounds like the car is moving, but it’s sitting at a stop sign—one more thing on which they disagree.

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Illegal Immigrants May Get Rebates

Check out the story here and here. Click here to contact your Senator to state your view.


Isn’t it amazing how Oberstar and other Dems can denigrate a person’s ability and integrity if they are a Bush or Pawlenty appointee? Rosenker’s integrity is attacked because he is a Bush appointee. Molnau’s integrity is attacked because she is a Pawlenty appointee.

Oberstar is the senior Democrat on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and has oversight of the NTSB and its chairman, Rosenker. And yet Oberstar pawns himself off as a public servant when he takes Rosenker to task for his report, which obviously hinders the Dems cause. Oberstar wants us to think his motives are honorable while Rosenker’s and Molnau’s are political. Oberstar thinks he has a right to meddle in the process to get a report he wants. That right is reserved for Dems alone.

Law of Unintended Consequences at Work

People who want to make health choices for you argue smoking bans are good for the health of business patrons. Smoking bans in privately owned places where the public congregates have pushed smokers out doors on to patios at bars and restaurants.

The do-gooders didn’t foresee that business owners would install outdoor space heaters to meet the needs of their smoking customers. However, the do-gooders never give up. Now it is the health of Mother Earth that motivates them to use government to ban outdoor heaters.

"Patio heaters are scandalous because they are burning fossil fuels in the open sky, so producing vast quantities of CO2 with very little heat benefit," said European parliamentarian Fiona Hall . . .
The article says, "According to UK government statistics, outdoor heaters produce about 22,200 tons of CO2 a year . . . " What are they concerned about? This amount for a whole year is small compared to the 51,000 tons of CO2 involved in Christmas dinner on one day for a mere one-third of Britons. Do-gooders will continue to meddle because they conceive of themselves as saviors of Mother Earth.

What’s next? I suggest they tackle forest fires which release vast quantities of CO2 with very little benefit from the heat.

Nothing New

Rep. James Oberstar felt compelled to attack NTSB Chairman Mark Rosenker to keep up the Democratic attack on the GOP for the bridge collapse. In a courtesy of hand-holding the Representative, Rosenker met with Oberstar to explain a few things that he seemingly could not understand by hearing and reading the NTSB report.

No new information comes from this meeting. The gussets were still undersized and the undersized gussets were not compromised by corrosion. See our previous post. According to MPR, "Rosenker said he meant only that the under-designed gusset plates didn't show signs of corrosion." We knew that from the NTSB report. See also the Strib report on the meeting.

Oberstar’s letter to Rosenker is in contrast to his official web site which has a press release that shows he had an accurate understanding of the NTSB report as of January 15 and a measured response to it. Oberstar knew all along there was nothing to be clarified by Rosenker. On his web site, he even praised the benefit of the NTSB’s report on the undersized gussets so all governmental agencies can review their bridges.

This duplicity is disgusting for it is pure pandering to show Big Daddy is looking out for us. Don’t expect an apology from Oberstar for trying to make something out of nothing. With the web available to all of us, it is easy to find this hypocrisy. Thank you Al Gore for inventing the Internet!



Read the New York Times article on the topic.

Prophet Al

Make a note on your calendar for January 24, 2013 to see if the Goracle’s prediction turns out to be accurate. Gore announced: "Climate change is occurring far more rapidly than ..." imagined. "There are now forecasts that the North Pole ice caps may disappear entirely during summer months within five years," he peeped and muttered.

Any hype will do nowadays. The more grandiose it is, the better. And to think, Gore, the soothsayer, laughs at the good old fashioned doomsday prophets. My only concern: Where will Santa live in the summer?

Carbon dioxide: Part 7

Now that we have established some of the basic facts regarding CO2, we should pause to ask a few questions. Do we know all there is to know about CO2? Are we certain what is causing the increase in carbon dioxide concentration? Do we really know what an increase or decrease in carbon dioxide does to the climate?

It was not until the 1600s that it was shown that air is a mixture of gases. Jan Baptist van Helmont identified the compound we know as carbon dioxide. For the first time, CO2 was isolated by Joseph Black in 1757.
The length of time that we have known the composition of the air is very short compared to human existence. Prior to the 1950s, testing equipment was not available to make the precise measurements recorded in the Mauna Loa Observatory chart. Repeatable, accurate measurement of the components of air is absolutely essential to a good comprehension of our atmosphere. For the first time in history, in our own lifetime, we are now able to collect accurate data regarding the air we breathe and attempt to interpret it. Many of us were born before this testing equipment was invented.

