Not likely. The current forecast says 1-3 inches tonight.
1-3 inches tomorrow (Thursday daytime)
1-3 inches Thursday night
Additional snow on Friday.
I wish.
I wish. I'd LOVE another foot.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Overheard on Bob Brinker's "Money Talk"
... that the Treasury Department is talking about (at this point, that's all this is ... talk) converting money from IRA and 401(k)'s into treasury annuities. They take all your money (again, this is just talk at this point, but they have opened the 'discussion' to take public comments) and then send you a monthly cheque.
Mr Brinker called this (correctly, in my opinion) 'confiscation.' Confiscation of all the money that you worked hard for, sweated for, perhaps bled for. Remember, all the money that you put into those accounts to take care of yourself in your older years and those in your family? Yeah, all that money. All that money (if this bone-headed plan goes through) won't be yours anymore, it'll be the government's.
Let's face it, these types of accounts have literally trillions of dollars in them. Trillions.
Do you honestly think the government would use that money to pay down the debt? Do you honestly think the government would use that money to pay for already-existing programs?
Please.
You and I both know they'd find new ways to spend this money ... new programs.
Here's the worst part of this: this wouldn't be an option, this would be mandatory. Mandatory; you'd have no say and no choice.
The sad fact is that Mr Brinker is right: there are two parties in this country when it comes to social issues, but there is only one party when it comes to financial issues.
And that is sad.
UPDATE:
Mr Brinker said this had made it into the mainstream media (MSM) ... and here's the link: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-09/insurers-test-market-as-obama-opens-annuity-door-for-401-k-s.html
UPDATE 2: The link Mr Brinker mentioned. Read it and weep: http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/jan2010/pi2010018_130737.htm
And a note to Mr Brinker: Do you know what the meaning of the word 'teabagger' is? Please don't call the Tea Party Activists 'Teabaggers.' I had to look the sexual meaning of 'teabagging' and 'teabagger' up. I didn't know. Do you?
Please do better.
Mr Brinker called this (correctly, in my opinion) 'confiscation.' Confiscation of all the money that you worked hard for, sweated for, perhaps bled for. Remember, all the money that you put into those accounts to take care of yourself in your older years and those in your family? Yeah, all that money. All that money (if this bone-headed plan goes through) won't be yours anymore, it'll be the government's.
Let's face it, these types of accounts have literally trillions of dollars in them. Trillions.
Do you honestly think the government would use that money to pay down the debt? Do you honestly think the government would use that money to pay for already-existing programs?
Please.
You and I both know they'd find new ways to spend this money ... new programs.
Here's the worst part of this: this wouldn't be an option, this would be mandatory. Mandatory; you'd have no say and no choice.
The sad fact is that Mr Brinker is right: there are two parties in this country when it comes to social issues, but there is only one party when it comes to financial issues.
And that is sad.
UPDATE:
Mr Brinker said this had made it into the mainstream media (MSM) ... and here's the link: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-09/insurers-test-market-as-obama-opens-annuity-door-for-401-k-s.html
UPDATE 2: The link Mr Brinker mentioned. Read it and weep: http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/jan2010/pi2010018_130737.htm
And a note to Mr Brinker: Do you know what the meaning of the word 'teabagger' is? Please don't call the Tea Party Activists 'Teabaggers.' I had to look the sexual meaning of 'teabagging' and 'teabagger' up. I didn't know. Do you?
Please do better.
Monday, February 8, 2010
New Forecast
Tonight's and tomorrow's forecast calls for 8-12 inches of snow total by Wednesday night. However, the heavy accumulation should be over 70 miles north of here.
Personally, I'd love to get another foot.
But, and I could be "shooting myself in the foot again" but I don't think we'll get it. Five inches maybe. If we're lucky. (Personally, I'd love the foot.)
Personally, I'd love to get another foot.
But, and I could be "shooting myself in the foot again" but I don't think we'll get it. Five inches maybe. If we're lucky. (Personally, I'd love the foot.)
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Might We Get More Snow?
To believe the weather forecast, the answer is "quite possibly." As of this posting, Tuesday and Tuesday night say "snow likely" with "moderate snow accumulation" which is the same language that was used before they warned us of the foot of snow that we got.
