The Real State Of The Climate Report

  1. Global sea ice area is near a record high for the date
  2. Antarctic sea ice area is at a record high for the date
  3. No global warming for almost two decades
  4. Last two years were the quietest on record for US tornadoes
  5. Last year was a near record low season for Atlantic hurricanes
  6. Nine years without a major US hurricane (category 3-5) strike – longest on record.
  7. Obama’s presidency has had the fewest hurricanes of any presidency
  8. US cooling since 1940
  9. Coldest year on record so far in the US
  10. Record springtime ice on the Great Lakes
  11. Northern Hemisphere winter snow cover since 2004, was the highest decade on record
  12. US winter temperatures have been plummeting since 2000

The White House failed to mention any of these things.


About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

95 Responses to The Real State Of The Climate Report

  1. SDB says:


    I recently made the argument, using your graph of UIUC cry data, that total global sea ice is not decreasing over the last 30+ years. I was told that measurement is basically meaningless because if antarctic land ice is decreasing (apparently breaking off from warmer waters??)… that total southern ice (sea and land) is decreasing. What would you say to that? I think it’d be useful if you also posted trends in land ice. thanks.

    • Excess sea ice around Antarctica (by definition) forms at the periphery, hundreds of miles away from shore. It is forming because the water and air are cold.

      Do they actually believe that the colder interior is melting, while the warmer periphery is freezing? Their argument is ludicrous.

      The area of land ice in Antarctica is fixed. It covers the entire continent, and doesn’t change.

      • SDB says:

        “The area of land ice in Antarctica is fixed” …? How can that be? How is anything fixed? The only answer that comes to mind here is that the temperature never gets above freezing so it’s physically impossible for any of it to melt.

        • _Jim says:

          Does that change the land area? (the temperature that is, does it change the land area in the Antarctic)

  2. gator69 says:

    “What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?”

  3. PaulB says:

    I’ve always been curious as to the negative impact of the lack of a “healthy hurricane” season on the Florida, in particular, and the East and Gulf Coasts have been over the last several years….The ecosystems in those areas would depend on the landfall of at least one storm per year….

    • Ken says:

      It is hard to believe how many people do not understand this. What would Fla look like without a big one landing 2 or 3 times a decade. This attitude extends to the global scale. Humankind is arrogant to think we could or even should prescribe what the climate is supposed to look like in 50 years.

    • _Jim says:

      “I’ve always been curious as to the negative impact of the lack of a “healthy hurricane” season on the Florida …”

      In part, the roofing industry (roofing contractors) suffers …

  4. Shanna M says:

    I know you’ve provided links for those statements elsewhere, but it would be handy to have links to the graphs for each statement in this post for easy reposting.

  5. lance says:


  6. Ken says:

    I am in the AGW skeptic camp. I am not a scientist but have been a science junky my whole life, and I feel I have a pretty good handle on this issue.

    I am in conversation with people of the liberal bent who are open to hearing my views, even though they are liberal. It would help me if a web site existed that did not have any references to the politics. I realize that the current state of affairs cannot be adequately described without the politics, but there are uses for pure reporting of scientific and historical research.

    I would like to plant little seeds of doubt in the minds of those who would look past politics if they could see some reasonable data-based arguments without the roar of politics to distract them. If they read anything that sounds remotely like Rush, they quit paying attention.

    In this spirit I am requesting that to the list of “The Real State of the Climate” report, you add URLs to each of the 12 items. The URLs would point to information that anybody would consider to be unbiased. If that is too much hassle, no problem. I will attempt to tackle it myself. I will probably learn something. But if it is something you can do quickly it would be great.


    • _Jim says:

      The allows the plotting of data from a number of different data sets and sites; I first took a look there for local sites to me, and didn’t find anything as fearful as the AGW crowd professes …

    • geran says:

      What you are asking is not possible. Folks of the “liberal bent” do not seek truth. When you try to present “truth”, they interpret it as either funded by “big oil”, or a “right-wing” conspiracy. Leftism only thrives on lies and ignorance.

      • Ken says:

        Well, I understand what you are saying, but in my part of the country (reddest of the red states) there are some people who are liberal-ish. Besides, what I am trying to plant in their little heads is just facts that are easy for anybody to see and understand. These are facts that the mainstream media do not bother to publicize, like the fact that all of this unprecedented extreme weather is not unprecedented. A lot of these facts are found in old newspaper clippings that predate any kind of controversy about AGW. I think I will just start going thru this web site and finding the source URL for such documents. I am pretty sure that my liberal friends would not spend much time looking at this web site because of all of the Obama bashing that goes on. Don’t get me wrong. I am not a big fan of Obama, but I am on a different mission.

