Frumpy puts hands on hips...

David Frum is a RINO in conservative garb. His response to the vote on health care reform was "na na, I told you so...." level. Let's start:

Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.

David, really, kinda hard to have a "crushing defeat" when you sit out the game on the bench. Did you notice the Dems had a majority in the House? Yea....see, when that happens, the majority can kinda get it's way no matter how hard you play. And in the Senate? Filibuster proof majority for 6 months...oppss. No GOP required for passage. Health Care Reform was a done deal on Jan 20, 2009.

It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they’ll compensate for today’s expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But:

A basketball team spends 60 minutes shooting hoops with NO opponents and the score ends up 3-zip and it is a HUGE loss? Really? Ever see an empty net goal in hockey? Real skill necessary...

(1) It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.

What is over optimistic? Getting control of the House back? That was a foregone conclusion 3 months ago. Even if the majority is by 1 vote....34 Dems voted AGAINST health care reform.

I doubt ANYONE that pays even the slightest attention thinks the GOP will take the Senate, it would have to be a perfect sweep. GOP is not perfect, by any stretch of the RINO's tail.

(2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now.

Ah, here it comes. Once passed, legislation is forever. Like the Liberal lock on Congress for the next 8 years? Like the Conservatives lost in a wilderness for decades? The chance of it being repealed is good now, if Obama crams a few more items down the GOP throat over the next 4-6 months, it will be much better. If he backs off (why should he?) less so.

So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson:

So far, not really. Though there are a ton of Republicans that are whining that the damn conservatives staying home in Nov 08 and not voting for McCain caused this mess. Maybe you agree...?

A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.

Yep! But let's see if he really means, Conservatives....and just throws in Republicans for cover...

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

Let's see. We have a fundamental objection to the premise that the Federal Government, 1) should be mandating individual purchases of mandated insurance coverage and 2) should be providing individual health care, but we should compromise, negotiate SOMETHING? Ok. How about allowing insurance purchases across state lines? Something SIMPLE. Yea, no. We should accept the premise that the ONLY possible path is the Federal Government destroying our health care insurance system and work from there.

The RINOs were considering it! Right up until Obama said, "I won" and so he gets what he wants. His ball, his rules. His marbles, his game.

Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.

Yea. 53%, not 60%. So, because the Dem caucus is this big mighty machine, we should approach the Dias, hold out our hands and say, "Please sir?" We should get down on our knees and say thank you for the table scraps? You're not a RINO, your a GECKO (getting enthusiastic condescension, keep obeying).

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Still thinking like we are in this game. Useful spectators. After 14 months of inept leadership, screwed up planning, the only team on the court scored ONE basket and WE screwed up?

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

OH hell! RomneyCare has been such a STELLAR success! Here we get to see Obamacare in action and after 3 years we want to EXPAND it nationally? You've got to be kidding - or walking around with brown on your nose. Tell me which ideas were developed for a STATE program that are a foundation for a Federal Gov program?

I have gone in search of these elusive ideas at Heritage, email response pending, but let me consider the context: Republican ideas? You mean like Medicare Part D? Certainly not CONSERVATIVE ideas. Maybe a federal regulator for insurance sold across state lines? Certainly not a mandated level of coverage?

Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.

I agree. Obama wanted Republican cover. He clearly did not want Republican ideas. He hoped for RINO complicity in his attempt to socialize medicine - who knew the biggest obstacle to his goal was the Democratic caucus!? RINOs don't care about conservative points of view - that has been clearly articulated with regards to the reception of Sarah Palin. I for one am not willing to give Obama cover, nor to accept government interference in my liberties because POLITICALLY it was the RINO thing to do. We have as big a mess as we do in this country BECAUSE of that crap sandwich.

No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?

Yea. Probably not repealed. I'll settle for gutting the thing, starving it and leaving it's rotting corpse on the President's front lawn. Rahm will get the visual. As for 'fixing' items, we can do that without forcing 80% of people to change their health care options. And we can do it for a hell of a lot less money. I think a life preserver for our current system is better than trying to build a new ship while the Titanic sinks. And sinking is what the current, and future version of government run health care is doing.

Really, you want to pander to a 25 year old living with his parents? OH. MY. GOD. Because of course the 25 year old is going to vote CONSERVATIVE....

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.

The money quote. Radical = conservative. Abject defeat in a game we weren't even playing in and NEVER had a chance to even score in? Frumpy wanted to show we could be good little servants. Doing as we are told by our betters. Screw that. Obama and Congress are SERVANTS to us! And the Republicans either have learned that lesson or realized they better pretend to have learned that lesson because the Conservative beast is awake and pissed.

