Back to Basic Statistics: Global Warming is Likely An Artifact of Localized Night Time Warming

I am looking at the history of temperature change from the 1900 to 2010 using a sample of 691 stations from the USHCN. The choice of stations was determined by the number of years recorded. These 691 stations have a minimum of 100 annual records.

Since these stations cover a range of temperatures and the number of stations reporting per year is less than 691 for much of this time frame it is necessary to translate the records to deviations from a baseline average. This is less than ideal, however limiting the sample to stations with 111 years reduces the sample size quite a bit.

The question at this point is how to determine an appropriate time interval to determine this base line.

Consider what happens when I use the 1980s to establish this base line. The shape of the average temperature will be the same no matter what baseline I choose. The issue here is what happens to the standard deviations. This indicates my choice of the 80’s as a baseline has changed the shape of the data distribution over time. This shape does not accurately reflect how the data changes.

A test for this is to simply compare the projection against the actual data from 1900 forward. I accomplished this by subtracting decadal averages from the 2000-2009 average for each station and looking at the average and spread for each decade. This shows this projection is only accurate from about 1980 forward. The accuracy decreases progressively from 1980 back to 1900. This was the expected result.

 

Consider what happens when I use the 1920’s to establish my average baseline. Using the same testing methods as before I found this to be reasonably accurate, within the population parameters, from 1920 forward.

 

I decided upon using an average from 1900 to 1960 as a baseline. When tested as above this produced the most accurate results. Part of that comes from the longer length of time used. This evens out smaller sub trends within the data. There is also the issue of number of stations reporting. Any longer time frame begins reducing the projection accuracy.

But what about all those shorter station records?

It should be obvious, based upon how I define my baseline, I can’t add in any records beginning after the baseline time frame. For those stations which began prior to 1960 the accuracy with which they can be located within the record is dependent upon how many years they reported within the baseline period. I can only accurately place a record within this time frame if I accurately transform the data by the station location’s true average from 1900 to 1960.

You can test this by comparing sub averages of samples from the data set. For example, look at the difference by station between their 1900-1960 average and their 1930 to 1960 average. Look at the average and standard deviation of that data set. The standard deviation defines the amount of uncertainty in including stations which began in 1930. The added uncertainty is simply unacceptable. Meaning I can't accurately place the shorter record into the data set because I do not know what its true average really was.

The proper way to handle shorter data sets is to perform this exact same process from a later baseline. Again, you need to maintain as uniform a data set as you can. The same comments concerning shorter data records still apply. To include even more data sets you would look at a shorter time frame. Shorter studies can then be compared against longer studies during coincident time frames. You simply cannot average a record from 1930 to 1950 with a record from 1990 to 2005. That is common sense between two records, that logic applies to many records.

Now the results

The average temperature of this sample did rise by 0.28° C in the 2000’s relative to the 1900 – 1960 baseline. The standard deviation also rose by .25 in the same manner. That translates into and increase of 0.8° C in the spread of the data.

 

Let’s examine how the upper and lower edges defining a projected 90% of the population changed over time.

 

 

As you can see both plots show the warming which occurred going into the 1930’s and the subsequent cooling trend from about 1950 forward. However, the upper bound shows a marked increase from about 1970 forward. This corresponds to a slight decrease in the lower bound. Both boundaries show a period of warming from about 1996 forward.

This pattern is further demonstrated by data consisting of station averages from 2000 to 2009. The indication is, relative to my 1900 to 1960 baseline, there has been an upward skewing of the data.

 

Where does this trend originate

To answer that question, I broke the average down into its component parts, the annual daily minimum and maximum averages. You will notice the trend for maximum temperatures is close to zero overall. It shows the now familiar warming trend into the 1930’s and the cooling after about 1950.

However, the minimums show a warming trend beginning after 1960 which is not evident in the plot above. Now you know why my choice of baseline time frame makes sense. Remember, this has no affect upon the average.