Personally, I'd love another foot of snow. Like I said last time, BRING IT ON! They're not giving a total accumulation, however. But like I said, I'd love another foot of snow.
Granted, with my last "prediction" I was the one that failed ... and in rather spectacular fashion to boot. I wasn't just "off" I was way off. But - I don't know. I'd love more snow, but I don't know how much (if any) we'll get.
I've learned to be a skeptic. But I'd love another foot. Even 6-8 inches would be nice. :)
Personally, I'd love another foot of snow. Like I said last time, BRING IT ON! They're not giving a total accumulation, however. But like I said, I'd love another foot of snow.
Granted, with my last "prediction" I was the one that failed ... and in rather spectacular fashion to boot. I wasn't just "off" I was way off. But - I don't know. I'd love more snow, but I don't know how much (if any) we'll get.
I've learned to be a skeptic. But I'd love another foot. Even 6-8 inches would be nice. :)
Article: "I thought of killing myself, says climate scandal professor Phil Jones"
The link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017922.ece
" THE scientist at the centre of the “climategate” email scandal has revealed that he was so traumatised by the global backlash against him that he contemplated suicide. "
While I agree that the man should be reprimanded severely, he doesn't deserve the death threats he's getting. I think we can all agree that he shouldn't have crossed the line from scientist to advocate, but he doesn't deserve death threats. Duct taping his mouth shut and keeping him away from a keyboard, possibly.
" In emails that were hacked into and seized upon by global-warming sceptics before the Copenhagen climate summit in December, Jones appeared to call upon his colleagues to destroy scientific data rather than release it to people intent on discrediting their work monitoring climate change. " (emphasis added)
Another "oops."
" THE scientist at the centre of the “climategate” email scandal has revealed that he was so traumatised by the global backlash against him that he contemplated suicide. "
While I agree that the man should be reprimanded severely, he doesn't deserve the death threats he's getting. I think we can all agree that he shouldn't have crossed the line from scientist to advocate, but he doesn't deserve death threats. Duct taping his mouth shut and keeping him away from a keyboard, possibly.
" In emails that were hacked into and seized upon by global-warming sceptics before the Copenhagen climate summit in December, Jones appeared to call upon his colleagues to destroy scientific data rather than release it to people intent on discrediting their work monitoring climate change. " (emphasis added)
Another "oops."
Article: "The Great Global Warming Collapse"
The link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/the-great-global-warming-collapse/article1458206/
" But the claim [that the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035] was rubbish, and the world's top glaciologists knew it. It was based not on rigorously peer-reviewed science but on an anecdotal report by the WWF [World Wildlife Fund] itself. When its background came to light on the eve of Copenhagen, Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, shrugged it off. But now, even leading scientists and environmental groups admit the IPCC is facing a crisis of credibility that makes the Climategate affair look like small change. "
Let's distill that down: That now infamous shock claim was based on an anecdotal report, not on peer-reviewed science. The head of the IPCC (the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) shrugged it off as a one-time error, a "one-off."
" “The global warming movement proposed a complex set of international agreements involving vast transfers of funds, intrusive regulations in national economies, and substantial changes to the domestic political economies of most countries on the planet.” " said Walter Russell Mead.
Does anybody else remember Alex Jones and others talking about the global carbon tax? The intrusion of UN rules into American politics?
It turns out that this wasn't just a "one-off."
" For example, it warned that large tracts of the Amazon rain forest might be wiped out by global warming because they are extremely susceptible to even modest decreases in rainfall. The sole source for that claim, reports The Sunday Times of London, was a magazine article written by a pair of climate activists, one of whom worked for the WWF. One scientist contacted by the Times, a specialist in tropical forest ecology, called the article “a mess.”
" Worse still, the Times has discovered that Mr. Pachauri's own Energy and Resources Unit, based in New Delhi, has collected millions in grants to study the effects of glacial melting – all on the strength of that bogus glacier claim, which happens to have been endorsed by the same scientist who now runs the unit that got the money. Even so, the IPCC chief is hanging tough. He insists the attacks on him are being orchestrated by companies facing lower profits. "
" Until now, anyone who questioned the credibility of the IPCC was labelled as a climate skeptic, or worse. But many climate scientists now sense a sinking ship, and they're bailing out. Among them is Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at the University of Victoria who acknowledges that the climate body has crossed the line into advocacy. Even Britain's Greenpeace has called for Mr. Pachauri's resignation. India says it will establish its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it “cannot rely” on the IPCC. " (emphasis (and colour) added)
Oops.