The data represented in the Mauna Loa chart is what it is. There is not any reason to disbelieve it. However, we may still be in grade school with respect to understanding the data. Joseph Black never knew what he had started. Even though we can accurately measure the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we still do not understand adequately how CO2 affects the climate and vice versa. We must be cautious about dogmatizing, which is precisely what Al Gore is doing with great gusto and pomp.

Enormous effort has been expended to study the cause and effect of various foods and compounds on human health. It was concluded eggs were bad for us. Then they were OK. Coffee–bad, no good. Vitamin E–a cure-all, no not true. Anti-oxidants are great, well not as successful as we thought. It has gotten to the point where we expect new studies to negate former studies on a regular basis. If we can’t get the cause and effect of substances in the human body correct, how will we ever be confident we understand the complexities of the cause and effect of carbon dioxide in a whole world? It is quite arrogant to be dogmatic, for the scientific world is littered with rejected theories.

A few decades from now, the next generations may very well laugh at the naivete of the Goracle. For all we know, he might be rejected as a member of the Flat Earth Society. It is easy to be a know-it-all. The truly educated person must admit that extensive study always yields the proper conclusion that the more I learn, the more I discover I do not know.

Thursday, January 24, 2008

Oberstar Pouts

Rep. Oberstar criticizes NTSB chairman's 35W bridge findings
The Minnesota Democrat said corrosion and cracking should not have been dismissed as possible fatal flaws.

By KEVIN DIAZ, Star Tribune

Minnesota Democrat Jim Oberstar, chairman of the House Transportation Committee, fired off a critical letter to the head of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) on Wednesday, saying it was "highly inappropriate" for him to dismiss corrosion and poor maintenance as possible causes for the Interstate 35W bridge collapse.



Oberstar can’t quit stirring the pot because, in the words of the reporter,

"A design flaw would give Oberstar and other DFLers less of an opening to hold officials at the Minnesota Department of Transportation and Gov. Tim Pawlenty responsible for what they view as a lack of inspection and proper maintenance on the bridge."

Rosenker has been attacked for being a Bush appointee. Now it is Rosenker’s inexperience at NTSB that Oberstar attacks. Any excuse will do for him to avoid facing reality when he is determined to pin the cause on the GOP. Rosenker, speaking for the NTSB, identified a design flaw that resulted in the bridge collapse and stated corrosion or lack of maintenance did not bring the bridge down. Undoubtedly, the NTSB examined all the beams and gussets and noted the condition of each.

If we were allowed to examine each gusset, I would suggest that the average non-engineer could identify which gussets broke and if corrosion were involved.

  • We could identify gussets that bent as a result of a bridge section collapsing.
  • We could identify gussets that cracked sometime ago because the metal surrounding the crack would be rusty.
  • We could identify gussets that cracked very recently because the metal surrounding the crack would be bright and shiny.
  • We could identify gussets that flaked and crumbled due to corrosion.
  • We could identify gussets that cracked from the top or from the bottom.
  • If we looked at a bent gusset with some corrosion on it, we could tell if it was bent due to the leverage of a collapsing section or the result of corrosion.
  • We could identify gussets that were sheared and ripped.
  • We could identify gussets that were of different thicknesses.
  • And if we identified gussets that were thinner than others and sheared, we would conclude the gussets were undersized compared to the rest.

A person does not need to be an engineer to identify these features about gussets. In the real world, a group of non-engineers selected randomly from society who were given opportunity to look at the gussets would be able to draw some highly accurate conclusions. That group may not be able to identify the first gussets to break, would not be able to do the mathematical calculations, would not be aware of all the forces at work on the bridge structure, may not be able to identify what caused the undersized gussets to break now and not previously and it could not identify the actual problems before the bridge collapsed. However, that group would be able to identify the sheared gussets and whether corrosion was the cause of the shearing of those gussets.

Oberstar deliberately underestimates the capability of the NTSB even though our group could come up with a report with a high degree of accuracy. In fact, if Mr. Oberstar (randomly selected and unprejudiced) were in that group, he would be able to identify which gussets broke and if corrosion were involved.

But since Oberstar wants to play politics with safety, he will instinctively reject the obvious. And instinctively, Oberstar projects on to the NTSB his very own politicizing of the bridge–Rosenker is a Bush appointee and inexperienced. Is everyone at NTSB a Bush appointee and inexperienced? Oberstar must have corrosion as the cause for failure because undersized gussets don’t cash in politically as corrosion may.

Oberstar does not ever have to be right, so he can keep carping. The NTSB must be right the first time they make a report because safety and credibility are riding on their work. Oberstar doesn't have to live in the real world; the NTSB does.