Now we have established, for my 691 station sample, warming after 1960 is almost exclusively associated with the night time lows. We can account for this by development factors.

The following chart shows the results of a correlation study between a development rating factor and the 2000’s average temperature. This development factor is the width of proximate development in miles at the widest point as measured on Google Earth. Since I have defined temperature as a deviation from a 1900-1960 average the 2000’s average is also an average deviation. There does appear to be evidence of correlation. I have a correlation coefficient of 0.72 and a R squared value of .51.

This indicates warming is associated with development, warming is limited to specific locations, warming is evident in the night time lows, and no warming is evident in the daily highs.

This result runs counter to the theory of warming due to increased CO2.

 

You can view the 691 sample sites for this study as well as the 33 sites for the correlation study along with included data and information in interactive map form at the following links.

 

Daily Minimums

Daily Maximums

Correlation Study

 

 

 

 

 

A Rebuttal To NASA GISS Climate Change Claims

A week or so ago I was on the Twitter. Twitter was all a flitter over the latest IPCC report saying we have just 10 more years to act or the damages from climate changes would become irreversible. One of the people I follow on Twitter is Scott Adams, the creator of the highly successful Dilbert comics. Scott Adams is also a commentator on current events. He does these live periscopes which are broadcast on Twitter and Youtube. The latest IPCC report featured in one of his recent discussions.

Naturally I opined with some data and observations to show climate change, meaning the theory mankind is causing temperatures to rise because of CO2 emissions, is a farce. Scott responded to me with the following question, which I have paraphrased. Why should I believe you instead of all these other people with reasonable arguments for climate change which I also can’t evaluate?

Let’s just say I did not respond very well to that question. I worked for 25 years as a Senior Quality Engineer for a corporation which manufactures products for direct to consumer use as well as to other manufacturers all over the world. A company that generates nearly 2 billion in sales annually. I am used to dealing with management on all levels. From Engineers to Directors and VPs. I am used to being looked upon as someone who is completely reliable. I am used to working with people who talk the language. When I look at things like this the truth is generally as clear as it can be. However, I forget the world at large does not deal in statistics, graphs, charts, time lines, and the like.

I will attempt to explain why I am convinced what NASA is telling us about global warming or climate change is simply not true in a way I hope Scott Adams would find persuasive. To make that argument I am focusing on the temperature history of the United States.

The United States has the best, most complete temperature records of any country in the world going back to the late 1800’s. The largest repository of those records is the United States Historical Climatological Network (the USHCN). The data I am showing comes from the USHCN database which I downloaded from their FTP site  (http://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ushcn.html). For an overview of temperature recording stations around the world, see the illustration included at the bottom of this article.

The argument I am going to make is actually very simple. It is not possible to make this argument without using graphs, math, statistics, and a smattering of physics. However, none of that is terribly complicated. You do not need a degree in mathematics or chemistry to understand any of this. Let’s get to it.

NASA GISS U.S. Temperature Record

 

·        NASA is telling you temperatures in the US have been steadily rising since 1980 because we are putting more CO2 into the atmosphere. They are telling you CO2 is like the thermostat in your house. The more CO2 we put in the air the warmer things get. The reason for this is CO2 traps infrared heat radiation coming from all the many surfaces which comprise the landscape and bounces it back. This causes the surface to warm more than it otherwise would. That is the simple explanation of the greenhouse effect.

·        NASA is also telling you this is a universal condition because the amount of CO2 in the air above the US is the same everywhere. There may be temporary local trends which diminish or enhance this effect, but overall the trend is towards ever increasing temperatures.

·        NASA is telling you recent temperatures are on average 1.5° C higher in recent years than the average temperature from 1951 to 1980.

DATA from USHCN

 

·        I am telling you when I look at the raw, unadjusted data from the USHCN I find it contradicts NASA completely.