  7. goodknave says:

    I think I’m going to write a blog about brain surgery. I have a brain, so I should know how to do it, right? Your inane arguments are consistently incorrect and mindlessly arrogant.
    Try to find a topic about which you know something. How about lying?

    • You are a typical progressive. Full of overflowing hatred, and not a single specific objection to anything I wrote.

    • _Jim says:

      Strike 1 …

    • Dave N says:

      “Your inane arguments are consistently incorrect and mindlessly arrogant.”

      translated (since you never actually refuted anything):

      “your points are terribly embarrassing to alarmists”

      There; fixed it.

    • sunsettommy says:

      Try posting a decent counterpoint to what Steve write instead and leave out the bile.

    • Ken says:

      Dude, can you not see that the alarmism over such things as unprecedented extreme weather and unprecedented melting of the Greenland ice sheet and the glaciers in the Himalayas is all false? No climate models involved. No inexplicable “adjustments” to temperature data. Just unabashed lies that are easy to check out. Hurricane numbers are way down. Hurricane Sandy was a pop gun. Tornado numbers are way down, especially violent tornado numbers. The floods in Colorado are not unprecedented. The California drought is a minor drought compared to some whoppers that happened before the advent of human CO2 production. Greenland ice sheet was going away back in the 1940’s, if memory serves me. The hottest decade of the last 120 years was the 1930s. These are easy facts to find. I am not saying that anybody has proven that AGW is false, but why is there so much lying going on by the AGW crowd?

      • SDB says:

        Ken, welcome to my world.

        Fellow progressive here on most issues. But on this issue, I think progressives have gone insane.

        • SDB says:

          Also, w.r.t to one of your comments above… I also can’t link progressive friends of mine to this website for information. The progressive-bashing immedialtey sets off an internal trigger in their mind that this website is full of shit. They’ll immedialtely dismiss any of the climate change information. I’m able to look past it. The way I see it, both political-Liberals and political-Conservatives are being lied to and manipulated by powerful interests. This is how the game works. It took me some time to figure out that Climate Change is the big one on the liberal side. It’s perfect. We tend to thinking collectively. What better secular religion than saving the Earth!

          With that said, political-Conservatives believe a whole bunch of hogwash in the sphere of economics, imo. It should be perfectly obvious to everyone that Capitalist economies are driven by spending. More Spending = More Sales = More Jobs. Likewise, Less Spending = Less Sales = Less Jobs. And it doesn’t matter where that spending comes from: individuals, businesses, governments, foreigners. Ask any business owner what would most likely cause them to hire more employees. The answer: more sales. Businesses need more employees when they get busier. Businesses need less employees when they get less busy. This is standard Keynesian ideas. But “Keynes” is a dirty word to political-Conservatives.

        • _Jim says:

          ” With that said, political-Conservatives believe a whole bunch of hogwash in the sphere of economics ”

          Name a couple, if you can …

          (more than likely, you can’t)

          Okay, over to you.

        • _Jim says:

          As if pushing the ‘progressive’ agenda by taking people’s money at the point of a gun is innocent, and don’t say it doesn’t happen that way!

          One thing YOU guys never learn, is, that government is NOT the end-all do-all that you want it to be. It is NOT daddy or mommy. At this point, I usually conclude that ‘progressives’ are not as mature as they make themselves to be.

          They would die in the wilderness, is left alone without the support system of specialists that ‘do’ things for them like slaughter and package meat for sale in supermarkets for instance …

        • _Jim says:

          ” But “Keynes” is a dirty word to political-Conservatives ”


          Keynes spending is WASTEFUL govt-mandated spending of ppl’s hard-earned money.

          See, you would NOT approve govt/Keynes spending on nuclear power for instance, rather, for some bull-shit project like ‘cash for clunkers’ that actually HURT the used car part market … dumb.

        • SDB says:


          Sure. So we often hear from political-Conservatives that cutting govenrment spending will somehow improve the economy. This is complete hogwash. As I said above, job creation in Capitalist economies is a function of spending, and it doesn’t matter where that spending comes from. If the government is paying Lockheed Martin hundreds of millions of dollars to make high tech military hardware, that govenrment spending is getting cutting edge work done in the private sector. Now, we can quibble over what govenrment should and shoudn’t be spending money on, but my points is here that political-Conservatives have magical thinking when it comes to cutting govenrment spending. Draining spending from the economy is no way to stimulate job creating.

          Now, you might argue that cut in spending could be offset by tax decreases. I’d admit that if the tax cuts led to more private sector spending than was lots from the government spending cuts, that would be a net-positive impact in general. But again, cutting govenrment spending for political reasons, in an of itself, is not good economics.