So let's review: Several of the IPCC's "shock" claims are based not on peer-reviewed science but on anecdotal reports, some of which came from the WWF, which has a conflict of interest if ever there was one.
The claim about the rain forests was made by a pair of climate activists, one of whom worked for the WWF. Another conflict of interest.
The leaked emails have shown that the global body kept contradictory evidence from being published, withheld information from skeptics, and made bad data appear to look better. All this from a body that was supposed to be based on rigorous scientific standards.
They look more like school-yard bullies.
" But the claim [that the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035] was rubbish, and the world's top glaciologists knew it. It was based not on rigorously peer-reviewed science but on an anecdotal report by the WWF [World Wildlife Fund] itself. When its background came to light on the eve of Copenhagen, Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, shrugged it off. But now, even leading scientists and environmental groups admit the IPCC is facing a crisis of credibility that makes the Climategate affair look like small change. "
Let's distill that down: That now infamous shock claim was based on an anecdotal report, not on peer-reviewed science. The head of the IPCC (the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) shrugged it off as a one-time error, a "one-off."
" “The global warming movement proposed a complex set of international agreements involving vast transfers of funds, intrusive regulations in national economies, and substantial changes to the domestic political economies of most countries on the planet.” " said Walter Russell Mead.
Does anybody else remember Alex Jones and others talking about the global carbon tax? The intrusion of UN rules into American politics?
It turns out that this wasn't just a "one-off."
" For example, it warned that large tracts of the Amazon rain forest might be wiped out by global warming because they are extremely susceptible to even modest decreases in rainfall. The sole source for that claim, reports The Sunday Times of London, was a magazine article written by a pair of climate activists, one of whom worked for the WWF. One scientist contacted by the Times, a specialist in tropical forest ecology, called the article “a mess.”
" Worse still, the Times has discovered that Mr. Pachauri's own Energy and Resources Unit, based in New Delhi, has collected millions in grants to study the effects of glacial melting – all on the strength of that bogus glacier claim, which happens to have been endorsed by the same scientist who now runs the unit that got the money. Even so, the IPCC chief is hanging tough. He insists the attacks on him are being orchestrated by companies facing lower profits. "
" Until now, anyone who questioned the credibility of the IPCC was labelled as a climate skeptic, or worse. But many climate scientists now sense a sinking ship, and they're bailing out. Among them is Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at the University of Victoria who acknowledges that the climate body has crossed the line into advocacy. Even Britain's Greenpeace has called for Mr. Pachauri's resignation. India says it will establish its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it “cannot rely” on the IPCC. " (emphasis (and colour) added)
Oops.
So let's review: Several of the IPCC's "shock" claims are based not on peer-reviewed science but on anecdotal reports, some of which came from the WWF, which has a conflict of interest if ever there was one.
The claim about the rain forests was made by a pair of climate activists, one of whom worked for the WWF. Another conflict of interest.
The leaked emails have shown that the global body kept contradictory evidence from being published, withheld information from skeptics, and made bad data appear to look better. All this from a body that was supposed to be based on rigorous scientific standards.
They look more like school-yard bullies.
I Was Wrong About the Snowfall
I was. You'll recall a previous blog posting where I said we'd get an inch ... tops.
I was wrong.
I just got done using the snowblower to remove 12.5 inches of the white stuff.
Don't get me wrong, I still love snow. And, frankly, I'm tickled pink that we got it. This is one time I'm thrilled to be wrong.
The forecast now is calling for more snow Monday night, Tuesday, and Tuesday night. It says "Snow likely" but doesn't say anything about accumulation.
Personally, I'd love to get another 5-6 inches of snow. But that's just me.
I was wrong.
I just got done using the snowblower to remove 12.5 inches of the white stuff.
Don't get me wrong, I still love snow. And, frankly, I'm tickled pink that we got it. This is one time I'm thrilled to be wrong.
The forecast now is calling for more snow Monday night, Tuesday, and Tuesday night. It says "Snow likely" but doesn't say anything about accumulation.
Personally, I'd love to get another 5-6 inches of snow. But that's just me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
