Friday, February 02, 2007

Global Warming Debate

Just so you know, I happen to think the global warming alarmism of the early 21st century will be referred to as junk science by later generations.

Neal Boortz has some great reasons why he doesn't believe in the "sky-is-falling" news from the U.N:

A 21-page report from something called the "Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change" has been released Paris, no less...and as expected, it's predictions are dire. According to the report: "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level."

Yeah right...we've heard all this before.But the biggest bombshell here is this one: no matter what we do, global warming will not be reversed. It will go on for centuries, according to this report. The sea levels will continue to rise as polar ice caps melt. So I guess if Al Gore wins his Nobel Peace Prize, we'll still experience global warming. So much for riding to work everyday in your hybrid's not doing a thing. The situation is futile, according to this report.

But really, it makes sense that the global warming crowd would come to this conclusion. After all, global warming is a religion. The anti-capitalist enviro-nazis don't ever want the problem to be solved. After all, if global warming were to be solved tomorrow, what would they blame the United States for? They'd have to find some other reason.

Sorry .. I'm still a skeptic. In no particular order here are just a few of the reasons why I'm not buying this man-made global warming scare:

The United Nations is anti-American and anti-Capitalist. In short .. I don't trust them. Not a bit.

The UN would eagerly engage in any enterprise that would weaken capitalist economies around the world.

Because after the fall of the Soviet Union and worldwide Communism many in the anti-capitalist movement moved to the environmental movement to continue pursuing their anti-free enterprise goals. Many of the loudest proponents of man-made global warming today are confirmed anti-capitalists.

Because the sun is warmer .. and all of these scientists don't seem to be willing to credit a warmer sun with any of the blame for global warming.

The polar ice caps on Mars are melting. How did our CO2 emissions get all the way to Mars?

It was warmer in the 1930s across the globe than it is right now.

It wasn't all that long ago that these very same scientists were warning us about "global cooling" and another approaching ice age?

How much has the earth warmed up in the last 100 years? One degree. Now that's frightening.

Because that famous "hockey stick" graph that purports to show a sudden warming of the earth in the last few decades is a fraud. It ignored previous warming periods ... left them off the graph altogether.

The infamous Kyoto accords exempt some of the world's biggest CO2 polluters, including China and India.

The Kyoto accords can easily be seen as nothing less than an attempt to hamstring the world's dominant capitalist economies.

Because many of these scientists who are sounding the global warming scare depend on grant money for their livelihood, and they know the grant money dries up when they stop preaching the global warming sermon.

Because global warming "activists" and scientists seek to punish those who have different viewpoints. If you are sure of your science you have no need to shout down or seek to punish those who disagree.

What happened to the Medieval Warm Period? In 1996 the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a chart showing climatic change over a period of 1000 years. This graph showed a Medieval warming period in which global temperatures were higher than they are today. In 2001 the IPCC issued another 1000 year graph in which the Medieval warming period was missing. Why?

Why has one scientist promoting the cause of man-made global warming been quoted as saying "we have to get rid of the medieval warming period?"

Why is the ice cap on the Antarctic getting thicker if the earth is getting warmer?

In the United State, the one country with the most accurate temperature measuring and reporting records, temperatures have risen by 0.3 degrees centigrade over the past 100 years. The UN estimate is twice that.

There are about 160,000 glaciers around the world. Most have never been visited or measured by man. The great majority of these glaciers are growing, not melting.

Side-looking radar interferometry shows that the ise mass in the West Antarctic is growing at a rate of over 26 gigatons a year. This reverses a melting trend that had persisted for the previous 6,000 years.

Rising sea levels? The sea levels have been rising since the last ice age ended. That was 12,000 years ago. Estimates are that in that time the sea level has risen by over 300 feet. The rise in our sea levels has been going on long before man started creating anything but natural CO2 emissions.

Like Antarctica, the interior of Greenland is gaining ice mass.

Over the past 3,000 years there have been five different extended periods when the earth was measurably warmer than it is today.

During the last 20 years -- a period of the highest carbon dioxide levels -- global temperatures have actually decreased. That's right ... decreased.

Why did a reporter from National Public Radio refuse to interview David Deming, an associate professor at the University of Oklahoma studying global warming, after his testimony to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee unless Deming would state that global warming was being caused by man?

Why are global warming proponents insisting that the matter is settled and that no further scientific research is needed? Why are they afraid of additional information?

On July 24, 1974 Time Magazine published an article entitled "Another Ice Age?" Here's the first paragraph:
"As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

Hey ... I could go on. There's much more where that came from. But I need to get ready to go on the air. Just know that many of the strongest proponents of this "man-made" global warming stuff are dedicated opponents to capitalism and don't feel all that warm and fuzzy about the United States.

Thursday, February 01, 2007

Personal Savings Rates - Worst Since the Depression - Or Are They?

UPDATED: A much more in depth look at this story is linked here

Every few months, we get this story from the AP:

2006 Personal Savings Drop to 74-Yr. Low

The gist is that no one in America has any money saved. To be fair, I think that too many people are spending too much of their income on things they don't need or houses that are too big. However, I don't think that this story is the harbinger of impending doom that they make it out to be.

In the story, they describe how they determine that no one is saving money:

"The savings rate is computed by taking the amount of personal income left after taxes are paid, an amount known as disposable income and subtracting the amount of spending. Since the figure has dipped into negative territory, it means consumers are spending all of disposable income and then some."

Just using my personal circumstances, I can tell you that some of my savings occurs pre-tax, meaning that none of it would be included using this calculation. Also, this figure assumes that money that comes out of my after-tax amount doesn't go into savings, just that it was spent on something with no return.

I define savings as money that is taken from today's pile and put into a pile reserved for a later date. Without giving total numbers (because it is none of your business what I make), here are my savings vehicles:

1. 401K - my contribution
2. 401K - employers contribution, not really my money, but I had to contribute to get matching funds and I get to keep the money later.
3. Roth IRAs - one each for my wife and myself
4. 529 plan - one for each of my kids
5. Health Savings Account

When the monthly amounts for each of these are totaled and expressed as a percentage of my after-tax income, my savings rate is 24%.

24% of the money I make in a given month - after taxes - goes toward future needs. While I know that not every American is taking all of these steps to save, these savings vehicles are not even considered in the calculation of personal savings as defined in the article from the AP.

Future of Savings and Retirement:
Lately, I have been making predictions. Here's another one: Baby boomers won't be retiring any time soon. While 78 million may be approaching retirement age, they simply won't be able to afford to retire. While the Commerce Department's calculation for personal savings may not show the whole picture, I believe that there are a lot of boomers who don't have the required savings to retire. Instead, they will have to work longer either at their current jobs or at other jobs.

But that's okay. It's okay because HR professionals have been fretting over the lack of workers that the baby boomer retirements would cause. If the boomers haven't got the money to retire, and still have to work, their isn't a labor shortage - problem solved!

I don't think it will work out that neat and easy, but I do believe that Americans' views of retirement, savings, and working will be dramatically altered in the next decade.