        • SDB says:

          Why are you attributing believes to me that I haven’t asserted? On what grounds are you basing that I would oppose Nuclear Energy? Do you see what you’re doing here? You’re making shit up.

        • tom0mason says:

          I can’t say it better –

          It’s not tyranny we desire; it’s a just, limited, federal government. — Alexander Hamilton

          Please note the use of the word ‘limited’.

        • Ken says:

          I prefer to stay away from labels, like “conservative” and “liberal”. I certainly do not label myself with such. I look at issues, look at data, and if there is enough data I start forming my own views on the issue. On this issue, my suspicions have been raised dramatically by the voices of the warmers (a very tightly defined label, which is more acceptable to me than “liberal” or “progressive”), which are much too strident. The psychology that drives such statements as “the science is settled”, the ad hominem attacks against the skeptics (calling them “flat earthers” and the like), and the ridiculous claims of unprecedented extreme weather events derives from people who are hiding from the truth, and desperately trying to hide the truth from everyone else. They want the country (and the world) to go all-in before they are discovered. These are the tactics employed by the guy who said “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.” Theirs is not the voice of reason. Einstein would not be adding his voice to theirs. So, for me, the warmers have a lot of ‘splaining to do.

      • SDB says:

        What you should have read-into my comment above that your responded to – that More Spending = More Sales = More Jobs – is that taxes should be lowered on middle and lower income Americans, the ones who do the bulk of spending in the economy. I agree! Middle and lower income Americans need more money to spend. If they had it, businesses would get busier, and when businesses get busier, they create more jobs.

      • There Is No Substitute for Victory. says:

        The reason Progressives lie about AGW, is contained in the Progressives’ own code of conduct as put forth by Karl Marx and others. “The end justifies any means that you take to achieve what ever end it is that you desire.” In other words Progressives may: steal, enslave, murder, rape, cheat, rob, embezzle, and yes even lie if in the Progressive mind it is done to achieve a Progressive political goal.

        Boy, with friends like those behind you, who needs enemies?

        • SDB says:

          There Is No Substitue for Victory,

          What you say is just a caricature of Progressives. For the most part, most Porgressives are well-meaning people who simply have a different conception of how to create a world better world for all. I believe the same is mostly true of Conservatives.

          A similar caricature could be made of Conservatives. For example, maybe something like “The means justifies any ends”, such that extreme poverty can be justfied if that’s the ‘natural’ course of events.

        • _Jim says:

          ” A similar caricature could be made of Conservatives. ”

          Progressive seem to have little to no grasp of reality; the same cannot (generally) be said of conservatives. Time and time again I see this annoying ‘projection’ of progressives onto conservatives. It is NOT a two-way street.

        • SDB says:


          You’re just making accusations. Back it up. Explain why “it’s NOT a two way street.”

          I’ll add two observations I’ve noticed and try to keep in mind about myself and about others.

          1) It’s much easier to see the flaws on those who you disagree with than it is to see the flaws in yoruself and those you agree with. We all tend to rationalize, and as a result we highlight the bad in ‘them’ and highlight the good in ‘us’, and likewise downplay the flaws in ‘us’ and downplay the good in ‘them’. From this…

          2) When it comes to ‘us’ … good qualities are attirbuted to the group. “We are good”, and bad qualities are attibuted to the individual, “He’s a bad example, he doesn’t represent us”

          Conversely, when it comes to ‘them’…. good qualities are attributed to the individual, “He is a rare exception; he doesn’t represent the group”, and bad qualities are attributed to the group “They are bad”.

          So, from your perspective, Progressive are ‘them’…and Conservatives are ‘us’
          Progressives as a group are bad, but there a few rare exceptions that are good.
          Conservatives as a group are good, but there are a few rare exceptions that are bad.
          Fro mthe perspective of a typical Progressive, just flip everything around.

          Do you see how your (our) psychology works? It’s plain is day in the way you write about Progressives. The question is: can you see it in yourself? It’s so much easier to see in ‘them’, so much harder to see in ‘us’.

        • _Jim says:

          SDB says May 9, 2014 at 5:25 pm
          You’re just making accusations. Back it up.

          Witness the present administration; QED.


        • SDB says:

          Brilliant analysis, Jim. So thoughtful.

        • gator69 says:

          SDB, there are Progressives on both sides of the aisle. I have no problem with true conservatives or true Liberals, as they both believe in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Progressives, however, do not believe in individual rights and have a hive mentality that causes universal suffering.

          “”Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
          – CS Lewis

        • gator69 says:

          And of course we have one of the early Progressive darlings, who gives their hand away.

        • _Jim says:

          This post by steveg is also applicable (but our stupid damned liberals will never see it unless their noses are rubbed in it!)