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Law of Unintended Consequences

Compact florescent light bulbs (CFL) use less energy and so they will save the environment, won’t they? Not according to this article. Using CFLs will actually increase the production of that nasty stuff called CO2.

Read all about it.

Congress has foisted its CFL dictates on us because we would never know better ourselves. Murphy’s Law has special application to do-gooders such as the Congress. The more well-intentioned a person is in behalf of everyone, the more the Law of Unintended Consequences kicks in.

Monday, January 21, 2008

Illegal Immigration Petition

Skip on over to Minnesota Majority and sign the Immigration Enforcement Petition. It will be sent to your State Senator and Representative. See what response you receive from them. It would be interesting to compare their responses to various petition signers. Let's see what the views of our Democrat legislators in 17-B are.

Clinton has a dream.

America's first black president has a dream. View this video.

Saturday, January 19, 2008

Carbon dioxide: Part 6

From the last post on this subject, we learned that out of the analogous 3,600 inch long football field, carbon dioxide covers 1 1/8 inch of the stretch. It’s 0.0314% of the total length of the football field or the volume of air. That’s a very small amount.

So why is Al Gore panic struck over this small amount of CO2? It is because this small amount has increased. Check out this chart. This chart is a record of the increase of CO2 from 314 parts per million in 1958 (0.0314%) to 384 ppm presently (0.0384%).

In the last 50 years, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 70 ppm, which is a 22.3% increase. Such an increase is significant number wise, so it is worth investigating. If the trend continues, the Goracle will panic even more because Gaia already has a fever!

It is important to note that the location where the air test is done is significant. Any air sample in a city will yield higher concentrations of CO2 than in the chart. An air sample from Gary, Indiana will have much more CO2 than in Big Sky Country. Winter air has more carbon dioxide than summer air because of dormant vegetation. A sample of a person’s breath also has more than the surrounding air because exhaled air has about 4% CO2, or 40,000 ppm, which is vastly higher than the average mixture of air (384 ppm).

Higher CO2 concentration air is mixed by the wind with lower concentration air throughout the world while CO2 is also being taken out of the air through the several carbon cycles. So it is important to take measurements where there will be a good representative air sample. Atmospheric carbon dioxide measurements are taken at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii.

The jagged line in the chart referenced above is significant. The CO2 concentration increases during the winter in the northern hemisphere and decreases in the summer because the vegetation is consuming it. Meanwhile, the CO2 concentration is decreasing in the southern hemisphere during the northern winter. Thus the concentration rises and falls annually at opposite times in the two hemispheres. The line drawn through the jagged line is the average between the annual highs and lows.

On our analogous football field, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased from 1 1/8 inch (0.0314% of 3,600 inches) to 1 3/8 inch (0.0384% of 3,600 inches). So the amount of CO2 in the air is now 1/4 inch more than in 1958. And this increase is supposed to cause global warming? Something sounds fishy.

That is 0.007% (0.0384%-0.0314%) more carbon dioxide in the total air. That is not much, but it is more than the combined volume of the 6 gases remaining before we hit the end zone for a TD (that measly last tenth of an inch).

For every 1,000,000 molecules of air in 1958 there were 314 molecules of CO2. Now for every 1,000,000 molecules of air there are 384 molecules of CO2. That is 70 more molecules among the million or 7 more molecules per 100,000. That is not much. Seven pennies among 100,000 pennies are just not worth counting because they are so insignificant in comparison.

So what is all the fuss about? Al Gore is in panic mode over this?!

Friday, January 18, 2008

NTSB Doing Its Job

While Steve Murphy and Company are sniping at Pawlenty and Molnau and even NTSB Chairman Mark Rosenker for being a Bush appointee, NTSB is calmly and proficiently doing its job for the public.

The report on the St. Anthony bridge can be found here. Look at the picture of the bridge beams and gussets on page 14. Here is another diagram of the bridge. This report is complex, but I urge you to skim through it to learn a few things.
  • Learn how little you know about bridges and forces and the dynamic interplay of forces.
  • Look at the complex mathematical formulas in the report.
  • If you can do the math, thank a teacher.
  • If you can’t do the math, thank God that someone else can so bridges are built properly or can be analyzed to be inadequate.
  • Realize that Steve Murphy doesn’t have a clue what he is saying when he retorted, ". . . the report is "not worth the paper it's printed on"."
  • Realize that the NTSB has published the data and their reasoning for the bridge collapse so that any engineer can check it. If the NTSB is not right in their calculations, some engineer will find it.
  • You know the NTSB checked and double checked and triple checked all their work.
Empirical evidence is extremely difficult to refute. Murphy doesn’t even attempt to deal with the facts. He just dismisses the report as worthless.