There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?

Those leaders were/are cowards. Servants at their masters feet. Willing to accept scraps of power by furthering our descent into government control. This is not a movement led by Rush, or Hannity, or Beck. This is a movement led by citizens that have taken our rightful place as supervisors of the public servants. No longer willing to abdicate our responsibilities, we have dragged the establishment kicking and screaming....no, that is not right, we have gone and they have raced to catch up.

I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government.

Talk radio does no harm....except to the carefully crafted illusion that Republicans have got everything under control if the damn conservatives would just shut up and do as they are told. Hysterical accusations? Gee, sounds like a Huffer to me. Are you going to call us racists too?

Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail.

Ah, yea. If by Republicans you mean RINOs? As long as Republicans were going to buy into the Obama plans, then to that extent, we ALL want you and Obama to fail.

If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.

Damn, Frumpy IS a Huffer. It is all about the crass profit motive! Rush just wants to sell ads! Frumpy thinks the tea parties are just useful idiots for the corporate interests. Hey Frumpy, the tea parties started WITHOUT Rush. They are growing with or without his help. But this is not about Rush, this is about conservatives, not Republicans. The power structure is collapsing around the Republican elite system of going along to get along so that when their turn comes they can have a few crumbs for their retirement and friends.

Business as usual is coming to an end Frumpy. No longer are citizens willing to listen to their elite 'betters' that know better. We have moved inexorably towards socialism whether it is a Democrat or Republican in the White House, whether it is a Democrat or Republican Congress.

Done. Finished. Right now, the entire edifice of political differences is crumbling. Citizens are realizing that it is not just Democrats, but Republicans also that seek power and control and are willing to sell us down the path of socialism for their own aggrandizement. Screw you Frumpy and the Republican mindset that you seek to reassert.

So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours.

Republican values? WHAT Republican values? How about Principles? What about limited government, not just slower growing government? What about free markets, not just broader government choices? Obamacare lite would not be a win for free-market economics or freedom, or liberty. It would a slightly slower erosion of them.

I hope this is a Waterloo for Republicans. The sooner they, and you Frumpy, learn that Republican better equal conservative rather than democrat-lite, the faster you both may have some relevance in OUR future.

Public service unions

My father was in a union most of his working life (before coming to this country, he was in a guild). I watched as he dealt with corruption and out and out criminal behavior. Shortly after he retired, the local union was disbanded by the national for criminal behavior. He even spent time as a shop steward. The union had been 'captured' by the company. Union workers moving up the ladder, eventually became supervisors that were no longer part of the union, but every bit still involved. I bring this up because in a union town like Chicago, where I grew up, there was a common theme - unions had to protect the workers. I often wondered from who? Unions regularly used employer policies to keep members in line, were often compromised by their own corruption and generally practiced a crude form of trickle down economics - what was good for the union bosses would eventually benefit the membership.

My father was eventually removed as steward because he was causing too many disruptions between the union and the company over worker rights/discipline (often as arbitrary by the company as by the union itself).

I get why unions formed, but virtually every one of those reasons do not apply to public service unions. But conceptually, there is one issue that keeps coming back to me:
One 'generation' binding another.

Let me explain. Early in our country's life, there was a debate between Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine. At the root was a proclamation made by the Parliament to the king (about a century earlier) that took the form of an oath binding the Englishmen AND THEIR OFFSPRING FOREVER to the King. Burke found no problem with such a proclamation and Paine found it to be absurd. How could a man bind his unborn great grandson to a course of action long after his death. What was freedom if your parents could bind you into agrements before your birth? What was liberty if your were required to act in ways you had no choice in?

Bring it forward. A local municipality enters into a collective bargaining agreement with a union requiring pay raises over a five year period. Those pay raises require future administrations to raise taxes on citizens. What if the local citizens require specific votes before taxes can be raised. If legal counsel states the contracts are binding and the taxes have to be raised, have not the citizen's liberty, freedom, been compromised by the union contract?

Maybe I am too simple minded. I can not see any reason for a public servant to have a union. And I can see lots of reasons why such a union can be harmful to the citizens they are supposed to be serving. Theoretically, public servants are providing some common good. A strike (the only means of a union to force their demands on a 'company') denies citizens a public good. Under what agreement between the citizens and their government can the government deny a public good? Well, a union contract could do that. Further, let us say that the citizens are tired of their local representatives and for whatever reason (say contract negotiations) they vote everyone out and replace them. Is it consistent with freedom that the new administration is bound by the actions of their predecessors such that nothing can be done?