          Progressives Are Only Looking Out For Your Own Good

          BORG: Why do you resist us?
          CRUSHER: Because we don’t want to live the way you do.
          BORG: Here it is quiet. There are no other voices.

          And to which I responded:

          Progressives, maybe this explains it, sung by Ol’ Blue Eyes

          Frank Sinatra – The Impossible dream

          .. and if that doesn’t make you tear up, you just ain’t human …



        • SDB says:


          Can you make a logical and convincing argument using your own knowledge and mind? I don’t have time for yout to link me to readings that you think give a correct interpretation of history. How would you like it if I linked you to readings that give an alternative perspective? Either make the case in your own words, or take a look in the mirror.

        • _Jim says:

          Can you make a logical and convincing argument using …

          For you, for free? No. And I don’t have the time to waste like you seem to have. I’m endeavoring in the hard sciences, where results count, not debating points. You’re so thick with liberalism at your core yet that it will be another decade before you begin to smell the coffee … (IOW, I don’t have time to babysit you or act as your personal guide)

          Do you want some ‘references’ to resources where you can begin to straighten out your thinking – or no?


        • SDB says:


          “Progressives, however, do not believe in individual rights and have a hive mentality that causes universal suffering.”

          You’re just making that up. It’s a caricature.

          “Individual rights” is a conception. It’s a legal creation. How we go about defining that is up to us, and it’s up for debate. If there is such a thing as “natural rights”… it’s simply the law of the jungle: ‘the strong do what they will, and the weak suffer what they must.’ That’s the animal kingdom. Kill or be killed.

          Humans, being the thoughtful animals that we are, have consutrcted way to get out of the jungle so to speak. Progressives in general just have a much more collective perspective when it comes to “rights”.

          To take a specific example. Having a 40-hour work-week is a Progressive agenda. That was born out of a struggle where employers forced employees to work long hard days in indsutry. Workers pushed back. They demanded better treatment, less working hours, better working conditions. Employers didn’t hand it over freely and willingly.Take a look at the third-world today. Our corporations treat humans over there how they would treat us here, if it wasn’t for our strong Progressive history of labor struggles.

          You reap these benefits today. Imo, Conservatives largely just take this all for granted.

          Apparently according to Conservatives, employers should be able to force you to work however long they choose. Why? Because you “voluntarily” contracted with that employer to sell your labor. The thing is, what Conservatives fail to realize, is that power is not equal. The property owners have a leg up on the situation. Because they own property, they can afford to live without selling their labor. The laborer is “free to choose” you say, but his very survial depends on the wage. So the laborer is at a serious disadvantage in negotiations. Exploitation results. Look at history, and look at the third world today where our corporations go.


        • _Jim says:

          I can see SDB is one of the proverbial ‘educated idiots’ our schools churn out by the dozen … this is going to turn into one of those ‘pig wrestling’ contests which could continue forever, with the ‘pig’ eternally disregarding established fact after fact. It’s not worth one’s while to continue wrestling the pig, but, it’s instructive to recognize and point out to others when ‘the pig’ is discovered.


        • annieoakley says:

          Sounds so similar to Islam. One may do anything at all to advance the Caliphate.

        • SDB says:

          Jim, the way you discuss economic issues reminds me of how many Progressives discuss Climate Change -> personal attacks on those who disagree, unwilling to discuss the issue and the details, so convinced you’re right that you’re unwilling to consider you may be wrong, or at least that those who disagree with you might have something valauble to add to the discussion. It’s sad.

        • _Jim says:

          ” It’s sad. ”

          Boohoo. I’m never going to be the epitome of virtue you ‘claim’ you are in search of any way. NOTHING LOST. You were spotted as being disingenuous and draped in sophistry from the very start … so NOTHING LOST.

          For all others I recommend: “Up from Liberalism” by Buckley as one place to start.

          For SDB the very gates of Hades await; Dante I think reserved the eighth level for the disingenuous, the practitioners of fraud and/or treachery …

        • SDB says:

          lol. ok Jim, the righteous bearer of truth!

        • _Jim says:

          I will quite surprised if SDB does not stand diametrically opposed to this quote:

          I will not cede more power to the state.

          I will not willingly cede more power to anyone, not to the state, not to General Motors, not to the CIO.

          I will hoard my power like a miser, resisting every effort to drain it away from me.

          I will then use my power, as I see fit.

          I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth.

          That is a program of sorts, is it not? It is certainly program enough to keep conservatives busy, and liberals at bay. And the nation free.

          – Up from Liberalism (1959)

          If SDB agrees with even one iota of the foregoing, he/she may be human possessing a soul after all, stained through and through with liberalism though it may be …

        • gator69 says:

          God what an ignorant fuck.