Based on this report the NTSB issued this press release. Missouri, the Show Me state, didn’t count the report to be worthless as Minnesota’s Senate Transportation Chair does.

MoDOT Studying Minneapolis-Style Bridges
Statement from Director Pete Rahn In Response to Federal Findings

Missouri Department of Transportation Director Pete Rahn issued the following statement today in response to yesterday's federal report citing gusset plates (steel plates that connect the beams of a bridge's frame) as the probable cause of the Minneapolis bridge collapse.

Knowing what likely caused the Minneapolis bridge collapse is a big help to us, and I appreciate the quick work of the federal officials involved. We're using their recommendations in the study we've begun today of all 232 truss bridges on the state highway system - these truss bridges are the type that use gusset plates in the design. Any deficiencies we discover will be corrected immediately.

Read more....


Hats-off to the NTSB for their work identifying the structural design flaw in the bridge. This is of such import that their preliminary report calls all jurisdictions to check the design calculations for this type of bridge in order to prevent similar catastrophes.

Hats-off to the NTSB for their calm and staid work in the face of the taunting, mocking, dismissive, unhinged left in Minnesota. The motoring public is served by the NTSB and not Murphy. When the final report is out, Murphy will still not realize he is out of touch with reality. In the meantime, don’t pay any attention to any of his ideas. His gussets have collapsed.

Thursday, January 17, 2008

Politicizing the NTSB

The hyperventilating reaction to the preliminary NTSB report, demonstrates that science is being politicized. How can a report about some hard, cold, steel plates trigger such hot-headed carping? The reason–people who have already made up their minds are not interested in facts.

The NTSB tested the ½" x 6' x 10' steel plates, probably for tensile strength, bending capacity, compression load, shearing force, brittleness, contaminants and more. It found the material in the steel plates was not defective.

However, the NTSB found the 16 plates were undersized for the work they were intended to do in the bridge. The plates should have been 1" thick. The NTSB said this flaw was in the bridge structure from the day it was constructed according to blueprints. It was a design flaw.

These 16 large plates gave way and started the bridge collapse. However, the NTSB said explicitly they did not know what caused the undersized plates to give way. The final report will not be complete for months. If we are sane, we will wait for the final report.

Senate Transportation Chair Steve Murphy (DFL-Red Wing) said, “I've always said, 'Let's wait for the report.'” That’s good practice, but now that the preliminary report is out, Murphy said “the report is "not worth the paper it's printed on."” So why is the report he was waiting for now worthless? Because “. . . NTSB's initial conclusion was reached with the assistance of an engineering consultant hired by MnDOT.”

Minnesotans deserve much better than this from the Senate Transportation Chair. The same tests on the 16 gusset plates can be conducted repeatedly and the same conclusion will be reached. The material was not defective. The same mathematical formulas can be recalculated numerous times with the same results, showing the plates were undersized. All this data and the calculations will be in the final report for any person to review. So a MnDOT hired engineering consultant who assists NTSB would have every reason to be accurate and forthright. Murphy willfully attacked the integrity of that engineer and the NTSB.

Facts are stubborn things. But Murphy will not let facts get in his way. He must have evidence during the next few months before the legislative recess to attack Molnau and Pawlenty and lock his enormous tax increases on us for transportation as he sees fit. The NTSB report is dismissed as worthless.

He wants his own report. He and the senate will spend $500,000 of our money on their own hired guns to come up with a report before the legislature adjourns. It will be impossible for Murphy to demonstrate his hired report will not be prejudiced and therefore worthless. Yet in Murphy’s mind, his worthless report will trump NTSB’s worthless report.

Murphy has unequivocally demonstrated that he is not qualified to be the Senate Transportation Chair, let alone a senator or even a member of a jury. Senate District 28 would do all of Minnesota a big favor by voting him out of office. Better yet, Murphy should resign.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Ready, Set, Go…Kick Off to the ’08 Election

Left click on the image above for a larger view. Right click on it and click "Print Target." Print it in Landscape mode.

You are invited to enjoy this day of fun, learning and talking with your fellow Republicans. Learn what you can do to help elect Republicans to office.

Invite your friends. Send them an e-mail to point them to this invitation. Just block and copy this address http://chisagogop.blogspot.com/2008/01/ready-set-go.html and paste it into your e-mail message. Invite young people in high school and college.

Please R.S.V.P. here with your reservations. Walk-ins are welcome. See you there! Remember to keep thinking RIGHT!

Friday, January 11, 2008

Chairman Ron Carey

By now you are aware that Ron Carey, Minnesota Republican Party Chair, has endorsed Mike Huckabee for president and announced he would serve as honorary chairman for his campaign in Minnesota. Read this report and this one.