·        I am telling you I found very little change in temperatures on average from the 1951 to 1980 average in recent years. That change would be -0.2° C on average. However, I did find a considerable amount of variation between locations. Roughly speaking, half the locations experienced warming up to 3° C. The other half experienced cooling down to -4° C.

·        This isn’t fancy math or statistics. This is simply taking averages from 1951 to 1980 and from 2000 to 2014, subtracting them to get the difference, and making a histogram of the results.

·        By the numbers 77.9% of stations were within ± 1° C and 99.7% of stations were with ± 2° C of their 1951 to 1980 averages. That is close to a normal bell curve which you might remember from your high school math classes.

·        NASA’s results do fall within the range of variability of my results from the raw, unadjusted USHCN data. Their average falls within the upper 12% of that range. The difference between their result and my result statistically speaking is astronomical. Achieving their results from the raw, unadjusted data would require large adjustments to the data.

·        To understand the magnitude of any adjustments being made to a measurement it is best to relate those adjustments to the scale and instrumentation used to create the original measurement. Temperature records in the US were kept in degrees Fahrenheit. Most recent measurements use the Celsius scale.  Achieving NASA’s result would require adjustments to the temperature record with the overall effect of increasing all recently recorded US temperatures from 2000 to 2014 unilaterally by nearly 3° F or 1.5° C. That would be a very large adjustment indeed.

·        Most of the historical records were made using glass thermometers, presumably with precision sufficient to read to the nearest degree or half degree. The definition of precision is how finely graduated an instrument is. You do not adjust for precision, you merely record to the limits of the precision. Accuracy would depend entirely upon the specific thermometer being used as well as whoever was taking the readings. The actual accuracy would change each time a thermometer was replaced.

·        Speaking as a Quality Engineer who is well versed in metrology and in analytics the idea of going back and adjusting measurements years and decades after the fact is unheard of. It is something that is simply not done unless you have a precise calibration record for each measuring device used and can quantify precisely the amount and direction of inaccuracy every time the device was used. In cases where you determine a device is inaccurate without such precise records the only choice you have is to discard the record if the amount of inaccuracy is unacceptable or leave it if the error is something you can live with.

This completes the overview of my simple argument against NASA’s version of the history of temperature in the United States. You simply cannot say there is an overall warming effect detectable from increased CO2 in the atmosphere in the United States when half the records show cooling trends and the overall cooling is equal to or even greater than the overall warming. If what NASA says about the history of temperature in the United States, which has the most and longest records of any country in the world, is incorrect you have to assume what NASA says about the rest of the world is incorrect.

 

Information from Seafriends.org.nz available at the following link. I am only using portions of the page. The remainder is highly informative on a variety of related subjects. I would recommend visiting.

http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/climate3.htm#Thermometers

 

Thermometer locations

The places where thermometers are placed were never selected with a view of collecting a representative set of temperatures from which the world's average could be calculated. They are simply located where people live, and that introduces the urban heat island effect. The two maps below, show that the world is not adequately or evenly covered. To make matters worse, many temperature stations are pretty recent and do not have a long-term record. Others do not satisfy stringent quality requirements.

 

Fighting Nazis Right Here, in Toonigh

One of the things that really surprised me about the Trump era was the sudden appearance of people fighting Nazis all over the place. I honestly didn't know Nazis were still a thing. Oh I know. A whole bunch of retired or now deceased news people warned us about the dangers of Nazis, Neo-Nazis, and Skinheads long ago. Luminaries from the golden age of broadcast news before it was watered down into 24 hours a day 7 days a week mediocrity.

Guys like Dan Rather, Ted Koppel, and Morton Downey Jr.

Apparently Nazis are just crawling around everywhere. Especially ever since Donald Trump announced his campaign back in 2015. It only seems to be this sudden thing. After all, look at who was warning us about it back when we just didn't want to believe.