          SDB said, ““Individual rights” is a conception. It’s a legal creation. How we go about defining that is up to us, and it’s up for debate. If there is such a thing as “natural rights”… it’s simply the law of the jungle: ‘the strong do what they will, and the weak suffer what they must.’ That’s the animal kingdom. Kill or be killed.”

          Another dumbass who ignores the beauty of our Bill of Rights, and nature’s freedoms.

          The word salad about 40 hour work weeks, blah, blah, blah…

          Pleas don’t vote or reproduce.

        • SDB says:


          It’s not difficult to understand that “rights” are a creation and only exist to the extent to which they are defined and enforced in a judicial system. Yes, “individual rights” is a conception. EXACTLY what are your individual rights is something that changes over time.

          Do you have the right to whip your private parts out in front of a bunch of random children?

          So a Progressive who thinks collectively would be one who would say, ‘No. You do not have the right to whip out yoru private parts in front of a bunch of random children. Your individual right to do that should be restricted.”

          Are you saying the Conservative position is: “If I want to whip out my private parts in front of children, that’s my right! You evil progressives are encroaching on my freedom!”

          Sheesh. Wake up. Society is social. You are not the center of the universe.

        • gator69 says:

          😆 And gross.

          SDB said, “Do you have the right to whip your private parts out in front of a bunch of random children?”

          WTF does this have to do with our Constitution and Bill of Rights? 😆

          This is typical leftists hand waving. We can protect individual rights, at the same time allowing SDB to fantasize about my private parts, as well as protecting children from him.

          SDB, be cattle. Give up your rights. But if you set foot on my property and try to forcefully remove my rights you will not see another sunrise.

          God what a dumbass.

        • SDB says:

          Come on Gator. I purposely used an offensive example to make a point. Is there anything about whiping your private parts out in front of a bunch of children in the Bill of Right or the Consitution? Of course not. They are foundational documents that are organic and must be interpreted by successive generations when dealing with new issues regarding “rights” as they come about.

          Should you have the right to drive on whatever side of the road you want whenever you want?
          Should you have the right to requires your wage earning employees to work overtime without pay?
          Should you have the right to dump toxic material into a public stream?
          These and many others are all sorts of issues about “individual rights” that come up in the course of time.

          It’s amazing how dense ya’ll can be.

        • gator69 says:

          So sad to witness this painful mental disorder known as leftism. Its victims are always left babbling about their private parts. They have no clue what built the roads and laws, and cannot stand to see others retain rights they abhor.

          Seek professional help, or a communist nation.

        • SDB says:


          Are ” individual rights” that difficult for you to discuss? Notice what both you and Jim have done. It’s amazing really.. When you get asked a tough question… when your beliefs get challenged… instead of responding thoughtfully, you make a personal attack and attempt to belittle me. This is exactly what so many progressives do when asked tough questions about climate change.

        • gator69 says:

          First, seek help, really.

          Second, why do you wish to discuss that in which you do not believe? Our founders spelled out our individual rights, and that they cannot be removed by evil twits like you.

        • _Jim says:

          SDB, another board idiot. I see Gail is dressing down this idiot, so I need not comment further …

        • SDB says:


          The truth is: our rights can be removed. Lool at history. The world changes. Or, go spend a few weeks alone in jungle of wild animals and tell me about your rights… They’re gone!

          What this means is “individual rights” are not something written in stone for all of forever. Only a naive child would believe such fantastic idea. Yes, we’ve got a Constitution and Bill of Right. They are foundational documents that set admirable goals. It’s a good idea to try to interpret them in ways, dealing with modern situations, that protect their original intents, but also recognizing that the world changes. Future generations continually have to deal with new issues that didn’t exist hundreds of years before them. For example, a really simple one: do you have the individual right to drive on whichever side of the road you want whenever you want? Does your individual right there trump the societal choice to make that illegal in order to create smooth and less danger traffic?

        • gator69 says:

          Yes, rights can be removed by little Adolf’s such as yourself. Come on my property and try to forcefully remove one of my rights and it will be the last thing you do.

          Your argument is that “modern” humans should be sheep. Brilliant.

          I stand for liberty, and you side with tyranny. Got it. Now go away.

        • SDB says:

          Maybe you’re the one that needs to seek help. I’m a little adolf hitler because I understand that society is more complex than me. Me. ME! lol, ok gator.

      • Brian H says:

        The demand that anyone needs to prove AGW is false is the Trenberth Twist. The Null (default) Hypothesis is that it’s all natural variation. That must be disproven before AGW or any other specific “driver” is considered to be significant. And there’s no hint of such disproof; Steve’s list is one of failures to show unnatural variance!