Union members will be quick to remind me that renegotiation can occur - but seldom (ever?) have contract terms been rolled back. Future delays yes, give backs, not so much.

I have argued that employment with the federal government (for non-elected servants) be limited to 10 years with no retirement benefits. Two exceptions: military and judiciary(which includes law enforcement). At more local levels, I see no reason to change that position. Obviously there is no military at the municipal level but we can have fire departments and judiciary(including law enforcement). The question then becomes, what of teachers? I can find no compelling reason to include teachers in the allowance. Make your best shot, but teacher unions are among the worst offenders in my opinion.

Public service unions around the country are telling governments to cut common good services, or raise taxes on citizens but to leave their contracts alone. I find nothing in that position that is freedom or liberty asserting. No, your contracts can not be an infringement on my rights and demanding MY taxes be raised to pay you IS an infringement.

Either require all public service employee contracts be renegotiated after each election or just get rid of the union - which is my preference. There is no reason for citizens to be bound by the actions of their parents and there is no reason to have career civil servants (except as noted above).

Why health care costs are out of control

Ok, here are the details: If a medical procedure COSTS $1500 and a hospital performs 100 per year, it must collect $150,000 per year from patients for that procedure. If insurance and medicare reimburse the hospital at less than 100% of the cost, those patients that pay out of pocket must pick up the difference. The table shows a hypothetical process where the procedure cost goes up 2.5% per year, and 1% of the patients move from private insurance to medicare each year. Further, although I do not know the exact dates or amounts, I have estimated the reimbursement rates to illustrate the impact of their change on the out of pocket cost. Over the last 35 years, the numbers show why our costs have gotten out of control.

---

year	Procedure cost		Insurance coverage				Medicare coverage				number of procedures	Cash cost
			Reimb rate	Reimb	% of proc	# of proc	Reimb rate	Reimb	% of proc	# of proc
1975	1500.00		0.98	1470.00	0.75	75	0.95	1425.00	0.20	20	100	2250.00
1976	1537.50		0.98	1506.75	0.74	74	0.95	1460.63	0.21	21	100	2315.47
1977	1575.94		0.98	1544.42	0.73	73	0.95	1497.14	0.22	22	100	2382.82
1978	1615.34		0.98	1583.03	0.72	72	0.91	1469.96	0.23	23	100	2749.30
1979	1655.72		0.98	1622.60	0.71	71	0.91	1506.70	0.24	24	100	2841.21
1980	1697.11		0.96	1629.23	0.70	70	0.91	1544.37	0.25	25	100	3411.20
1981	1739.54		0.96	1669.96	0.69	69	0.91	1582.98	0.26	26	100	3513.87
1982	1783.03		0.96	1711.71	0.68	68	0.91	1622.56	0.27	27	100	3619.55
1983	1827.60		0.96	1754.50	0.67	67	0.85	1553.46	0.28	28	100	4342.39
1984	1873.29		0.96	1798.36	0.66	66	0.85	1592.30	0.29	29	100	4492.16
1985	1920.13		0.96	1843.32	0.65	65	0.85	1632.11	0.30	30	100	4646.71
1986	1968.13		0.96	1889.40	0.64	64	0.85	1672.91	0.31	31	100	4806.17
1987	2017.33		0.96	1936.64	0.63	63	0.85	1714.73	0.32	32	100	4970.71
1988	2067.77		0.96	1985.06	0.62	62	0.85	1757.60	0.33	33	100	5140.47
1989	2119.46		0.96	2034.68	0.61	61	0.85	1801.54	0.34	34	100	5315.61
1990	2172.45		0.94	2042.10	0.60	60	0.75	1629.34	0.35	35	100	7538.39
1991	2226.76		0.94	2093.15	0.59	59	0.75	1670.07	0.36	36	100	7811.47
1992	2282.43		0.94	2145.48	0.58	58	0.75	1711.82	0.37	37	100	8093.49
1993	2339.49		0.94	2199.12	0.57	57	0.75	1754.62	0.38	38	100	8384.73
1994	2397.98		0.94	2254.10	0.56	56	0.75	1798.48	0.39	39	100	8685.47
1995	2457.92		0.94	2310.45	0.55	55	0.75	1843.44	0.40	40	100	8996.00
1996	2519.37		0.94	2368.21	0.54	53	0.68	1713.17	0.41	41	100	9363.67
1997	2582.36		0.94	2427.42	0.53	52	0.68	1756.00	0.42	42	100	9709.66
1998	2646.92		0.94	2488.10	0.52	51	0.68	1799.90	0.43	43	100	10067.10
1999	2713.09		0.94	2550.30	0.51	50	0.68	1844.90	0.44	44	100	10436.35
2000	2780.92		0.90	2502.82	0.50	49	0.68	1891.02	0.45	45	100	11726.20
2001	2850.44		0.90	2565.40	0.49	48	0.68	1938.30	0.46	46	100	12123.87
2002	2921.70		0.90	2629.53	0.48	47	0.65	1899.11	0.47	47	100	13220.69
2003	2994.74		0.90	2695.27	0.47	46	0.65	1946.58	0.48	48	100	13675.99
2004	3069.61		0.90	2762.65	0.46	45	0.65	1995.25	0.49	49	100	14145.79
2005	3146.35		0.90	2831.72	0.45	44	0.65	2045.13	0.50	50	100	14630.53
2006	3225.01		0.90	2902.51	0.44	43	0.65	2096.26	0.51	51	100	15130.67
2007	3305.64		0.90	2975.07	0.43	42	0.65	2148.66	0.52	52	100	15646.67
2008	3388.28		0.90	3049.45	0.42	41	0.65	2202.38	0.53	53	100	16179.02
2009	3472.98		0.90	3125.68	0.41	40	0.60	2083.79	0.54	54	100	18291.04
2010	3559.81		0.89	3168.23	0.40	39	0.60	2135.88	0.55	55	100	19157.70