That settles it for me. I decided to take the fight against these evil Nazis to my own town. I was going to get involved. However, I had a problem. I had no idea where to start. You see, our local chapter of the White Nationalist Democratic Socialist Worker's party, aka the Nazis, have never stopped by. I haven't seen so much as a flyer or even an article in the local newspaper. I have seen some decent recipes for pickles. I like pickles pretty good too. Especially home made with a bit of spicy to them. You would think having a bunch of Nazis running around might be just a tad bit more important than using fresh dill. Doesn't that stand to reason?

So after long days of looking into it occasionally I finally found the location of our local branch of the White Nationalist Democratic Socialist Worker's party. That would be Nazis for short. It turns out it was pretty close to the house, over in the town of Toonigh. I won't say exactly where, but it lies somewhere between the Church of God and the QT station.

Speaking of which, is it just me or has QT coffee lost a bit over the years? I will be the first to admit they have some pretty good doughnuts and apple fritters. I think they need to throw out their supply of coffee grounds and buy some fresh. I am just saying if I wanted bad hospital coffee I would catch pneumonia.

It turns out the Toonigh branch of the Nazi party doesn't have a phone so I decided to just drop in. Which just about describes the whole thing perfectly. There, in the back of a converted chicken house with the words "Nazi meeting here" painted on one side, I found the local party representative. He was sitting in an old broken down Lazy Boy drinking PBR and smoking a Raleigh. Apparently the Toonigh branch of the Nazi party is a little short on propaganda funds. Instead of the framed portrait of Hitler, which I was expecting, they had drawn a picture of him on the wooden wall that once kept chickens from running amuck. It also turns out "they" is a bit of an exaggeration too. "They" turned out to be a fellow by the name of Field Marshal "Cooner" Bibb.

I asked "Cooner" how he came by the title of Field Marshal.

"I was granted that title by a unanimous vote of the party members."

Though I hated to do it, I asked how he came by the name "Cooner".

"Cooner is what everyone calls me. It comes from an unfortunate incident way back in high school. See, there was this 'coon in a burlap sack which I had been lead to believe was a possum. It wouldn't have been so bad, 'cept the door handles in my truck were busted and I couldn't reach the handle to roll down the windows...."

Sounds pretty exciting, I said, but I would really like to talk about your work for the Nazi party here in Toonigh.

"Oh it was exciting! Anyway, I have been recruiting Nazis here ever since I graduated high school back in '73 and got married."

How do you go about recruiting members?

"Well, I had a sign out by the mail box for a while, but the post rotted away so I painted it on the side of the party headquarters. And every day, 'specially when the wife gets mad, I come out here. I drink a bit, enjoy my smokes, and wait to see if anyone shows up."

That doesn't appear to have been terribly a successful strategy.

"Oh I don't know, it works pretty good for me. See, my wife don't like beer drinking and she doesn't want me to smoke in the house. So I come out here. And she hates Nazis. She don't want nothing to do with it. So everything just works out, you know?"

I don't know about the rest of the country, but as for Toonigh Georgia? I think we are holding the line, keeping our Constitutional Republic safe from the scourge of Nations Socialist Worker's Parties and the like just fine.

Bella Nova, the Rescue Dog

Bella Nova is our new baby. Bella is a rescue dog who came to us by way of my wife's uncle and his wife. They have fostered or taken in many a rescue dog. Bella was abandoned, locked up in a small chain link pen without food or water. According to the folks who originally rescued her, she had lived in that pen for about a year. She has obviously been abused. She is fearful of your hands moving towards her head. As if someone had been beating her.

 

Bella went from being rescued, to being caged up at the local vet's office, to being finally loved and cared for by Lynn and Theresa. She arrived there largely un-socialized and unused to trusting and being loved, but Lynn and Theresa have big hearts. So does Bella Nova. She is coming along quite admirably.

 

Now she is here with us. What she needs is love, attention, a little loving discipline, but most of all I think she needs stability. She needs to put down roots and draw from the well of kindness. A home in other words. A place where she knows she belongs and is wanted, valued, and yes, needed. Don't we all need that?

