Posting opinions, letters and correspondence from far and wide. Even some to/from my elected representatives.

Friday, June 29, 2012

Obamacare Upheld Because of Failing SCOTUS Popularity?

So the latest cuckoo idea is that Chief Justice Roberts ruled the way he did in order to improve the SCOTUS popularity (according to recent polls it has been losing fans). I guess it does not occur to the people propounding this wacky idea that if a Supreme Court Justice was to rule to try to improve its image that it would only damage its image further? The public may not like the way the court rules, but the Supreme Court is not an elected body and thus, shouldn't give one whit about its popularity. And the public certainly shouldn't think it a good thing that a ruling was made that wasn't entirely made according to Constitutional law. Mind you, I don't think it plausible that Roberts was ruling to improve the image of the SCOTUS. At this point, I don't understand why he didn't rule against Obamacare. I guess I need to read the entire ruling and opinions and I will perhaps expand on this after having done that.

But before I go read, let me offer up my initial reaction: the Supreme Court just proved that all three branches of the United States Federal Government are political through and through and have long ago forgotten that they were intended to be restricted and small. The challenge then is to remain libertarian in a world surrounded by socialist people and organizations. The Federal Gov. the States, local Gov. Unions, the system, the bureaucracy, leviathan, call it what you will, is in your face no matter where you turn, no matter where you see, hear or feel. The beast wants to grind us all down, turn us against each other, succumb to the parasitic blood sucking construct that will ultimately put us all in the grave poorer and much more unhappy than we ever would have been if most of what we do had been allowed to happen through our own devices, voluntarily and freely hard working together as independent spirits.

Friday, May 18, 2012

One Reason this Layman Doubts some Climate Sciencists Work

For background on this post read Steve McIntyre's post here

 I was thinking of posting this on Steve's blog but it's too long and probably too self indulgent and off topic. But for what it's worth, I post it here.

Here's why this layman (me) suspects the work of some climate scientists such as Schmidt. Many years ago while working as a biomedical technician in a neonatal intensive care unit, the Professor of the unit asked me to test the performance of syringe infusion pumps in delivering a continuously smooth dose of cardioactive drugs to premature babies. Cardioactive drugs are used to control patient heart rate and blood pressure. We set up an experiment using a digital measuring scale with a computer attached. I then tested flow rates over time with a selection of different manufacturers pumps (eg: and a selection of different syringes (eg: The Professor's theory was that "stiction" (a combination of the stickiness and friction of the plunger inside the barrel of syringes) accompanied by the physical properties of the pump mechanisms themselves was combining to cause very uneven flow rates. Thus the drug delivery was not smooth and continuous but varied and potentially could be delivering a "bolus" - that is, large drug "hits" were being delivered followed by periods of low does and then another large "hit" and so on.

Since the drug being delivered is cardioactive, the result was suspected to be wild swings in the blood pressure and heart rates of these tiny infants. This placed them at risk of brain haemorrhage due to their young and weak blood vessels being overwhelmed by high blood pressure. Remember, these are premature babies up to 24 weeks gestation, making them incredibly small and fragile. Thus, they are at risk of severe injury and potentially very poor outcomes. The Prof. provided evidence of this occurring in the form of HR and BP graphs over time that showed very cyclic and wide ranging behavior for his neonatal patients. My job was to correlate the pumps and syringes with the HR and BP.

When I showed the results of my lab testing to the Prof he was impressed. However, he also impressed upon me the importance of the difference between showing a physical behavior versus correlation to a clinical outcome. It took us a further two years of work before the Prof. was able to publish anything at all. All data, good and bad, was made publicly available. And protocols within our State hospitals took many additional years before they were changed.

I have not worked in an academic unit since those many years ago, but the lessons learned give this one layman reason to question the work of people like Schmidt et al. Because it appears that lessons I learned through that arduous research and publication process seem to have been partially, if not sometimes, entirely lost on these climatologists. For the extremely important scientific pursuits, scientists must publish all results including raw data. Analysis must include all data collected. Excluding data must be explained in detail and often in the published work itself. Anything less than this level of dedication to explanation makes published and reviewed works suspect and open to ongoing and relentless questioning. In medicine, protocols cannot be changed until the data, methods, conclusions and *exceptions* are thoroughly and entirely scrutinized and satisfactorily accounted for. Anyone who fails to cooperate under ongoing and relentless questioning is considered suspect and publishing generally just won't and doesn't happen. The same Prof. fired one researcher who repeatedly attempted to avoid scrutiny of his work. At the time, I thought that the Prof. was heavy handed. Once I had gone through my own research process with him, I understood his actions. Steve McIntyre and others ongoing questioning and criticisms should be answered by scientists like Schmidt et al until he/they are blue in the face. Keep at it Steve!