On Thursday evening the Republican State Executive Committee met to discuss Carey’s choice. Here is a Strib report on the meeting.

Click here, here, here and here for some Republican blog reaction to Carey’s choice.

Read a Democrat's analysis of Carey’s choice.

As a Republican, I have to agree with much of this Democrat response. Carey should not have taken this action for no other reason than to keep the Dems from gloating. He made an error in judgment.

Ron Carey is our paid leader, guide, keep-the-party-together-organizer, cheerleader and director to support PARTY goals. A leader cannot serve two masters. Even though a man may promise not to dilute his paid efforts by working on unpaid efforts, how can individual GOP members be confident this will not take place?

At this point, prior to the PARTY speaking, there is not a PARTY goal to support any individual candidate. The Republican Party has the historical belief in grassroots, bottom-up government, not top-down government. Before the grassroots have had an opportunity to speak in our Presidential Preferential Poll on February 5, Carey decided he will declare his preference, which is a clear effort to influence the grassroots.

Far too many of us are disturbed that our elected leaders do not govern according to the party platform–more liberal than the party platform. We do not like it that they substitute their thinking for our adopted platform. This is another case in which an elected leader thinks he knows better rather than listening to the thousands of those who put him in office.

At the very least, the Central Committee should meet to discuss the issues and hold the chair accountable. Just because the bylaws do not prohibit his action does not make it right. The bylaws may have omitted this issue simply because it has always been understood to be the right thing not to dilute loyalty to the party or knowingly irritate party members.

We Republicans are far too nice. We excuse people’s actions by intoning, "he’s a nice guy." We need to tolerate people, but we do not need to tolerate wrong ideas or wrong actions. When the Republican Chair is mocked by Democrats for this action and our cause is put in jeopardy (talk of withholding contributions), we, the people, must take charge. Republicans, do not make the same error in judgment that Ron Carey did.

Wednesday, January 09, 2008

Kalin’s Opinion Letter

The following is a letter to the editor in the January 9th Star Tribune by Rep. Jeremy Kalin (D-17B). Source: Strib and here.

Make it transparent

The Jan. 4 editorial "Make JOBZ more accountable to public" [find it here] made a very good point, but omitted a missed opportunity last legislative session.

My home, Chisago County, is home to two high-profile JOBZ projects: Andersen Windows in North Branch and Polaris Industries in Wyoming. The return on our public investment in these projects is unknown -- even basic facts are unclear. The state's Department of Employment and Economic Development job-growth numbers significantly differ from those reported to our local economic development authorities.

I authored the 2007 JOBZ Oversight Bill, a bipartisan bill to provide the state auditor access to confidential tax-return data related to JOBZ projects -- on an ongoing basis, rather than only for special reports by the legislative auditor. My JOBZ oversight provision was included in the Omnibus Tax Bill, passed by the Legislature but vetoed by the governor.

The bill was praised by all sides of the JOBZ debate. Those who think JOBZ is great believe that more oversight would show a successful program. JOBZ skeptics like myself believe more oversight will expose its failures. Unfortunately, the veto stamp left all of us unsatisfied, still waiting for more information, again.

The governor and the Legislature must embrace oversight and transparency at every turn possible. Only after making information readily accessible to policymakers and the public can we ask the key question: Is JOBZ providing a good return on our public investment?


The January 3rd editorial makes it clear the Office of the Legislative Auditor will provide its report on JOBZ in February. Not many would support not requiring accountability of the use of tax dollars in private economic development.

Kalin authored the 2007 JOBZ Oversight Bill. He bemoans, "My JOBZ oversight provision was included in the Omnibus Tax Bill, passed by the Legislature but vetoed by the governor." Kalin blames the Governor, but Kalin should be blaming fellow liberal, Larry Pogemiller.

Governor Pawlenty vetoed the Omnibus Tax Bill because it contained a provision to index the expenditures of the bill to inflation. Pawlenty had written a letter to the Senate to warn them of this potential veto. According to Sarah Janecek, "Pogemiller added the inflation provision to the tax bill and did not tell Tax Committee Chair Bakk he did that." Read her full story here.

Kalin’s bill was probably beneficial and probably would have been signed by the Governor under different circumstances. But rather than nailing the real culprit, Pogemiller, Kalin nails Pawlenty. Come on! Be a man! Lay the blame where it belongs. Tell the whole truth. Pawlenty was true to his forewarning. Pogemiller pulled a fast one on the legislature.

Even with Kalin’s good intentions in that bill, it’s hard to respect a politician who puts politics before people.

