Who is Paul Potts?

This is a must see video… and worth 3:36 minutes of your time.  Take a shy unassuming carphone salesman with a self esteem problem.  Put him in front of a national TV audience (in Great Britian) and what do you get?

A very big surprise, a lot of tears, and a standing ovation.

Living Wages in Howard County

Who is against providing someone a living wage raise their hand.  I don’t think we would have any takers.  I have some questions about Calvin Ball’s proposed legislation to help families afford to live in Howard County.  First it is the wrong approach and akin to putting the cart before the horse.

From the Howard County Times

Bill pushes ‘living wage’ for contract employees

Howard County Council Chairman Calvin Ball will file legislation this week to require many county contractors to pay a “living wage” to their employees that would be the highest of any jurisdiction in Maryland.

The bill would require contractors who do business with the county government to pay employees an hourly wage that would allow them, in a 40-hour week, to make 125 percent of the federal poverty level guideline for a family of four. This year, that would amount to about $12.41 per hour, said Ball, a Columbia Democrat.

From the Baltimore Examiner

Howard County councilman pushes living wage bill

Howard County Council Chairman Calvin Ball is taking steps to require county contractors to pay its workers a sufficient minimum wage — a move he calls “the right to do.”

“We should set a higher standard,” said Ball, D-District 2.

He plans to file legislation this week that would require contractors to pay employees at least 125 percent of the federal poverty line, which is about $12.41 an hour.

Granted that Calvin Ball probably had a lot more to say to the reporter (Sara Michael) than what is printed in the Examiner I am troubled by this statement.

Ball said he wasn’t aware of “many complaints” about contractor wages, but “part of our responsibility as government is to do the right thing, whether it’s 200 or 2,000 people who have indicated concern.”

Ball said the legislation would allow the county to better collect information about contractors and workers.

“There weren’t a lot of numbers I could look at and see what is going to be the exact impact,” he said.

Isn’t that the logic he used against the senior property tax cut?

More data should be found on the tax cut’s long-term impact, said Council Member Calvin Ball, D-District 2, at Tuesday’s council meeting.

Council Member Kenneth Ulman, D-District 4, said he was determined to pass the bill by the end of the month.

He said he would work with the commission to make any changes, and the three-week delay would not affect seniors’ ability to take advantage of a break next tax cycle.

I am sure the arguement will be that he still voted in favor of the tax cut in its original form, but that really isn’t the point here.  He wanted more data – but here he doesn’t apply the same standard (according to the articles).

As to whether Howard County needs this legislation when the General Assembly already passed a living wage bill this year is another question all together.  I don’t think this is going to make Howard County a more affordable place to live and help people buy a home here.  Based on full-time employment this would pay a person $25,812.80 per year less taxes. 

The legislation comes amid debate on how to tackle what advocates call an affordable housing “crisis.” The median cost of a single-family detached house in Howard in 2005 was $505,128, according to the county.

Howard County imports it’s work force and I am talking about non-governmental employers.  Is this really going to attract them to live in Howard County or just work here?  That means the increased tax revnues are only going to another jurisdiction.

There are better options to making Howard County a more affordable place to live and that starts with housing.  Increase someone’s pay to $25,800 so they can buy what?  So they can buy a $505,000 house?  If a person at this income level is willing to take on an aggressive mortgage they could afford an $80,000 house.  If they have two incomes then they could afford a $160,000 house.  I am not including other household expenses in that equation either so it is likely the target audience would not be able to afford a house in those price ranges either.  How many houses in that price range exist in Howard County?  A search at realtor.com for Columbia showed 11 houses in that price range.  An expanded search for all of Howard County showed 13 properties.  We have demand but no supply.

Fix the supply problem first.  Put the horse in front of the cart.

In any event, the new wage will be paid for by Howard County Government (you and me).  It is a government subsidy and a wealth redistribution program and I say that in part based upon the exclusions proposed in the legislation

Contractors with four or fewer employees, nonprofit organizations and public utility contractors under cooperative agreements with another government or organization would be exempt from the law.

Are nonprofits special?  Does this mean that a public utility contractor doing business with the State only has to pay the State rate of $11.30 per hour?  Why aren’t they as valuable of a work force?

Yes, it will increase the cost of Government – but we don’t have the data to know how much.  The next quote I would like to read from Chairman Ball would be this:

More data should be found on the wage increases’ long-term impact on County budgets and housing affordability, said Council Member Calvin Ball, D-District 2, at Tuesday’s council meeting.

My Last Post on Climate Change – ever

I am not going to write about climate change anymore after this post (you are welcome). I respect the fact that there are a lot of opinions on the subject.  I resent the fact that in any debate deniers are called kooks or liars, or have an agenda, or are in the pockets of multinational corporations because they don’t have a mind of there own.

I want to close this discussion (at least here as I hope we all continue to calmly discuss this issue because the implications are significant) with a link to a series of articles in the Canadian paper The Financial Post written by Lawrence Solomon.

National Post’s Deniers series: Scientists who challenge the climate change debate

Mr. Solomon’s contribution to the debate is welcome and very much needed.  The implications to policy changes have real consequences economically, socially and enviromentally.  Alarmists can not be allowed to control this debate and the myth of concensus needs to be rolled back as it has taken on the aura of credibility.  Prominent scientists one supporting Al Gore’s position (though not as extreme in their views) have changed their minds – what does that say about concensus on this topic.  Perhaps global warming and climate change are real – I don’t have any models of my own to prove other wise.  However, I want to hear more and won’t permit the other side to be silenced or surpressed.

