Minnesota State Senator Tom Neuville

2007 has turned out to be a pretty cold year. It seems whenever we have a “hot day” someone claims that is proof of global warming. So why isn’t cold or frigid temperatures evidence that global warming is not at a “tipping point” ?

Here is an interesting article from the Washington Times entitled, “Year of Global Cooling” which provides some evidence that earth may be getting colder on a global basis. As usual, I invite comment. But, the author clearly has his own belief in the soundness of global warming theory. The final sentance of the article is:

“Global warming has long since passed from scientific hypothesis to the realm of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.”
 

Here is a critical, but well documented and footnoted article which looks into the workings of the IPCC.
The Article is entitled: ” Politics Posing as Science: A Preliminary Assessment
of the IPCC’s Latest Climate Change Report “.
The article includes this sentence, “The people of the world should not let themselves be steamrolled by a report that reflects the IPCC’s interest in promoting climate change fears, rather than in conveying the weight of the scientific evidence.”
It’s an interesting read and I invite comments.

I also read another interesting article in the Christian Science Monitor entitled, ” Let Policy follow Science: Tie a Carbon Tax to Actual Warming. ” The article is Linked here. The article makes a case for “dynamic” global warming strategy, which allows change in policies based upon new scientific observations in the future. Many scientists believe that sunspot activity, or the lack thereof, has more impact on global temperature, than carbon emissions. Better evidence of the effect of sunspots will be known by 2010, when the model projects the beginning of global cooling.

Here is a good article from the Wall Street Journal today. The article discusses the “cascade effect” of global warming “consensus”.  The study of “cascade effect” was also the subject of a Nobel Prize in 2002 to Daniel Kahneman.  “Availability cascade” has been coined for the way a proposition can become irresistible simply by the media repeating it; “informational cascade” for the tendency to replace our beliefs with the crowd’s beliefs; and “reputational cascade” for the rational incentive to do so.

It’s an interesting article and I invite comments.

John Coleman is the founder of the weather channel. He has studied climate and weather for many years. Recently, he called the global warming movement a “scam” on his blog. His article is Linked Here from ICECAP. Will anyone listen to John Coleman ?

I just discovered the ICECAP website. It looks informative and I encourage people to visit the site.

I also came across this very interesting lecture from Bob Carter, an Australian research professor. You can listen to his fascinating lecture (37 minutes in length), presented in Sept, 2007, in 4 parts at these Links.

Link 1 Link 2 Link 3 Link 4

Here is a related article by Professor Carter entitled: ” The Myth of Dangerous Human-Caused Climate Change”.

Arctic ice is melting today. There is no doubt about it. Many people are alarmed that ships might actually be able to travel through arctic waters in 20-30 years, or sooner. The Washington Post has written about melting glaciers and the disappearance of Arctic sea ice before. Here is a copy of the article. The only thing is: the article was written in 1922 ! One thing the Post did not do was blame the warmer temperatures observed in 1922 on CO2 concentrations.
The 1922 article puts some perspective on what is occurring in the Arctic today. Only 50 years after the Post article, it was global cooling, and the possibility of excess Arctic ice that many people were concerned about.

Radio Commentator Dennis Prager visited with William Gray, a pioneer in the area of forecasting hurricanes, and Professor Emeritus in Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University.

The Link to the radio interview is Linked Here. The interview can be heard during the first 15 minutes of the 34 minute segment.

Dr. Gray is a knowledgeable skeptic on the topic of Global Warming. (by the way, he hasn’t taken research money from petroleum interests). He believes that the panic over global warming is greatly exaggerated. Dr. Gray also explains the peer pressure confronting many scientists today not to depart from the politically driven orthodoxy on the issue of global warming. Peer reviews are harder to come by from scientists who depend upon government grants for their research.

The Wall Street Journal has an interesting Article describing a different approach to the issue of Global Warming. Linked Here.
It’s called “Climate Geo-Engineering”. This approach suggests that we could add particles to earth’s upper atmosphere and reflect 1-2% of the Sun’s rays back into space. We know that the approach would work. Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted in 1991 and cooled most of the Earth for a few years, erasing for a short time roughly half of the global warming that took place during the entire 20th century.

In 1992, a report by the National Academy of Sciences found the prospect of stratospheric albedo enhancement “feasible, economical, and capable.” And there are a great many geo-engineering options apart from adding sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere.

This approach doesn’t depend upon “winning” the political argument about the question  of whether man is the cause of global warming. Even scientists who believe the earth is warming due to natural causes, would welcome further research of climate geo-engineering models.

