Elkhorn Creek Lodge

Climate Change; Full Disclosure

Posted in uncategorized by Eugene Podrazik on November 29, 2009

Hooray!

East Anglia will now release all climate raw data pending the negotiation of a number of non-publication agreements.

So, how long are we going to hang on to this data?  Long enough to pass cap and trade?  Long enough to put the world’s economies under the yolk of some global governance scheme courtesy the Copenhagen summit?  And, then we get to see the fraud beneath the surface?

No, full disclosure now for these reasons:

First, regardless of other commercial agreements, much of this data comes from grants backed by public monies.  Taxes.  My taxes.  My money.  I own that data.  It’s mine just as it’s any else’s.

Second, the data involved is increasingly becoming entangled in massive fraud.  Fraud that now clearly wades into the area of criminal.  We need this data out in the context of a full public inquiry.  On both sides of the Atlantic–England and the US.  We need to know what was being hidden.  Who hid it.  Who knew what and when.

Third, you have to show the conclusions that you present in ‘peer reviewed’ journals can be replicated.  That means you have to have the raw data so that other scientists can assemble the data to see if the same conclusion can be replicated.  You need to describe your methods and procedures so that others can re-do your experiment and, again, replicate your results and, ultimately, conclusions.  As a physician and engineer, I’ve been in the business of evaluating scientific experiments and studies to know that if you tried to present this data in a manner similar to global warming you’d be laughed out of any FDA drug approval process.

But, oh no!  The raw data at CRU is gone, the tapes and files thrown away during a move to a new facility!  All they have is ‘enhanced’ data!  How many billions of my tax dollars have gone into generating this data; and its all just tossed out.

The dog ate my homework.  Who did that?  Why?  Who knew what and when?

To the hacker that release the original e-mails; please hack again.  We need the raw data out in the public domain and now.  Unfortunately, you’ll probably be too late this time.


Advertisements

East Anglia; Who Knew What and When

Posted in corruption, economics, energy, environment by Eugene Podrazik on November 26, 2009

Powerline brings up a good point that the most damning e-mail from the hacked East Anglia climate files was written in 1999.  But, this no where near exonerates the pack of rogues of who have been pushing the anthropogenic global warming (AGM) fraud.

The authors of these e-mail, as the putative experts in the field of global climate changes would have had the most detailed knowledge of the weaknesses of their AGM arguments.  They, for example would have known about the Roman warming (about 300 BC to 400 AD) and the Medieval warming (about 900 AD to 1300 AD) periods.  They would have also know about the bad effects of the global cooling following those warming periods.  Little events, like, the fall of Rome and the ushering in the dark ages; literally and figuratively.  Or, with the onset of the little ice age, in 1300, the black plague.

Could it be, that maybe the books were being cooked, even back in 1999, because these researchers needed to make this latest bout of global warming look really bad?  Did they need a little extra to explain away the fact that the internal combustion engine wasn’t around for the Roman or Medieval warmings?

We know from the asides and the chatter that these ‘scientists’ were engaged in a political agenda.  They’re entitled to their opinions, political and otherwise.  But, the tenor of these e-mails demonstrate that these guys didn’t check their personal opinions at the door when they punched the clock going to work at East Anglia.

And, if they did have an agenda, what was it?  Were they out to ride the hobby horse of AGM with the goal of pinning the blame on carbon dioxide?  Was the goal of making carbon dioxide the ‘fall guy’ the creation of rationalizations to further agendas of global governance in the name of cutting green house gas emissions?  Or, to create a case for the regulatory monstrosity that is the cap and trade bill voted out of the House earlier this year?  Or, an excuse to create a economy and job killing tax regime that is integral to this House bill?

Did these researchers know that there were serious shortcomings to their AGM theories that would eventually see the light of day?  Did they, even in 1999, have to manufacture data to create air tight case that there is global warming, show that it was worse than any other such on record and then create the inference that carbon dioxide  is the culprit to segue into the the above agendas?

Okay.  This makes me a right-wing conspiracy nut-job.  But, the raw data that these ‘researchers’ and ‘scientists’ are sitting on are courtesy public money and government grants.  Likewise, these guys are getting paid to write these e-mails via grants that come from public monies.  My money.  My tax dollars.

But, there’s a simple solution to this problem.  It involves taking a page from the campaign promises of our el maximo leader, Obama.  Transparency.  I simply propose that the raw climate data, in large part paid with my taxes, be completely and with reservation, placed in the public domain.  No hacking necessary.  Put all the raw data on the internet.  All of it.