Tuesday, January 08, 2008

2008 Chisago County Republican Caucus

The caucus date is February 5, 2008 at 7:00 pm. To find the location where your caucus meets, find your home area below and identify the caucus location in the right hand column.

The Democrats hold their caucus meetings at the same time. You may find that the Democrats are caucusing at the same time in another part of the same building, for example a school. Watch for signs.

You can left click on the list of locations for a larger image. You can right click on the image to print out a hard copy.

Monday, January 07, 2008

Update on Planned Parenthood clinic in Aurora, Illinois

Non-profit mega-clinic fails to meet zoning
Land used by Planned Parenthood requires tax-paying for-profit operation

We had tracked this case, but it had dropped out of the news, until now. Much has been happening in the interlude. It is worth reading. The city violated its own zoning laws.


Update: 01-10-08

The latest on this case.


SWAT officers invade home, take 11-year-old at gunpoint
Cops demand boy go to doctor because of fall during horseplay

By Bob Unruh

Nearly a dozen members of a police SWAT team in western Colorado punched a hole in the front door and invaded a family's home with guns drawn, demanding that an 11-year-old boy who had had an accidental fall accompany them to the hospital, on the order of Garfield County Magistrate Lain Leoniak.

The boy's parents and siblings were thrown to the floor at gunpoint and the parents were handcuffed in the weekend assault, and the boy's father told WND it was all because a paramedic was upset the family preferred to care for their son themselves.

Read more....

Pray that a bunch of do-gooders never try to help you out. It will always lead to some mess. Power hungry bureaucrats always think they know best. Action commensurate with the initial action is becoming more and more rare. Endangering a whole family is hardly justified for medical intervention for another.

It is worth reading the comments at the end of this article.


Update: 01-08-08

An updated article with more information is available here.


Update: 01-10-08

For some reports from local Colorado newspapers, click here, here, here, here, here and here.

From the "Misuse of Muggle Artifacts" division

Here is an excerpt from an amusing, but highly accurate, piece on congress and their obsession with controlling america. As an aside, I am already replacing my bulbs as they go with the new models. When my six year old washer/dryer set keels over, well I'm already looking at these sleek new front-loading, stackable sets. I don't need congress to tell me any of this, and I suspect neither does the rest of the country. Personally, I just think Congress is worried we'll do it on our own too soon and they won't be able to claim they forced us to. The entire article can be read by clicking on the title.

Federal Department of Toilets & Light Bulbs

Posted by Chuck Muth on The Loft, January 3, 2008 at 10:12 am

How many congressmen does it take to change a light bulb? 400.
That’s how many members of Congress recently voted for a bill to force Americans to change the 50-cent incandescent light bulbs they’re currently using and replace them with expensive new, $3 “energy-efficient” light bulbs. {snip} The ban, which takes effect in 2014, was included in the 2007 energy bill which 314 members of the United States House of Representatives and 86 members of the United States Senate voted for. {snip}

The light bulb ban is simply the latest example of an increasingly intrusive federal government butting into the day-to-day affairs of the average citizen. Remember the 1992 energy bill, in which Congress banned the 3.5 gallon toilet? It mandated that that Americans no longer use more than 1.6 gallons per flush. Of course, per the immutable Law of Unintended Consequences, the new 1.6 gallon toilets turned out not to be enough to, er, get the job done. So folks found themselves flushing two and three times per visit, thus using the same amount of water, if not more, than they did before Congress stuck its nose into our bathrooms.

Excuse me, but would someone please show me where the federal Department of Toilets and Light Bulbs is authorized by the United States Constitution.

And make no mistake. Congress has no intention of stopping here. Still under active consideration is a new federal ban on top-loading washing machines, as well as a federal ban on disposable diapers. {snip}

The late, great Sen. Barry Goldwater famously declared in the early 1960s that he would “not attempt to discover whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible.” That sentiment has all but disappeared in the halls of Congress today. One notable exception is Arizona Rep. John Shadegg, a co-founder of the Goldwater Institute, whose proposed “Enumerated Powers Act” would require that “Each act of Congress…contain a concise and definite statement of the Constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that act.”

What a “revolutionary” notion.

Rep. Shadegg has introduced this bill in every Congress since 1995. And to give you an idea of how far Congress has drifted from the limited-government ideal of our Founders just over the last dozen years, the original bill had 103 co-sponsors. The same bill this year? Just 38. Goodnight, Constitution. I’ll leave a non-incandescent light bulb on for you.

Saturday, January 05, 2008

Comment Interaction

My last post received a comment to which I would like to respond here rather than in the comment section. This blog welcomes comments from and interaction with its readers because that is part of learning and/or teaching. This blog would be just so much breath in the wind if it lacked readers. Commenting readers make it that much better.