 

But we need more than just love and acceptance don't we? We also need play time.

 

So, that is the short story of how Bella Nova came to live here and be a part of our family. Even our kitty baby Baxter is beginning to get used to what he probably sees as her sudden arrival on the scene. It isn't as if you can explain to the kitties a new baby is coming.

 

The following is a copy and paste of a Facebook post I made this morning.

 

It is just me and the new dog, Bella Nova, this morning. She is a sweet dog, but she really has a bad case of separation anxiety. She wants to shadow you where ever you go.

 

She discovered the doggie in the mirror this morning. She seemed quite confused for about 5 seconds. She then saw the guy in the mirror, did a double take between him and me, and then just ignored the whole thing. I think she figured out that was me. No, I don't think she figured out what a mirror is and ...how it works. I think she figured my double just didn't matter because he wasn't going to feed her anytime soon. However that works out, she is pretty smart.

 

She also acted like she had never seen anyone in the shower before. That entire water falling from the wall, splashing on the glass, running out through a hole in the floor thing seemed to have her spooked. She kept running out and running back in and looking at the shower floor. Like "where does it all come from?" Then she seemed to be completely shocked at my stepping out all wet and everything. Human skin must look pretty bare to a dog. All those drops of water running down....how does that work?

 

It shocked the fire out of me when she decided to check it out a little closer and licked my butt cheek. I really didn't see that coming, though I shoulda. Lacey, the chihuahua, would lick the water off your feet. As if shower water on toes was just the yummiest treat evah. Honestly, it wasn't the worst thing to have ever happened. Even so, I hope her curiosity has been well and completely satisfied.

 

Like I said, she is a sweet dog. She is now napping on the sofa after a full morning of discovery and doggie duty.

Hillary Lies. A Lot.

I actually follow a number of different people on Twitter. People who are of different political persuasions. I like to keep a decent balance. And I look for people who offer well thought out commentary.

And I also follow Hillary. The interesting thing, as far as I am concerned, is Hillary is still campaigning. Whether that is the 2016 or the 2020, that's up to her. But she sounds like someone who is campaigning.

The other interesting thing about Hillary is she lies. A lot. ...This example is typical for her. In fact, this is a prototypical lie for politicians and the media alike. I am pointing this out because it serves as a great example of how these jackals yank your chain. Never mind this is Hillary, the democrats, and the liberal mainstream media. That is of lesser importance to understanding the methods they use.

What did Kavanaugh really say?

"They said filling out the form would make them complicit in the provision of the abortion-inducing drugs that they were, as a religious matter, objecting to."

He was repeating the argument made in an actual case filing made by an organization called Priests for Life in response to a question from Ted Cruz.

But Kamala Harris (also a massive liar) and the mainstream media (ditto) cut the context and the full statement down to an 11 second video clip where he said:

"Filling out the form would make them complicit in the provision of the abortion-inducing drugs that they were, as a religious matter, objected to."

So you know he really said that, you saw the clip didn't you? So get angry folks, this is proof Kavanaugh is a misogynist, racist, a Nazi.

Right?

No. This is proof of something just about 180° from that. This is proof "THEY" think YOU are stupid and easily manipulated.

This is why I fight. I will not accept this as normal. From anyone.

Thoughts On 9/11/2018

A lot of people around our country and no doubt around the world are saying and writing about the events of this day seventeen years ago. Remembering. Honoring. I too am reflecting as well, though my thoughts probably run just a bit differently than most. Which is perhaps not unusual.

I am thinking about the spectacles more recently past. The Kavanaugh confirmation. The Manafort trial. The Papadopolous sentencing. The 2016 election. It seems to me something is rotten in the State of Denmark. Though perhaps we as a nation have not quite put our finger on where the rot really lives.