Friday, December 04, 2009

Charles Johnson - Wake Up!


You were instrumental in RatherGate. I joined your community as a direct result and I have for years watched your rational approach to life and philosophy unfold. In RatherGate, you took a fabricated story and demolished it with a simple idea that you tested and produced results to prove that is was fake (to wit, you applied scientific method). You had the benefit of the tools needed (scanner) and software (MS word) and the resources (time and a sharp intelligence) to bring together your brilliant result.

Now, various AGW skeptics have been hammering away for years, trying to get at the original data that temperature records have been based upon. They have been blocked for years! Finally, they get the break they need (the ClimateGate files) and they now adequately demonstrate, through carefully applied rational thinking and analysis (the same as yours), that one of the the global temperature records (of which there are only a surprising few) was based on biased, fradulent and obstructionist staff who had a predetermined outcome in mind and they produced that predetermined and false result. They faked lower temperatures in the 1940's and they faked higher temperatures in the 1990's and they hid the lower temperatures in the 2000's.

Does that sound to you like a repeat of RatherGate? I hope so. Because to be quite frank, I am shocked that in your pursuit of criticism of the Right (something that I happen to agree with you about), you unfortunately have been unable to take a rational and informed look at the ClimateGate data, method and results. It just goes to show that literally ANYONE, even those who are hellenistic rationalists such as yourself, can engage in unconscious self delusion. I urge you to look at the actual emails, the actual data, the actual careful skeptical analysis that has been done by brilliant people and understand these basic points.

The temperature record is now revised both down and up! The released ClimateGate graphs now show the period of the 1940's as being much warmer than they were shown to be previously. And, the temperatures of the 1990's have been shown to be much less that those previously reported. The higher 1940's data was fudged out of the released IPCC reports and Tom Wigleys' and other published papers. The lower temperatures of the 1990's and 2000's were also fudged up.

Up until now, many, many studies have been trying to show that natural causes cannot account for these latest decade increases. Study after study makes the claim that "XX% or thereabouts of warming can be attributed to normal natural processes so the other yy% of warming must be caused by human activity". However, with the temperature record now readjusted to be as it actually was and is, these previous studies are made irrelevant and their conclusions are either partially or completely wrong.

As one rational thinker to another, I urge you to carefully investigate this matter for yourself because I would hate to see you discredit yourself as you continue to condemn the scientific evidence that is now on public display for all to see. Man may still cause some global warming but you owe it to yourself to find out how little that might actually be.

Yours absolutely sincerely,


Wednesday, December 02, 2009

Dear Congressman Himes,
You may recall (or not) that I had written to you July 17th regarding problems of integrity with the EPA and the highly politicized nature of the way in which global warming or so-called “climate change” studies, reports and information are being handled by that US federal agency. I did not hear from you regarding that particular issue but as I mentioned in that letter, it is quite possible that you may find yourself very soon to be on the wrong side of history and on the wrong side of the science as the human caused global warming (AGW) scientific community is now quickly becoming exposed as a fraud of epic proportion.