Marilynn and I attended the Joseph Lee Heywood Distinguished Service Award dinner tonight at the Northfield American Legion Hall. It’s the “Kick-off” event for the annual Defeat of Jesse James Days Celebration in Northfield.

The Banquet honored Chip DeMann for him many years of service to the DDJJ Days committee and for his great work as an ambassador for Northfield, Dundas, and Rice county. Chip has been very involved in organizing the Defeat of Jesse James Days celebration and all of the local Historical societies, especially the Northfield Historical Society. Nobody knows the local history of Jesse Jame’s raid on the First National Bank of Northfield better than Chip.

Congratulations to Chip DeMann and his family. Well Done!

Of course, I also got to take a picture with the newly crowned DDJD Queen and her Princesses.

I received an email from Senate staff regarding the results of the “non-scientific” State Fair Poll regarding the proposed constitutional amendment that will likely be on the ballot next year.

The Senate booth polled mostly metro citizens (nearly 80% of respondents). The question was the same as proposed for the ballot next year. 55% of respondents favored a 3/8th cent increase in the sales tax dedicated to environment and arts funding.

In contrast, the House of Representatives Booth had 50% more respondents and the question was simple to understand. Only 42% favored the Amendment in the House poll. If this result is accurate, then the Constitutional amendment will fail by a large margin.
It is my belief that the inclusion of dedicated arts funding will lose votes for the Constitutional amendment statewide. People favor dedicated funding for preserving wetlands, wild life habitat, clean water and other environmental activities. This is because there is a common understanding that the State has a fiduciary duty to preserve its natural resources. The same cannot be said for arts funding.

Here is the email from Senate Staff, describing the State Fair Polls.

 
Dedicated funding: Both the Senate and House booths at the State Fair asked the public what they thought about dedicated funding for the arts and environment.

*****The results are telling…

*****The House had 6,619 respondents and the Senate had 4,452, even though the booths were adjacent to each other in the same building. The Senate questions are much longer in their poll than the House questions. The Senate question is word for word on how the question would be on the ballot on November of 2007 (Conference Committee bill language on SF 6, HF 2285).

*****A total of 79.94 percent of the respondents to the Senate poll stated that they were either from Mpls/St. Paul or the metropolitan suburbs.

Senate Question posed at the state fair on dedicated funding: Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to dedicate funding to protect our drinking water sources; to protect, enhance, and restore our wetlands, prairies, forests, and fish, game, and wildlife habitat; to preserve our arts and cultural heritage; to support our parks and trails; and to protect, enhance, and restore our lakes, rivers, streams, and groundwater by increasing the sales and use tax rate beginning July 1, 2009 by three-eighths of one percent on taxable sales until the year 2034?

A. Yes. 55.08% (2452)
B. No. 36.10% (1607)
C. Undecided/No opinion. 8.83% (393)

House Question posed at the state fair on dedicated funding: Do you support a proposal to amend the state constitution to raise the state’s sales tax by three-eighths of 1 percent and dedicate the money to environment and arts funding?

Yes 41.7% (2,762)
No 48.7% (3,223)
Undecided/No Opinion 9.6% (634)

Special thanks to Dan Mueller, Senate Fiscal Analyst.

I received this letter (see below) from a constituent. I thought the letter raised some good questions concerning the number of truly uninsured people in our country.

The Health Care issue is important to me. I have introduced my own version of Redesigning Minnesota’s health care system, and presented this proposal to the Health Care Task Force this summer. Linked Here. The Wall Street Journal recently wrote about the inequities in the health care delivery system. This article supports the rational behind my bill.
Even people who have health insurance today are concerned about skyrocketing costs of maintaining their coverage. As “baby-boomers” approach the age to qualify for Medicare, there is a sense of insecurity as to whether the health care delivery system in our country can be sustained.

Legislators and others will be reshaping our health care system in the next few years. Minnesota will be considering a Constitutional Amendment next year which would create a Right to health care. However, it’s important that we base our decisions on accurate information and data. The 2007 Census Report may not be the best data to rely upon.

Here is the letter from my constituent. I invite your comments.

A letter writer to the Star Tribune is quick to quip, the latest
government figures are out: 47 million Americans without health
insurance, nearly one-sixth of the country.

The writer was referring to the August 28, 2007 Census Report which
reported 47.0 million were uninsured in America.

Ever since the U.S. Census Bureau released its August 26, 2004 report on
the nation’s uninsured population, politicians have used the data to make
health insurance policy decisions, and single-payer activists have used
the data to lobby for government-mandated or administered national health insurance.