---

A AGW discussion

Back in the 70's there were two major predictions of doom for humanity: the coming population explosion and the coming Ice Age. The issue with both items was the same - given the level of x and the trend, disaster was imminent. Obviously going from 3 billion to 6 billion people added significant demands on our resources (more about that in a moment) but the idea that we understood the dynamics of our climate based on literally .000000001 % of our planets history was just silly. By the time the mainstream media picked up on the Coming Ice Age, the temperature trend had shifted in the other direction.

Over the last 15 years, the increasing hysteria about global warming did nothing to persuade me that climatologists understood our climate any better than they did in the 70's. But of course the 'evidence' was mounting. But EFFECTS are not evidence unless you can conclusively show that the effect is caused by ONLY the evidence you have.

An example: reefs in Australia were showing bleaching. The reason given was warming water caused by global warming. Here is an interesting fact - back in January of this year, a severe frost pushed into deep south Florida, causing even islands down in the Keys being colder than they had been in decades - but it was not just one day, it went on for days. Fish began dying and when they looked at the reefs closer to the mainland, they were devastated by the findings: there were reefs that were DEAD, not the slow bleaching we saw in Australia, this was bleaching almost to the foundation of the reefs, bleaching that took hours not weeks. This isn't surface effects, this is deep water changes.

I don't use this example to say the world is actually cooling, but to say that a noticed effect can be explained by more than one type of evidence. We don't know enough about a planet's history to understand the mechanisms that drive our WEATHER. The climate is dramatically more complex. Our climate is not just dependent on the Earth! The Sun, our Solar System and our planet's interaction with them have effects that are barely understood, let alone having a significant historical record.

For climatologists to suggest that they have any understanding of our climate such that they can make 100 year, even 10 year predictions is hubris bordering on LYING. With that as MY point of view, I have 1) dismissed the doom and gloom predictions of people like Al Gore - and the 'stars' of climatology, 2) taken the evidence of global warming with great skepticism and 3) the CAUSES of any temperature change to be UNPROVEN hypothesis.

But my skepticism is not evidence contrary to reported 'science'. Finding contrary evidence has been difficult...and there was a reason.

Back in Nov 09, just a couple weeks prior to an international conference designed to complete an international treaty to address AGW a whistleblower at the East Anglican Climate Research Unit in England released thousands of emails, computer code and documents. Of all the items released, I found three to be particularly damaging. But it is important to understand the importance of CRU to the hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

All over the world are temperature sensors. The data from those sensors, collected by agencies in the countries where the sensors are located is transmitted to CRU, the head of which for the last 20 years has been Peter Jones. So, the primary source of temperature readings for the entire planet over the last 30 years resides in one place, under the authority of one man. The emails released showed two things about Peter Jones and the CRU: 1) Mr. Jones actively worked to suppress research that showed either temperatures not climbing, or effects not caused by warming; 2) He considered the data to be private - it was not going to be released for other scientists to use and confirm or refute findings and worse, very much worse, if he was ordered to release the data by legal means, he would DESTROY the data. Over the last 3 months we have found out that in fact, the raw data is GONE. All that remains is data that was modified from the raw data. In many cases, even data that has been modified can still be used, as long as the modifications are well documented and subject to evaluation. Here we find out the modifications are NOT well documented and worse, not consistent.