By now you must be aware of the release of thousands of e-mails and documents from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University by what is probably a conscience-stricken insider. The e-mails are to and from some of the leading researchers in the field and key players in the IPCC. The emails and documents clearly demonstrate attempts to manipulate scientific data, control the scientific review process, subvert FOI officers, destroy materials that should have been preserved under FOI regulations to avoid release, and the use of misleading and deceptive information to influence both the public at large and policy makers such as yourself.
It is imperative that you get out in front of this issue and take the lead in calling for a congressional inquiry. So far, there has been muted reaction from the press, but you can find interesting articles here:
Andrew Revkin, New York Times
Keith Johnson, Wall Street Journal
The British Blogger Bishop Hill has an easy-to-read summary of major issues here:
The Blogger Anthony Watts describes the on-going events here:
Jeff Id, whose The Air Vent blog was the site where the whistle-blower first announced the release of the files on a server in Russia, has a number of posts.
It is worth noting that Jeff was away on a hunting trip at the time and got back to find a bomb shell sitting on his blog. He removed it, but it had already been discovered by a number of readers.
The actual e-mails and documents can be found here, among other places:
I am fully conversant with scientific method and statistical analysis, so I have personally reviewed and examined a large amount of this leaked material myself and I am shocked and disturbed by what I have read and determined. The reality is that the “science” is far from settled and this leaked information confirms that there is no consensus. In fact, it appears from my own analysis of this data, and those of many others whose papers have been suppressed over the years, that our climate remains completely normal and has not been affected by CO2 emissions at all. That is of course a debatable point but it certainly can no longer be claimed be crazy skepticism. What is clear from this released information is that these “scientists” have been pushing their own created falsehood upon us and have used their elite position of trust and implied integrity as a means to pretend that they are unbiased in service to mankind when the truth is that these researchers are as prone to human frailty as the average layman and have deceived and obfuscated and colluded to do so.
Whatever their reasoning for having done so, this issue needs to be thoroughly aired in a Congressional Investigation before our nation damages its economy, security and liberty any further.

Yours sincerely,


Acknowledgment: most of this letter was based upon a letter that "Air Vent" pitched to his Congressman found here:

Tuesday, December 01, 2009

ClimateGate causing Global Warming Alarmist Meltdown

It's December 1st and the fall out from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) hack continues. At this point in time, we should hear something soon about how the data was hacked. Meanwhile, it has been interesting watching both sides hammer out the issues since the 160 mega bytes of data became public. On one side, the general consensus is that these "scientists" that contribute reports and studies to the IPCC are a contemptible bunch of crooks while on the other side, the general consensus seems to be that we should all move along, there's nothing to see here and also, all global warming skeptics are scum and shouldn't be hassling these preeminent pious scholars.

Well, but perhaps the ramifications of all this won't be seen in any immediate rush of public announcements from new found skeptical politicians. What seems more likely is that the politics of global warming alarmist's will shift the politicking in subtle ways.

Friday, July 17, 2009

Letter to Congressman Himes - Gun Control Bill H.R. 45

Dear Congressman Himes,

I DO NOT SUPPORT H.R.45, the Firearm Licensing bill (2009). And to be quite frank I am already tired of seeing me and my fellow citizens rights being truncated and interfered with by an overbearing, out of control Federal Government which you sir are part of.

You should vote NO on this bill. However, the problem with you and your office at this point is that you are not making your views made public on virtually any bill that comes before either the Senate or the House. I have called your office just prior to votes being held on numerous different bills and in EVERY case, your office would not make your voting intentions known. So what is your position on this bill?

Frankly, if you cannot make your positions known and you then vote “yea” on this bill or any bill of this type, I will be ever more motivated to ensure that you are out of office at the next election.

There are currently over 20,000 existing gun laws on the books and most of them do nothing to stop or curtail criminals. Reducing restrictions to lawful gun ownership, however, have proven to do just that. Statistics are clear. Wherever lawful gun ownership flourishes, crime rates, by whatever measure, are reduced. In states with lawful handgun carry laws, crime rates are lower. This includes Connecticut. The rate of crimes committed by lawful owners of firearms is a very small percentage of the overall rate of crimes committed with firearms and those numbers are undeniable. The federally required NICS is an excellent tool in determining the eligibility of an individual to legally purchase a handgun or rifle. In the city of Kennesaw, Ga., just outside of Atlanta, it is required by law that every home have a gun. After that law was passed in 1982, the crime rate immediately dropped by 89% and has remained among the lowest in the state ever since. Instance after instance shows that high legal gun ownership relates to lower crime, and places that make it hard to own guns or ban them altogether relates to a higher crime rate. Look at many of the larger, supposedly progressive cities and states in our northeastern U.S. Many have some of the highest rates of gun crime there simply because the criminals know there is little chance of being confronted by a law abiding gun owner.

Stop criminalizing the lawful and law abiding gun owners. The studies by Department of Justice themselves show that such weapons are used in a statistically insignificant portion of crime. And when they are used, their use would not have been prevented by the legislation.

History and statistics both prove that such bills are destructive to the citizenry. If this bill's purpose is to truly "protect the public against the unreasonable risk of injury and death" then the Congress should realize that the only threats to the public are from a criminal element that this bill (unlike others that already exist and are not enforced) will not address, and from the government itself. I would like to think it would not happen here, but as the government is getting larger, and the people weaker, we should always consider history.