    • Andy DC says:

      It you would ever take the time and review the data presented on this site, you might actually learn something, though I realize it is far easier to pop off and parrott propaganda than to actually look into something.

    • gator69 says:

      There is a good reason why mature people do not listen to knaves…

      “Main Entry: knave
      Pronunciation: \ˈnāv\
      Function: noun
      Etymology: Middle English, from Old English cnafa; akin to Old High German knabo boy
      Date: before 12th century
      1 archaic a : a boy servant b : a male servant c : a man of humble birth or position 2 : a tricky deceitful fellow”

  8. tom0mason says:

    Some quote from them so much wiser than I could be –

    No one can read our Constitution without concluding that the people who wrote it wanted their government severely limited; the words “no” and “not” employed in restraint of government power occur 24 times in the first seven articles of the Constitution and 22 more times in the Bill of Rights. — Edmund A. Opitz

    The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. — Thomas Jefferson, In a letter to Abigail Adams on 22 February, 1787

    We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert. — J. Robert Oppenheimer

  9. Gail Combs says:

    SDB says @ May 9, 2014 at 3:37 am

    …. So we often hear from political-Conservatives that cutting govenrment spending will somehow improve the economy….
    Actually it is cutting government over-regulation that will improve the economy. Cutting government spending is the best method to achieve that goal.
    What Kills Small Businesses? Let’s Ask Them
    Burdensome government regulations and a hyperactive legal culture topped the list of scourges in this new survey….

    To cut over regulation you have to cut the bureaucracy that generates the regs in the Federal Register – 34,000 pages in length and weighing over 340 pounds in 2011 – not to mention state and local regs. You cut the bureaucracy by removing funding. After years of rapid growth during the Obama administration, the cost of federal regulations is now bigger than the entire economies of all but nine countries in the world. All of that cost comes out of the pockets of the consumer.

    ….On a per-household basis, federal regulatory costs average $14,974, which is more than the typical household spends on just about anything else.

    When regulatory costs are combined with federal spending, Washington’s share of the economy rises to an eye-popping 31%.

    There are currently more than 3,000 rules in various stages of implementation at 63 federal agencies; 191 of the rules are “economically significant,” which means that they will impose more than $100 million in annual compliance costs.

    Nearly 670 of these rules will affect small businesses.

    Last year, regulators issued 3,659 rules. That’s equal to one new rule every 2 1/2 hours of every day, or nearly two federal rules issued every business hour….

    Frédéric Bastiat offered a early warning in 1850 that laws, institutions, and acts — the stuff of political bureaucracy — produce economic effects that can be seen immediately, but that other, unforeseen effects happen much later. link

    Teasley’s Seven Rules of Bureaucracy

    Rule #1: Maintain the problem at all costs! The problem is the basis of power, perks, privileges, and security.

    Rule #2: Use crisis and perceived crisis to increase your power and control.
    ….Rule 2a. Force 11th-hour decisions, threaten the loss of options and opportunities, and limit the opposition’s opportunity to review and critique.

    Rule #3: If there are not enough crises, manufacture them, even from nature, where none exist.

    Rule #4: Control the flow and release of information while feigning openness.
    …..Rule 4a: Deny, delay, obfuscate, spin, and lie.

    Rule #5: Maximize public-relations exposure by creating a cover story that appeals to the universal need to help people.

    Rule #6: Create vested support groups by distributing concentrated benefits and/or entitlements to these special interests, while distributing the costs broadly to one’s political opponents.

    Rule #7: Demonize the truth tellers who have the temerity to say, “The emperor has no clothes.”
    …Rule 7a: Accuse the truth teller of one’s own defects, deficiencies, crimes, and misdemeanors.

    Note this is a subject of controversy. Huff’nPuff interviewed sucessful small business people who said there was no problem. (It keeps any new competitors from going into business.) This ignores the real problem which is the people who want to start a business but can not manage to navigate the red tape maze. The people who would be paying taxes and hiring others instead of collecting food stamps or running a gray market business.

    Small businesses losing out to red tape
    …the Institute for Justice released a series of studies documenting government-imposed barriers to entrepreneurship in eight cities. In every city studied, overwhelming regulations destroyed or crippled would-be businesses at a time when they are most needed.

    Time and again, these reports document how local bureaucrats believe they should dictate every aspect of a person’s small business. They want to choose who can go into which business, where, what the business should look like, and what signs will be put in the windows. And if that means that businesses fail, or never open, or can operate only illegally, or waste all their money trying to get permits so they have nothing left for actual operations, that’s just too bad. This attitude would be bad enough in prosperous times, but in a period of financial strain and high unemployment, it’s almost suicidally foolish.

    Along the way, the dreams of individuals are repeatedly crushed…

    • _Jim says:

      Thanks Gail, for dressing down that idiot.