‘Health Care Reform’–Chicago Style

Posted in medical, politics by Eugene Podrazik on November 22, 2009

The tired hobby horse of health care reform gets another lap on the race track as Reid schedules a vote in the Senate today.  This is one horse that needs to be retired to the glue factory.  But, as you take this bill in context of Pelosi’s and in the context of the ‘stimulus’ legislation and the Cap-and-trade bill one get a very clear sense of where this is all going.

One needs to understand, in Chicago, that all the named purpose of any public institution is always the secondary purpose.  The primary purpose for all Chicago public functions and agencies is that of graft, corruption and vote buying.  Chicago, with its machine is the most obvious example of machine politics that plague governance of much of the northeast and, of course, California.

Indeed, over the years, as the cost of such vote buying has grown so has the cost of government.  And, corruption is expensive.  I remember, as a kid, the big debate over the establishment of a state income tax in Illinois.  It was to ‘more equitably’ gather tax dollars to replace such things as property tax revenues.  Well, some 30 year later, Illinois is saddled with an income tax, property taxes that are literally a whole order of magnitude greater than mine in Wyoming and sales taxes just shy of ten percent.

Indeed, the function of governance is an annual exercise in scraping enough revenue to pay-off all co-opted interest groups necessary for that fifty percent plus one to keep the Chicago machine in power.  Moreover, governance to actually benefit its citizen–such as economic growth and jobs–are mere distractions.  Governance becomes an exercise in constant intrusions into the business and the private lives of people, otherwise competent adults.

Once upon a time, Northeast Illinois, the Chicago area, used to be a powerhouse of economic growth.  Steel, the Stockyards, railroads.  Now, what economic activity still remains stems from the fact it can extort rent by virtue of its physical location.  New York state was the same way, truly the Empire State.  Kodak, Westinghouse, IBM, Corning, Xerox and so on.  Most of those industries have moved on.  Factories shuttered, waiting to be turned into tres elegant loft apartment instead of factories generating wealth, jobs, opportunity and wealth.  But, the power class doesn’t care.  So long as there is something to tax and so long as there are enough votes to get to fifty percent plus one, the downward spiral of once great regions continues unabated.

Aside from coming up with new ways to gin up more revenue to tamp down another ‘crisis’ to close yet another multi-billion budgetary gap are a bunch of generally rich, out-of-touch legislators who pursue agendas that saddle the average taxpayer with even more burdens.  While they, by virtue of personal wealth, shielded by trust funds, vote on legislation with intended and unintended consequences that will never touch their priveledged lives. Pelosi married well, she has access to personal wealth to buy her way out of any medical rationing; the lush congressional health plan helps as well.

Governance becomes the personal hobby horse of these same said elites to pursue personal conceits with the power and revenue of government to supercharge their agenda far beyond their wildest dreams when they concocted them in their respective college midnight dorm-room bull sessions.  California, with its imploding fiscal crisis, wants to regulate large screen TV’s.  Never mind that this will be just another business and job killing venture that will have Californians buying those TV’s out of state instead of locally.  Chicago seems to have debates over whether it will allow a Walmart to build within the city limits.  (Jobs?  New tax revenue?  Less on the welfare rolls?  What’s not to like?  Oh!  Pissed off Unions.)  New York City, amid its fiscal floundering, sees the need to regulate trans-fats at restaurants.  Remember the great foie gras ban in Chicago; got anything better to do?  Functions and decisions that otherwise competent adults used to do for themselves are political.

So where do we stand with Chicago-style governance?  The track record since January of this year is tax and spend.  In matters not what the bill’s title said; beneath the title on bills that go on for over a thousand pages on average, have nothing but monies spent for every liberal wish since the last time the Democrats controlled all three branches of government with the majorities they have now in the first two years of Carter’s presidency.

First was the ‘stimulus.’  The point was to bolus a large infusion of money into the economy immediately.  And, had Rahm Emmanuel’s need to “never let a crisis go to waste,” that stimulus might have worked.  But, it merely put most of the money into 2010 to buy votes.  And, to set the stage for ‘health care reform.’

Then came ‘tax and cap.’  It was originally intended to be a cash cow of taxes to fund Obama’s socialist remake of America; and at the same time create a never ending source of money to fuel machine style elections for a Democratic machine in Washington D.C.  As if it weren’t already apparent that climate change was a fraud, it is a fraud.  But, that never mattered, it was the ultimate tax since it was geared to tax carbon dioxide and methane (alleged ‘greenhouse gases’).  Carbon dioxide and methane, fancy terms for what you breathe out and what you fart, respectively.  A tax on basic bodily functions.