* In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. This doesn't include the 30 million "Uncle Joe" starved to death in the Ukraine.

* In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

* Germany established gun control in 1928. In 1938, the Nazis extended that control to ban the possession of military style weapons and to outlaw the sale of any weapons without government approval. (This sounds a lot like some of the current gun control efforts being pushed for in our country today.) From 1939 to 1945, the Gestapo & SS killed millions of people unable to defend themselves.

* China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up & exterminated.

* Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up & exterminated.

* Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up & exterminated. The total dead are said to be 2-3 million.

* Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, 1-2 million "educated" people unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

* Defenseless people rounded up & exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million at a bare minimum.

* During W.W. II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED.

Note: Admiral Yamamoto, who crafted the attack on Pearl Harbor, had attended Harvard University from 1919 to 1921 and was a Naval Attache to the U.S. from 1925-28. Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor, and our Army had been deprived of funding and was ill prepared to defend the country. It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U.S. Mainland, his reply was that he had lived in the U.S. and knew that almost all households had guns.

* Gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results: Australia-wide, homicides went up 3.2 percent; Australia-wide, assaults went up 8.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies went up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent). While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady DECREASE in armed robbery with firearms, that changed drastically upward in the first year after gun confiscation... since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed; There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults on the Elderly. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort & expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

* The exact same terrible result over gun control is occurring in Britain where crime statistics are also, year and year, showing dramatic increases in violent criminal activity.

So - With guns.... We are "citizens" - Without Them.... We are "subjects".

WE THE PEOPLE do not give our government the right to track our every movement and location, registration of our personal property, track commerce of our personal property, keep our personal identification information (or property {whether firearms or ammunition} or possessions) in a federal or state database, the federal government to run laws in our state or local municipalities, or confiscate our firearms for any reason. We are not criminals, and WE THE PEOPLE do not give the government the right to treat us as such.

I, as a more recent naturalized United States Citizen (ex Australia), have still have some faith in the honor, dignity and leadership of our elected representatives. I personally see my right to bear arms as a right that should not be infringed. Since I lived through the gun confiscation that occurred in Australia, I know exactly what gun control does to society. It provides criminals with less reason to not commit crimes. It enhances their ability to perpetrate crimes. The gun control bill H.R. 45 is yet another assault, not on crime and not on criminals, but on yours and my personal liberties and our right to personal protection and self defense. But you get Federal protection if threatened – while my family and I DO NOT.

ATTRIBUTION: A large section of this letter was derived from which was so well written that I chose to borrow heavily from it. However, I hope you would understand that this in no way diminishes the importance or truth of the points made.

So I urge you to make clear your position on this bill and to vote no which is the right and proper position to take in this matter.

I appreciate your time and thank for your reading this letter. I look forward to hearing from you regarding any of the points I have made. I trust that you will respect the right to privacy and the right to self defense and the right to personal protection. In other words, you would be doing your job, which is to represent and protect the rights of the Connecticut citizens that voted you into your position.

Yours sincerely,

Michael A Hawkins
June Letter to Jim Himes - Global Warming is Caused by the Sun and EPA Suppressing Reports.

Good morning <>,

I hope you would forward on to Jim my concerns (and opposition) to the upcoming "cap and trade" bill.

First of all, there is a strong chance of political chicanery going on at the EPA. EPA has suppressed opinions and is therefore compromised as a source of reliable (ie: apolitical) recommendations. I urge Jim to look into the EPA situation.

I have attached a copy of the preface of a report that was suppressed by EPA. This report will be released/leaked to the public soon and when it does, a controversy will occur. Jim may find himself on the wrong side of the global warming argument if he does not carefully considered the ramifications of the EPA suppressing science.

Second, please pass on to Jim the URL's that I provide below. They provide the most compelling science to suggest that global warming is not caused by humans (not that we do not impact the environment, I am big environmentalist and I support environmental causes). Cap and Trade programs are mechanisms to allow special interests to make a buck at others expense. Furthermore, there is nothing we can do to change the environment when it comes to CO2 emissions. And in fact, there are very good reasons to believe that a warmer climate is GOOD for the planet. A colder Earth is dangerous in that it cannot support life in as much abundance as a warmer one. However, as we examine the current Solar sunspot cycle, the evidence now suggests that we are now at the end of a warming period and the earth is cooling down. The warming of other planets directly correlates with the warming of earth and this demonstrates that global warming is driven by Solar cycles and is not caused by human activity at all.