Dan asserted, "Your percentages are irrelevant." On the contrary, I will always contend that facts are always relevant. The numbers I posted are facts which have been determined to conform to reality by repeated and repeatable tests. These verifiable numbers were then adopted as standards in 1976 by the US government.

These numbers are relevant because they are the benchmark, the starting point of any serious discussion about the atmosphere and its components. It makes a significant difference if CO2 is 50% of the earth’s atmosphere or 0.0314%, because there would be a drastically different atmosphere. Human life would not exist. Earth has what it has.

If we do not know or value the correct percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere, we could not intelligently discuss the issues involved any more than our ancestors could in 1600 prior to the discovery of carbon dioxide. Facts are absolutely essential in life. Knowledge is advantageous.

Please note the commentator made two mutually exclusive statements:

"Nobody claims the air is overwhelmed by CO2 . . . There is no longer any serious dispute that we are well past the point at which CO2 causes damage and we're dumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere every day."

The use of ricin to illustrate the potency of CO2 is overkill. It is true that the quantity of a compound may be small but very powerful because of its quality. That is true of ricin and is true of CO2, but on vastly different levels. One is a poison, the other is essential to life. For some evidence, read this, for example.

Dan is correct to say, "The important point is how much CO2 in the atmosphere does it take to cause serious harm to the climate and earth." I had already planned to post more later about the quantity of carbon dioxide and then its quality, so I will not do so here.

To evaluate Dan’s "important point," I am not the least bit interested in politicizing it. Nor am I interested in removing it from the realm of science. I am not desirous of making it a religious issue, adopting a doomsday mentality. Politicians, religionists and the media often do this. Basic facts are left in the dust of the stampede to get on Al Gore’s bandwagon. Don’t ever follow a doomsday prophet who does not walk the talk, but expects you to. Something is seriously wrong with that prophet.


Update: 01-06-08

Check out the comment below concerning an article today by Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe. Our friend, Anonymous, lifts out a paragraph from Jacoby that says 1998 was the hottest year on record. That record was touted here by NASA.

Jacoby may not be aware that 1998 was removed from first place by NASA as a result of the stellar work of Steve McIntyre. You should read about McIntyre’s work, but briefly, he looked at the data and figured out the data and methods used by NASA were in error. NASA was convinced and published a revised data set which you can find here, which is probably meaningless to most of us, but not to McIntyre.

The year 1934 is once again in first place as the hottest year on record. Facts mattered to McIntyre, as well as the methods utilizing those facts. If it were not for him, NASA may very well still be using skewed data and methods. So a small correction in data and methods makes a large difference.

We should note that NASA was not attempting to trick anyone. NASA simply made errors, which by the way, even scientists make.

Friday, January 04, 2008

Media Trickery: Part 5

Omission of Truth
From the news articles about the tons and tons of CO2 being spewed into the air, readers can conclude the air must be overwhelmed with carbon dioxide. The news media is not interested in telling their readers the amount of carbon dioxide in the air because that does not serve their purpose.

How much CO2 is in the atmosphere? The figures below give the percentage of each gas that is found in the earth’s atmosphere. These are United States standards for 1976.

Gas - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Volume by percentage
Nitrogen------------------ 78.084%
Oxygen------------------- 20.9476%

Argon---------------------- 0.934%

Carbon dioxide----------- 0.0314%

Neon----------------------- 0.001818%
Helium--------------------- 0.000524%
Methane------------------- 0.0002%
Krypton-------------------- 0.000114%
Hydrogen------------------ 0.00005%
Xenon---------------------- 0.0000087%

A quick glance at these numbers reveals the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is extremely small. But let’s consider an illustration to understand how small the amount of carbon dioxide in the air actually is. Consider a 100 yard long football field. The game starts with a kick off which is returned 78 yards to the 22 yard line. Those 78 yards represent how much nitrogen is in the atmosphere.

On the next play, the wide receiver catches a 21 yard pass and takes the ball to the 1 yard line. That 21 yard pass represents how much oxygen is in the air. These two gases comprise 99.03% of all the air we breathe.

The next play is a run over right tackle just short of a yard. That 0.9 yard run represents all the argon in the air. The team is now on the 99.9656 yard line, an inch and a quarter away from scoring a touchdown.

Let’s go for it on fourth down ’cuz we’re so close. Another run gets us 1.13 inches, but short of the goal. 1.13 inches of that 1.25 inches we needed represents carbon dioxide.