    • SDB says:

      Gail Combs,

      I’m sympathetic to the over-regulated argument.
      And also the over-taxed argument.

      I’m totally open to arguments about regulations needing to be cut back, I just need to hear specifically which kinds of regulations. Vague platitudes sound more like multinational coporate talking points, i.e. they want to put Americans into the same harsher working conditions that they put people in the third world when they open up factories abroad.

      And on taxes… when a Republican stands up and says middle and lower income people need more money,” let’s lower their taxes!”, then count my vote. Until then, I see Republican voters as just as big of suckers as Democrat voters. Ya’ll get hoodwinked into thinking making the already wealthy even wealthier is how jobs are created. That’s nonsense. In a market-economy, spending is the driving force that *signals* to entreprenaurs and innovators to start businesses, or expand already existing ones.

      Think this through from the perspective of business owners. More Spending = More Sales = More Jobs. Likewise, Less Spending = Less Sales = Less Jobs. That’s capitalism.

  10. gator69 says:

    SDB says:
    May 10, 2014 at 2:22 pm
    “Maybe you’re the one that needs to seek help. I’m a little adolf hitler because I understand that society is more complex than me. Me. ME! lol, ok gator.”

    An amoeba is more complex than you. Our founders set a framework that protects both society and the individual, but only if the members if that society are educated and moral. It appears you fail both those qualifications.

    I hear Cuba is nice this time of year.

    • SDB says:

      Gator, all you’ve got is platitudes. The devil is in the details. The founding documents tell us nothing about how to deal with modern day societal issues, such as traffic violations or radioactive nuclear waste.

      Meanwhile nearly every one of your comments contains a personal attack against me, and likewise mostly dodges the issues under discussion. Talking to you is like talking to a Progressive about Climate Change!…can’t think outside one’s narrow-minded ideology.

      • gator69 says:

        Right, because our forefathers never had to deal with laws regarding transportation and waste, they never existed before you enlightened Nazis came along.

        And no, I’m not name calling, I’m bring accurate in my description of you. A turd by any other name would smell as foul.

        Return to your masters.

        • SDB says:

          I reckon people should be more afraid of someone like you having power than someone like me. I’m interested in other’s perspectives. I’m open to discussion. You’re nasty and full of hate. The Nazi-ness is in you, not me.

        • gator69 says:

          Your mental disorder really comes through in comments like this last post.

          I am not trying to Lord over anyone. I understand that everyone has rights and would never dream of stealing the rights of another. I mind my own business.

          You want to tell others how to live, or at the least would like to see someone else Lord over the flock. You believe that time erases rights, and would confiscate them to make yourself feel better. You are a busybody (and obviously did not read the quote from Lewis, and didn’t watch Shaw wish to condemn others to death).

          And people should fear me? 😆

          Double up on the dosage and see your doctor first thing Monday.

        • SDB says:

          “leave me alone” is your policy. It’s laughable. Maybe you’re just naive then.

          It’s not that *I* want to tell others how to live, it’s that I understand that humans are a social species. Some individual rights are always forsaken for the collective, e.g. driving on a particular side of the road. Anyone who doesn’t understand this is living inside a fantasy land in their mind.

          But for some reason you take this to an extreme and call me a Nazi. What is wrong with you??

          You insinuate that any ‘democracy’ or collective decision making is somehow evil. Take the driving on the same road as an example. Either 1) you reject the notion that society can tell you what side of the road to drive on, and in this case you’re just a jerk. or 2) you accept the notion that society can tell you what side of the road to drive on, and in this case you and I are now on the same page: some individual rights can be restricted for the benfit of the community. Welcome to being a Nazi!

          The reason why people like you are more dangerous than people like me has nothing to do with YOU or ME as an individual person. It has to do with our approach to people we disagree with. I’m interested in others perspectives. I try to reason to my decisions. I’m willing to hear you out. I’m flexible. The reason people like you are so dangerous is because you’re so full of yourself, so arrogant in your beliefs, so nasty to someone who might view things a bit different, that when push comes to shove… it’s people like you who will dominate others ‘for their own good’.

        • gator69 says:


          No stupid, not all humans are social creatures. Collective urban dwellers like to think so, and believe they have the right to force the will of the collective on the individual, and you get Nazis.

          The End

        • SDB says:

          Yeah ok… tell me all about your independence on the computer or smartphone your using that was invented over time and space via the contributions of thousands and thousands of other people;s knowledge and skills, on an interenet that orginated as a government project, accross telecommunication lines that you construced all on your own.

          Did you teach yourself to read all by yourself too?