It is in my mind to say this. It is always a mistake to assume those who scream the loudest represent the majority. This is the power of lunatic fringes. They make a lot of noise and smoke. It is also a mistake to assume the majority of what you see on TV and cable news presents an accurate reflection of reality. It does not. It does represent a majority of opinion within those organizations. If that opinion is only based upon what will generate the best ratings as opposed to ideological homogeneity, which many suspect, it doesn't really matter. The results are the same. The power of the media also lies in their ability to make a lot of noise and smoke.

Neither of these things, the screaming of the enraged or the preponderance of pomposity from the self proclaimed pundits, necessarily represents anything approaching a true consensus.

I am also thinking about the days and months leading up to the 2012 election. I am thinking of the a particular instance which to me represented a moment of remarkable insight. I had chanced upon a forum on the internet where people were discussing, among other things, the imminent impeachment of Barack Obama. They certainly had done their research. They recited the many charges chapter and verse. Of course one of those issues involved questions as to his citizenship and eligibility to even be president.

I had not really given much credence or thought to that particular charge, but what I saw made me curious. So I did some research on the subject with respect to law and precedent. What I found was clear. Even if Barack Obama had been born in Kenya it wouldn't have mattered one bit. His mother was an American citizen. Because of that, no matter where he was born, Obama is also a natural born US citizen with no need to become naturalized. There are only two kinds of US citizens, natural born or naturalized.

So I jumped back into this forum. I presented the facts along with links to and excerpts from the statutes. Would you like to guess the reaction I received? If you guessed complete and absolute denial you would be right. No one even acknowledged my comments. They simply refused to listen.

Why? Because the unreality, the fantasy if you will, had become too important. It had become a part of their identity. They had become blind to any other truth but their own.

I honestly see no real difference between what I saw and experienced leading up to the 2012 election and what I see today in the wake of the 2016 election, except for one thing. Back then the media acted to shut down the lunatic fringe. By ignoring them or actively demonizing them and anything they had to say, even if some of it was true. They also actively worked to associate those who were speaking truth or who simply did not agree with that lunatic fringe and demonize them by that association. The media also acted to actively support what the Obama administration said as truth, to positively spin any misstatement, to deflect any attack, to down play any lie exposed, to defend any failure.

Today the media is playing an entirely different role. No theory or story is too wild or outrageous. That which is unsubstantiated is substantiated because it aligns with their opinion. They substantiate it by printing it or stating it as truth. They are only to happy to broadcast or print anything as true as long as it matches their opinion, as long as it promotes their aims. They have spun anything they possibly could into a negative. They have trumpeted any misstep as a catastrophe. Everything is the end of the world. Every right is in danger and people will die.

It has become clear the media has purpose, a purpose which really has very little to do with truth.

We have entered the era of supposition as fact, the era of naked bias. The era of half truths, that most insidious of all lies. The era of the retraction issued half heartedly, late, or not at all. The era of the media trying to construct the appearance of the reality they wish to bring into being.

Or perhaps we have existed in that era all along. It has only now become manifestly evident and is only becoming more so with each passing day.

How George Bush, Barrack Obama, and SCOTUS Created the Current Immigration Crisis

I have been watching the current discourse on illegal immigration in the US with great interest and often with rising anger. My anger is not against those of us who are passionate on the subject. My anger is with the media and the politicians. They are not being above board. They are not presenting the full picture, misrepresenting what is going on in fact, to promote their own agenda. To defeat Trump in the mid terms. To support Trump in the mid terms. Either way, you, the voter, are being screwed.

 

How difficult is it for professional news people to present the entire picture? How many people are apprehended, detained, deported, granted asylum, and so forth for each year since 1997? Come on! All they do is show you bits and pieces that are true enough, but lack the full picture to provide context. They are stoking your anger on purpose. The fact we can't rely upon the main stream media to present an honest, factual, and complete picture so we the people are truly informed is a real danger to our republic.

 

I am going to present what I see is a more complete and therefore more accurate picture. I am also providing supporting articles.