We didn’t make it into the end zone. We’re 0.1 inch away, a measly tenth of an inch. In that 0.1 inch there are 6 gases left to fit in before we make it into the end zone.

But let’s focus on CO2. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is represented by 1 1/8 inch on the football field. Oxygen covers 20.9 yards of the field and nitrogen a huge 78 yards. Out of the 3,600 inch long football field, carbon dioxide covers 1 1/8 inch of the stretch. It’s 0.0314% of the total length of the football field. That’s not much you say. Yup, it’s not much, but the media doesn’t want you to know how little CO2 is in the atmosphere. It just might throw a wet blanket over their religious campaign to require a carbon tax on us.

When articles after articles tell us of all the tons and tons of CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere, one would think the atmosphere is full of it. It’s not. The amount is just a very small fraction of the total air.

By withholding this information, the media tricks its readers into thinking of the enormous amount of carbon dioxide. It is much easier to write and speak of tons and tons or billions of pounds of CO2 to make you think big than to take the time to explain how such a small amount of CO2 can cause global warming. That is much harder to do to convince readers.

Thursday, January 03, 2008

Media Trickery: Part 4

Lack of Comparison
When news writers hype, for example, the enormous figure of 580 billion pounds of CO2, they want to impress us with the unimaginable amount of what they regard as poison being kicked into the atmosphere. While they write extravagantly about the enormity of the amount of carbon dioxide that is vented into the air as in the above example, they make sure they do not write about the enormity of the whole atmosphere of the earth.

Think about the size of the atmosphere that surrounds the earth. A thirty-one mile deep layer, that contains 99% of all existing air, surrounds the earth’s surface that is a ball 24,900 miles around. That is a lot of air.

What is the weight of that air? It is about 5.5 quadrillion tons. That number is 55 with 14 zeros after it: 5,500,000,000,000,000 tons. So that is 11,000,000,000,000,000,000 pounds of air—11 with 18 zeros after it.

The 580,000,000,000 pounds of carbon dioxide mentioned above is just a very small part of the total air. 580 billion pounds of CO2 divided by 5.5 quadrillion tons of air is a very small number. Carbon dioxide is 0.0000053% of the total air in the atmosphere. Now that is small. For every molecule of CO2 in this example, there are 18,965,517 molecules of air.

So the above news writer threw around the large number of 580 billion pounds to impress us with enormity, but that amount is just a very small drop in a very large bucket. Now that puts things in perspective.

Well kids, that’s your science lesson for today. Al Gore and his climate change buddies didn’t want you to learn it because the mole hill is truly shown to be a mole hill when compared to the mountain.

Wednesday, January 02, 2008

Media Trickery: Part 3

The Christmas dinner article considered before states that 51,000 tons of CO2 are involved in Christmas dinner for 20,333,000 Britons.

51,000 tons is a huge amount of CO2. We don’t know the size of a pile that would make, but we know it is significant. You begin to feel guilty that your eating creates so much carbon dioxide. But you have to eat, so what can you do? You begin to feel helpless in the face of such enormity. In fact, you really can’t do much to solve this problem. It’s such a gigantic problem government must take care of it. That’s the conclusion the Goracle wants you to draw.

This type of article is designed to give you helplessness and guilt, but assuage that somewhat with the explicit or implicit assurance that specialists and government will solve it for you. It is calculated to soften you up for more government manipulation to pay a carbon tax, pay more tax subsidies for alternative energy and the like.

The article attempts to make the 51,000 tons of CO2 understandable on a large family level. It calculates a Christmas dinner for eight people creates 44 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions. 44 pounds still sounds like a lot.

How much CO2 per person is this article talking about? That’s what I want to know. 51,000 tons of CO2 divided by 20 million people is 5.02 pounds of carbon dioxide per person. But that is for the feast of Christmas dinner. You had to eat anyway, so let’s assume you splurged twice as much as for a regular meal. Your carbon footprint is 2.5 pounds extra for Christmas dinner.

Now that puts it on the shelf where I can reach it. Two and a half pounds doesn’t sound all that bad. And it isn’t.

The writer of the article instills guilt by using the figure for eight people rather than the weight per person. And then the writer did not factor in the necessity of eating anyway which cuts your guilt load in half.

Your personal carbon footprint is small. In order for the news media to impress you with enormity, they must aggregate individual carbon footprints for large blocks of people. Then the numbers are impressive. That’s the way they want it. They don’t want you to know your extra carbon footprint for Christmas dinner is just 2.5 pounds! Most people do not feast in this manner continually, but resume a normal daily diet which does not yield an occasion to beat us over the heads with the above trickery.

Don't let Al Gore make you feel guilty. Your carbon footprint will always be a fraction of his.