Mr. Solomon writes:

When I began (writing this series), I accepted the prevailing view that scientists overwhelmingly believe that climate change threatens the planet. I doubted only claims that the dissenters were either kooks on the margins of science or sell-outs in the pockets of the oil companies.

Mr. Solomon really got into his work on this subject by writing many more articles than he thought he would.

I considered stopping after writing six profiles, thinking I had made my point, but continued the series due to feedback from readers.

His point? What point?

My series set out to profile the dissenters — those who deny that the science is settled on climate change — and to have their views heard. To demonstrate that dissent is credible.

He is especially offended by Al Gore’s misleading statements (repeated statements)

“Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled.”

So said Al Gore … in 1992. Amazingly, he made his claims despite much evidence of their falsity. A Gallup poll at the time reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren’t sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn’t think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable.

Mr. Solomon’s series generally support further research and the entire series is worth a good read.

Statistics needed — The Deniers Part I
Warming is real — and has benefits — The Deniers Part II
The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science — The Deniers Part III
Polar scientists on thin ice — The Deniers Part IV
The original denier: into the cold — The Deniers Part V
The sun moves climate change — The Deniers Part VI
Will the sun cool us? — The Deniers Part VII
The limits of predictability — The Deniers Part VIII
Look to Mars for the truth on global warming — The Deniers Part IX
Limited role for C02 — the Deniers Part X
End the chill — The Deniers Part XI
Clouded research — The Deniers Part XII
Allegre’s second thoughts — The Deniers XIII
The heat’s in the sun — The Deniers XIV
Unsettled Science — The Deniers XV
Bitten by the IPCC — The Deniers XVI
Little ice age is still within us — The Deniers XVII
Fighting climate ‘fluff’ — The Deniers XVIII
Science, not politics — The Deniers XIX
Gore’s guru disagreed — The Deniers XX
The ice-core man — The Deniers XXI
Some restraint in Rome — The Deniers XXII
Discounting logic — The Deniers XXIII
Dire forecasts aren’t new — The Deniers XXIV
They call this a consensus? – Part XXV
NASA chief Michael Griffin silenced – Part XXVI
Forget warming – beware the new ice age – Part XXVII
Read the Sun Spotes – Part XXVIII

Highlighting som Prominent Deniers that Mr. Solomon writes about

• R. Tim Patterson
• Edward Wegman: Found that Michael Mann’s (and he peer reviewers) made a basic error that “may be easily overlooked by someone not trained in statistical methodology. Believes that much of the climate science that has been done should be taken with a grain of salt. The report of Wegman and his colleagues has been criticized by a RealClimate.org, a proponent of man-made global warming, for drawing such conclusions. RealClimate.org was founded by Michael Man
• Bjørn Lomborg: is an Adjunct Professor at the Copenhagen Business School and a former director of the Environmental Assessment Institute in Copenhagen. He became internationally-known for his best-selling and controversial book The Skeptical Environmentalist. He was accused of lying in his research and was cleared of the charges.
• Dr. Christopher Landsea: Interesting name for a hurricane researcher. In January, 2005, Landsea withdrew from his participation in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Landsea claimed the IPCC had become politicized and the leadership ignored his concerns. Landsea does not believe that global warming has a strong influence on hurricanes: “global warming might be enhancing hurricane winds, but only by 1 percent or 2 percent”. This guy participated in many previous IPCC reports. You need to read what led to his withdrawl from the 2007 report. It is incredible.
• Dr. Richard Lindzen: a critic from within, one of the most distinguished climate scientists in the world: a past professor at the University of Chicago and Harvard, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and a lead author in a landmark report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Proponents of the Climate Change Theory (I know there is a lot more – this is a work in progress).

• Real Climate: RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. Some people refer to this as the end all be all of climate change information. Click here to learn about the participants in this project.
• Michael Mann: Inventor of the famous unchanging hockey stick climate change model
• James Hansen: heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, a part of the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD, Earth Sciences Diivision. He is currently an adjunct professor in the Earth and Environmental Sciences department at Columbia University. Hansen is best known for his testimony on climate change to congressional committees in the 1980s that helped raise broad awareness of the global warming issue. He is a vocal critic of the Bush Administration’s stance on climate change.
• Dr. William Connolley: is a climate modeller. Connolley is a Senior Scientific Officer in the Physical Sciences Division in the Antarctic Climate and the Earth System project at the British Antarctic Survey. I have personal experience with Mr. Connolley via Wikipedia – don’t try to edit any articles on climate change that he monitors – fair warning.
• Dr. Claude Allegre: he signed a highly publicized letter stressing that global warming’s “potential risks are very great: Fifteen years ago, Dr. Allegre was among the 1500 prominent scientists who signed “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity,” a highly publicized letter stressing that global warming’s “potential risks are very great. NEVER MIND HE CHANGED HIS MIND. He cited evidence that Antarctica is gaining ice and that Kilimanjaro’s retreating snow caps, among other global-warming concerns, come from natural causes. “The cause of this climate change is unknown,” he states matter of factly. There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the “science is settled.”
• Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth: head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. He was a lead author of the 2001 and 2007 IPCC Scientific Assessment of Climate Change. Linked to Dr. Christopher Landsea through an unfortunate set of circumstances.