          Yes, we are social beings. It begins with the family. You’d be dead if it wasn’t for whoever fed you as a baby. But it extends to society. You live in a made up dream world. Wake up.

        • gator69 says:

          I never knew that accepting food from my mother would make me a communist.

          Fuck off.

      • SDB says:


        But do wake up. Your infesting others with dreamworld nonsense.

        • gator69 says:

          Yes, Nazis want people to think liberty is a fantasy.

          Return to your masters.

        • tom0mason says:

          Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom; socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.
          — Alexis de Tocqueville, Discours pronounce a l’assemblee constituante le 12 septembre 1848 sur la question du droit at travail

        • SDB says:


          Liberty to you is a fantasy. It’s a dreamworld. As soon as we get into the details about how to practically and pragmatically deal with modern “rights” issues… everyone’s a Nazi who doesn’t repeat the mantra: Liberty, Freedom, Liberty, Freedom. Actually dealing with issues is complicated. You might wish things to be black and white – whatever it says in the Consitution and Bill of Rights – but those documents don’t say a lot of things.

          The fact that you can’t even handle an issue like driving wherever you want on the road whenever you want proves my point. You’re all platitudes. And what are platitudes good for? -> indoctrinating people, and preventing them from thinking critically and with nuance. You’ve drank someone’s kool-aid.

        • _Jim says:

          Need to stop feeding the ‘troll’ guys.

          One day, he (or she) may wake up, realize the wasted existence he (or she) has led, and reflect on what he (or she) read here and after realizing he (or she) is truly at the ‘bottom’ make the necessary changes for recovery. Until then, it’s a long, slow road to that bottom …

        • SDB says:

          Right back at ya, Jim. One day you make wake up!

  11. SDB says:
    May 10, 2014 at 8:31 pm


    Liberty to you is a fantasy. It’s a dreamworld.

    This is a stupid statement, laden with a lack of awareness that boggles the imagination.

    As soon as we get into the details about how to practically and pragmatically deal with modern “rights” issues… everyone’s a Nazi who doesn’t repeat the mantra: Liberty, Freedom, Liberty, Freedom.

    This is a stupid straw man argument.

    Actually dealing with issues is complicated.

    This is a useless & stupid statement from someone whose entire argument boils down to “you don’t deserve freedom”. It’s “complicated”.
    You might wish things to be black and white – whatever it says in the Consitution and Bill of Rights – but those documents don’t say a lot of things.
    This is a stupid & illiterate statement. Did you know the Constitution is like 100 years old, dude? Yeah, you’re stupider than Ezra Klein.

    The fact that you can’t even handle an issue like driving wherever you want on the road whenever you want proves my point.

    This is a stupid & pointless statement. I think we have a pattern.

    You’re all platitudes.

    This is an incredibly stupid statement demonstrating an utter lack of self-awareness.

    And what are platitudes good for? -> indoctrinating people, and preventing them from thinking critically and with nuance. You’ve drank someone’s kool-aid.

    This is the finest example of an utter lack of self-awareness that I’ve seen typed this week.

    The simple fact that you are free to make such moronic arguments should be proof enough that you are wrong in the very foundations of your so-called thought. But just like Marx & Hitler & Lenin & Mao & Stalin & a host of other murderers, you truly believe that liberty is something that only a certain class should be allowed to exercise (for the benefit of those beneath them, obviously). You are definitely stupid, you are certainly un-self-aware, the only question remains: are you also evil, or simply midguided?

    • SDB says:

      What an analysis, Stark! Did you learn “you’re stupid” on the playground? What is wrong with the readership here? Ya’ll seem to have no argument other than calling someone who disagree with you: stupid. It’s amazing stuff. Ya’ll should publish.

    • gator69 says:

      I somehow missed that nonsense. Guess my email account was trying to do me a favor and filter out the spam. All I am really hearing is…


      Then of course the spammer likes to drift off and talk about its private parts and wonders about anarchy on the roads. Weird.

      • SDB says:

        lol my goodness. Dense as an iron core! I’m done with engaging ya’ll. Enjoy your liberty for now. Me and my Nazi friends are coming for it 🙂

        Goddard, thanks for the Climate Change stuff you do here.. I’ll continue to read it.

        • gator69 says:

          Yes, I have always admired you sheep and wondered at the vast intellect required to defend tyranny. You guys are the tops!

          Hey! Mob rule everybody!

        • _Jim says:

          SDB (or is it “S.O.B?”) is one of the luck ones too. He coulda been aborted …

  12. The Earth has been around 4.5 billion years and will still be here 7.5 billion years as the Sun absorbs it finally…… as we know it probably wouldn’t have existed for 7 billion or more years…..what’s the issue? It is amazing how smart the human species has become in the last 100 years…lol

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s