So I urge Jim to carefully examine all of the scientific evidence instead of relying on highly politicized propaganda from EPA and other compromised sources.
An active sun photo -
Today's sun photo -
A quick synopsis of the flawed science of human caused global warming -

I appreciate you passing this on to Jim. I also would like to sit down with Jim to get a strong idea of his position in this matter as well as potentially spend a few moments providing Jim with a briefing on the science of global warming with respect to the Sun. I am no scientist but I am an engineer with a keen interest in global warming science.

Yours sincerely,

Mike Hawkins

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Dear Congressman Himes,

Thank you for the time your afforded me February 17th at your Stamford office. I very much appreciate the opportunity to have spoken with you in person. On the basis of recent events and with our February conversation in mind, I thought you might find my opinion of some interest (and at the least amusing).

I shall be following your attempts to question the CEO of AIG. I noticed that you have been somewhat more restrained in your hyperbole (as I read in the Greenwich Time) than some other of your fellow Democrat party members. For example, I am absolutely disgusted and horrified by the comments of Senator Chris Dodd. You already know that I expect Mr Dodd to be held accountable for his shady dealings with Countrywide. But it is particularly abhorrent to see Mr Dodd grandstanding in this most egregious manner when Mr Dodd himself should also be grilled for his part played in the entire OPHEO Fannie Mae/Freddy Mac debacle (where is the outrage about that?). On top of that, I read that Senator Grassley is quoted as saying, and I paraphrase, "AIG exec's should resign or commit suicide". That is one of the most disgraceful and shameful comments that I have heard from a Senator for some time (Mr Murtha comes close but that is old news) and so I ask you Jim. What you will be doing to ask Senator Grassley to recant and apologize for such a despicable comment? Regardless of the hot air coming from and apparently permitted in Washington, such statements are not befitting of an elected representative.

I do particular recall that in my conversation with you, you had attempted to politely deflect one of my questions where you suggested that I was conflating politics and economics. But now I would like to make a specific point regarding the current Washington outrage at AIG's executives being paid bonuses.

Jim, with respect to the idea of mixing politics with economics - can you now see how dangerous it is for the Federal Government to be involved in the administration (indirect or not) of private companies? First of all, the current Administration and Democrat party are making the Federal Government into a political institution and most of what is happening to the companies that have accepted or been essentially forced to take bail out money is not based on free market economic principles but is the result of political grandstanding in front of a fawning mass media. The more the Federal Government pontificates about the just or unjust payment of bonuses, the more the Government is making economic decisions based on political aggrandizement. From the get go, I have been opposed to ALL bail out of private institutions beginning with Bear Stearns. If a bank is too big to fail then it should fail so that it is no longer too big! And the same standard should apply to all private companies in the United States. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be shut down and all private lending should return to the purview or private Banks. Now I understand the reality of the situation that we find ourselves in. The bail outs have been signed and now the Government is making it up as they go. The danger in this is that the more the Federal Government attempts to control the "bonuses" (which are in fact "compensation") the more likely the Government will end up owning AND controlling these private institutions. At which point, they will no longer be able to be considered private. The result is socialism! Hugo Chavez is only five to ten years ahead of the current path of this new Administration.

Perhaps now you can concede that the separation of politics and economics is rapidly deteriorating. It is up to you Jim to ensure that you as a leader of this district pursue the free market principles that this great Nation was founded upon. While I would have been able to agree that politics and economics are separate. The fact is that you belong to the political party that is undermining the very principle (and argument) that you had attempted to make with me.

What will you be doing to rein in the rhetoric, bring order to this process and the limit interference with private institutions?

As you well know, my wife would have something to say along the lines of...

Don't hold your breath!”

I, as a more recent naturalized Citizen, have more faith in the honor, dignity and leadership of our elected representatives.

I appreciate your time and thank for your reading this letter. I look forward to hearing from you regarding any of the points I have made. I wish you well in the hearings today and trust that you will respect the private institutions that are the true engines of the largest economy in the world.

Yours sincerely,

Michael A Hawkins