By the Bureau’s own admission, however, the data they reported
was incorrect: The number of uninsured was greatly overstated.

So while, Census Bureau officials have acknowledged the uninsured number
is inflated because the Bureau reports as “uninsured” those adults and
children who are eligible for Medicaid and the State Children’s Health
Insurance Program (SCHIP) but are not enrolled. Individuals such as the
letter writer use this once again inaccurate data to get a gut reaction.

A lot of times, being uninsured in Minnesota or America is often a
matter of choice. Most uninsured people either can afford health insurance or
qualify for government-sponsored health care programs; they just choose
not to enroll.

According to the 2006 Census report there are 8.5 million uninsured
people who make between $50,000 and $74,999 per year and 9.3 million who make
more than $75,000 a year. That’s roughly 17.8 million people who ought
to be able to afford health insurance because they make substantially
more than the median household income of $46,326. Another 10 million people
were reported who did not work at all.

A closer look reveals the Census data included more than 10.231 million
people who are not citizens.

Thus when you subtract non-citizens and those who can afford their own
insurance (28 million) but choose not to purchase it, about 19 million
people are left less than 7 percent of the population. But there are
reasons to believe that number is incorrect as well.

While the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) reported
Medicaid enrollment at 51 million in 2002, the Census tabulated only 33
million, a difference of 18 million people. This same kind of undercount
happened again in 2003: The CMS reported 2 million people became
eligible for Medicaid, but the Census Bureau recorded only a 350,000 increase in
Medicaid enrollment.

This is no minor statistical snag, as the Census Bureau reports there
are more than 15 million “uninsured” individuals in households with less
than $25,000 of income. Many of these individuals meet the income test for
Medicaid or SCHIP eligibility, but they are not technically enrolled. However, as soon
as a person, who is eligible for Medicaid, but not enrolled, enters the health care system through a hospital or clinic, he or she is automatically enrolled into the Medicaid plan.

Therefore, counting this population as “uninsured” distorts the data significantly,
since these individuals can enroll at any time and have their medical expenses paid whenever they require health care.

The social policy implications of this over count are important because
the inflated numbers send the wrong message to politicians. Given that
no one who is eligible for Medicaid can be correctly described as
uninsured, spending millions of dollars to enroll these people would do no one any
good at all. These folks are not uninsured.

Data from three federally sponsored national surveys–the Survey of
Income and Program Participation (SIPP), the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey
(MEPS), and the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS)–also seek to
make an accurate count of the nation’s uninsured population.

All three surveys conclude that at any given time during a year, being
uninsured is a much smaller problem than we are led to believe by the
Census data alone. For example, only about 30 percent of the non-elderly
population who become uninsured in a given year remain uninsured for
more than 12 months. Nearly 50 percent regain health insurance within four
months.

Writing in response to the 2004 Census data report, Dr. Kirk A. Johnson,
senior policy analyst for the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage
Foundation, highlighted the problem of taking the statistics at face
value. The Bureau’s numbers may make for eye-popping headlines, he
noted, but, “When it comes to health insurance, the Census Bureau’s own
statisticians argue that SIPP [Survey of Income and Program
Participation] provides a better measure of health insurance coverage than CPS
[CurrentPopulation Survey]. In a recent research report on the differences
between CPS and SIPP in this regard, Census Bureau statistician Shailesh
Bhandari changes from month to month, SIPP may be closer to the truth.

“In short,” wrote Johnson, “the CPS data provide an incomplete picture
on poverty and health insurance in America. Policymakers would be well
advised to look to other data, such as SIPP, to gauge what actually
happens to people who fall into poverty or lose their health insurance.
Only then will public policy be fully informed, and America can truly
have an intelligent debate on how to better address these problems.”

The fact is that the Census has repeatedly over the years underreported the number of people covered by health insurance meaning that more people have insurance than the report suggests. The Census also underreported the number of people covered by Medicare and Medicaid.

The Census Bureau’s own admission that the CPS “is not designed
primarily to collect health insurance data” speaks directly to the issue that the
methodology used to collect this important information is not up to the
task.

Moore, Clinton and Obama have used the lie about 40-some million
uninsured Americans to promote universal health insurance plans. Moore asserted in
his film that providing health insurance to everyone is a moral and even
religious obligation.

The issue of uninsured American is simply too important for its public
face to come from an indifferent and inaccurate survey and be swallowed
whole by politicians who don’t take the time to stop and evaluate
implications of their policy decisions that are driven by rhetoric and
incomplete facts and not by sound policy based on a factual review and
analysis.