But, tax and trade, as the bottomless cookie jar, fell short of its promise when the Democrats could figure out how not to tax Democrats.  So, the tax angle, which was the real purpose of this bill became a means to create bureaucracy to distribute largess and government jobs.

And, now the latest, we have two bills, one in the House and one about to be debated in the Senate, that are notable for taxes.  Taxes on Cadillac health plans, surtaxes on the ‘rich,’ elevated Medicare payroll taxes, again on the ‘rich.’  Mandates to buy insurance or pay a fine (or go to jail).  If the coercion isn’t on your wallet, it’s literally on your person.  There is the creation of all sorts of new regulatory agencies (more government jobs) to ‘reform’ health care.

My job as a physician is, ultimately, to sit down with my patient and try to find the best course of action to preserve my patients health and well being.  It’s that simple.  Yet, in this mass of thousand-page bills were is the simple concept of getting a patient and doctor to sit down and decide what is really best for that patient’s well being?  Obviously of no political value.

Mammograms And Rationing

Posted in medical by Eugene Podrazik on November 19, 2009

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) steps up to the plate, swings and whiffs.  In the face of other recommendations, it recommends that screening mammograms be started for women above the age of 50; instead of the current practice and recommendation of starting at age 40.

And,

“While the bills are still being drafted and debated in Congress, health insurance reform legislation generally calls for the task force’s recommendations to help determine the types of preventive services that must be provided for little or no cost. The recommendations alone cannot be used to deny treatment,” he wrote.  (white house deputy communications director Daniel Pfeiffer; see above link)

And, from HHS Secretary Sebilius,

“The U.S. Preventive Service Task Force is an outside independent panel of doctors and scientists who make recommendations. They do not set federal policy and they don’t determine what services are covered by the federal government.” (see above link)

Of course.  And, of course.  The 900 pound gorilla that are the proposals of Obamacare will just docilely let doctors and their female patients make that mammogram decision on their own.

It’s probably true that there’s probably valid science behind the recommendation.  Some of my gynecological colleagues seem to think so.  It’s probably true that no, absolutely no, considerations of money were brought into the final decision.  But, it would be nice to know who sat on that panel and who paid them.  Full disclosure of funding is now standard by any presenter at any medical meeting for purposes of continuing medical education.

This is no different that my dealings with managed care back in its height in the mid-90’s.  I remember one incident where I was counseling a go slow approach for a series of medical tests only to have the patient challenge me on the basis I was shilling for the insurance plan by making that recommendation for a slower approach to treatment.  I was, in fact, trying to counsel not to pushing a surgical decision until we had exhausted all reasonable non-surgical options.  But, like our current congress, any remote affiliation with an insurance company destroyed all credibility.  That’s why I like to work for myself, in my own practice.  There is not even the appearance of working for anyone but my patient–I know, very quaint.

You also have to shake your head at this arrogant tin-eared administration in launching its first rationing recommendation on an incredibly emotionally freighted subject like breast cancer.  Not to say that this is all pure emotion, since breast cancer is the number two killer of women in this country.  Should have stepped off with, say, vaccinations of delta smelt.

So, you have the debut of health care rationing.  First, it demonstrates how political and how politicized every medical decision will become.  Instead of a physician and his patient quietly discussing the pro’s and con’s of a mammogram screening at 40, we will now have those heretofore decisions now shouted out in every congressional office in Washington, D.C.  Personal medical decisions will now be poll-driven by senators and congressmen fearful of losing the next election.

Whatever the merits, this decision will be shortly rescinded.  Probably, as a clause inserted in one of the health care reform bills now swirling around the halls of congress.  But, given the rank dishonesty underlying the push for ‘health care reform,’ whatever merits there may have been for this new mammogram recommendation will now be lost in a federal government that has no credibility.  That’s what happens when you try the bait-and-switch tactic of “never letting a crisis go to waste.”

Then, the tort bar will weigh in.  Which decision will sway a jury?  The USPSTF recommendation of mammograms over 50 or the American Cancer Society’s recommendation of mammograms at age 40, reiterated in the maw of this controversy.  Chances are that half of the jury will be women; and, women suffering from breast cancer make sympathetic plaintiffs.  Will congress be willing to protect physicians by making the USPSTF binding in any tort action?  Again, of course.

Welcome to the new world of identity politics.  Every disease will now have to have a lobby.  And, disease management will now hinge of who can deliver the campaign cash and stuff the ballot boxes on election day.  ACORN and mammograms anyone?