An example. When a weather station is moved, or equipment is changed, the data shows specific variations. Modifications are made to the raw data to eliminate the variations. When the sensors are run in parallel for a period of time, the variation is easy to evaluate and the modification is clear. But when we have situations where a sensor is damaged and replaced some period of time later, in a slightly different location, the modification is more difficult to determine. One way is to take sensors in nearby areas and "relate" the data. If two stations are 50 miles apart and temperature varies between the stations by 1 degree, and one station is damaged, moved or equipment is replaced and the temperature variation is 1.2 degrees consistently, then the .2 difference is equipment/location related and the modification of the raw data is clear. But what happens when the nearest station is 1200 miles away and the station, at a small rural airport is moved close to a new asphalt runway? We expect a modification, but not modification year after year. Analysis of several stations have show modifications that can not be explained by changes in location, changes in equipment or even changes in environment.

The modifications made to the raw data appear spurious, but what they all show is a consistent UPWARD bias. There is one more really serious issue with the weather stations. In the 70's there were over 6,000 stations worldwide. Today, our temperature data is based on just 1,700 stations. But more important than the reduction is WHERE we have lost stations. There is exactly ONE temperature station in the Antarctic. There are only 10 in all of Russian Siberia. A review of stations here in the United States found dozens of temperature stations in locations that compromised their ability to provide unbiased readings. Sensors near equipment exhaust fans; sensors surrounded by asphalt surfaces; sensors designated rural surrounded by businesses and residences. And over and over again indications of regular, consistent, upward modifications of the data.

Another problem has been the attempt to EXPLAIN the rise in temperatures the data shows. Of course any indication of rise has been compromised by the inconsistency and manipulation of the ONE CONCRETE PIECE OF EVIDENCE we have - the temperature record. All the examples of global warming are in fact examples of changing climate - whether they are caused by warming or not is UNKNOWN. Why? Well, we know every glacier currently on the planet was at one time, either non-existent or considerably smaller AND they were larger, grander and more intrusive into our 'environment. Why? Because our climate temperatures were different. One of the most recent climate 'events' is called the Medieval Warming Period. From about 850AD to 1500AD the climate was considerably warmer than it is today. So much so that Greenland, currently covered by glacier, was in fact a significant agricultural area. What we know about that period is that CO2 - a normal and necessary ingredient in our atmosphere, required by every plant on the planet for LIFE - was at a different level than it is today. Whatever caused the planet to be significantly (3 degrees) warmer than today, it was NOT CO2.

So, where are we? From all indications we are about .24 degree warmer today than 100 years ago (but 3 degrees cooler than during MWP). There is no trend indicating a steep climb. If anything, the climb that has been apparent over the last century, has stopped and may in fact be trending LOWER. (In direct contradiction to climate models used to predict the coming doom.)

Of the examples offered by CRU and United Nations International Panel on Climate Change: glacial melt - has been shown to be a fraction of the claim just 2 years ago, a claim based not on science but on the recollections of guides working on just ONE Himalayan glacier. The IPCC had to withdraw the claim on glacial melt because there is NO EVIDENCE of large scale melting; sea level rising: the research showing less than 5 cm in sea level rise over the last 50 years was also withdrawn from the IPCC report when 'amateur' researchers reviewing the data and methodology found flaws in both. The researchers quoted by the IPCC, when confronted with the findings, withdrew their research and acknowledged the fatal flaws in their data and methodology; species extinction - a review of mammal and bird 'extinctions' has found exactly NO examples in the last 35 years. None. No examples of mammal or bird species known to exist prior to 1970 have been shown to be extinct since 1970.

Let's look at one more issue: We are in a solar minimum. What that means is that the number of sunspots (and therefore solar flares) has been in a period of practical non-existence for the last year. What impact has this had on our climate? Some research indicates that a higher amount of extra-solar particles are getting into our upper atmosphere - the impact on cloud cover and precipitation has been noted, but the effect is still being evaluated.

What is clear is that making significant changes in society to address the issues of global climate change is based on little or no science but lots of politics.