 

First off, this crisis is not new. The pictures you see of people behind chain link fencing and barbed wire are not new. George W Bush was lambasted for his handling of illegal immigration and so was Barrack Obama. Quite strenuously in fact. You will find plenty of supporting articles below. If you look for yourself you will find plenty more.

 

The current crisis Trump is dealing with was created by those who came before. I could go back to even further, but the start of the current crisis actually began in 1988 with the Flores case. This case was finally decided by the Supreme Court in 1993. The key point which impacts the situation today is the decision to limit the amount of time an unaccompanied minor can be held to about 20 days. They have to be deported, returned, or released.

 

Obama was famous in certain circles for instituting the program of catch and release. According to many sources the Obama administration released 75% of the illegals without pursuing deportation. That included at least 68,000 with existing criminal records in the US. However, Obama wasn't the first to pursue this policy. That was actually George W Bush. Apparently PBS and other liberal outlets had no problem castigating GW Bush for this policy being a disaster. As PBS noted, while this policy was in effect illegal entry across the border surged.

 

In 2008 George W Bush signed into law a bipartisan bill that required a full immigration hearing for any unaccompanied minors seized at the border who did not come from either Mexico or Canada. Also under this law, immigrant minors from central America must be transferred to DHHS with 72 hours of the apprehension. After this law was signed into effect the illegal immigrant crises exploded. From fewer than 5,000 children in 2008 to nearly 75,000 in 2013. It is important to note none of this impacts anyone from Mexico. It applies only to countries below Mexico.

 

From 2012 or 2013 forward, the Obama administration responded to the crisis by building or appropriating existing structures to serve as family detention centers. This was met with stiff resistance from pro immigrant groups, progressives, the ACLU, and other groups. Issues with such detention centers being unsafe, unsanitary, and lacking in basic requirements to meet the needs those held were raised under Obama just as they had been under GW Bush. Ultimately most family detention centers were sheltered.

 

The final factor which helped created this crisis is the practice of releasing families into the general population if they have children. This was done throughout the Obama years with most of these families disappearing and never being seen before an immigration judge. This is well documented. What is not well documented is when this practice began. I am inclined to suspect it began during the illegal surge created by GW Bush with his catch and release policies.

 

One thing appears obvious to me. People in central America and Mexico appear to follow the changes in our laws and in our practices quite well. Changes in policy or law here result in changes to the numbers of people coming to our borders. No doubt they are watching the current situation quite closely.

 

It should also be obvious detaining people as a family units was not acceptable to the left, even when done by the left. Which is admirably consistent. However, now we find detaining minors separate from their family is also unacceptable. So that leaves catch and release, where 97% just disappear and never face an immigration judge. That is unacceptable as well. These policies helped create the crisis in the first place.

 

What we have and have had for the past three decades is unacceptable. The actions or previous administrations only made things worse. Unrestricted immigration and illegal immigration are hugely unpopular with the majority of Americans on both sides. We don't want it. We want the crises ended, we want illegal immigration stopped. Which means doing away with the failed policies of the past, the Flores agreement, and the 2008 immigration law. Good intentions do not mitigate bad results and if what you do creates bad results you have to do something else.

 

 

New York Times February 2007 

 Link to Article

 

The Least of These - March 2007 

Link to Article

 

The ACLU - December 2010

Link to Article

 

 

The Atlanta Journal Constitution - November 2014

Link to Article

 

 

MSNBC - November 2014

Link to Article

 

 

 

CNBC - June 2014

Link to Article

 

The Guardian - July 2014

Link to Article

 

NBC News - July 2014

Link to Article

 

Find Law - 2015

Link to Article

 

Detention Watch Network - 2017

Link to Article

 

NOLO - June 2012

Link to Article

 

 

ACLU - January 2013

Link to Article

 

Huffington Post - November 2012

Link to Article

 

 

CIS - March 2014

Link to Article

 

 

Washington Times - March 2014

Link to Article

 

PBS - June 2014

Link to Article