NewsMax
Whole article in link above (just click on article title)
Bush projects government spending in 2008 of $2.90 trillion, a 4.9 percent increase from the $2.78 trillion in outlays the administration is projecting for this year. However, the administration notes that the 2007 total is only an estimate, given that Congress is still working to complete a massive omnibus spending bill to cover most agencies for the rest of this fiscal year.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
President's Budget Does Not Threaten the Safety Net (RE: 2005-6 budget)
By Brian Riedl Heritage Foundation
Spending Trends
Table 1 (click on Article title for link to table) shows poverty relief spending since President Bush took office in 2001.
Table 1: Anti-Poverty Spending Is Up 42 percent under President Bush
The 42 percent increase under President Bush translates to an average annual increase of 9.2 percent. By comparison, these programs grew by an average of 5.5 percent annually under President Clinton.[1] Critics may suggest that increased poverty has driven costs up since 2001. Despite the recession, however, poverty rates have increased by less than one percent under President Bush and remain lower than the average poverty rates under the Clinton Administration. Nonetheless, poverty-relief programs have grown faster under President Bush.
Results Matter More
These spending numbers are not intended to prove that President Bush has been “better” on poverty issues than other presidents. Government programs should be judged by their results and value, not just by their budgets. From the 1960s through the mid-1990s, Washington spent more than $5 trillion on anti-poverty programs that did not make a dent in the poverty rate. Record-low poverty rates were finally achieved in the late 1990s not because of extra federal funding, but as a result of welfare reforms moving low-income individuals out of the welfare system and into the workforce while also promoting family formation.[2] Those who judge America’s progress against poverty by spending levels confuse inputs with outputs.
What’s Really in the Budget
Despite critics’ claims of major cuts, President Bush’s budget actually increases spending on poverty programs by 2 percent. After expanding 42 percent since 2001, these programs certainly can stand to grow a little more slowly than before. The budget’s proposals to save money from these programs are designed to increase efficiency and better serve targeted populations, not to reduce benefits. For example, the President proposes saving $60 billion from Medicaid over the decade by restructuring prescription drug payment formulas as well as by cracking down on state schemes to defraud the program. He then proposes $16 billion in new Medicaid and S-CHIP spending and a $120 billion in new health tax incentives. This is a net expansion of assistance.
And although some anti-poverty programs are reduced, they are by no means singled out. The President calls for a crackdown on corporate welfare by shaving $8 billion over the next decade from farm subsidies for large agribusinesses and by eliminating the Advanced Technology Program, which subsidizes dozens of Fortune 500 companies. In order to reduce runaway spending and budget deficits, additional spending cuts are spread across programs such as energy, justice, transportation, and water projects.
Conclusion
Budgets are about setting priorities, and all programs must be on the table in order to restrain federal spending. That said, the large increases in poverty-relief spending since 2001—and the additional (albeit smaller) increase proposed for 2006—show that the President is not disproportionately targeting poor families for budget cuts. More importantly, vital programs that have succeeded in reducing poverty will continue to operate effectively.
Brian M. Riedl is Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
[1] Calculated from Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2006: Historical Tables. Medicaid figures are from Table 8.5, while other costs represents budget functions 604, 605 and 609 in Table 3.2.
[2]See Robert Rector, “Understanding Poverty and Economic Inequality in the United States,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1796, September 15, 2004, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1796.cfm.
Spending Trends
Table 1 (click on Article title for link to table) shows poverty relief spending since President Bush took office in 2001.
Table 1: Anti-Poverty Spending Is Up 42 percent under President Bush
The 42 percent increase under President Bush translates to an average annual increase of 9.2 percent. By comparison, these programs grew by an average of 5.5 percent annually under President Clinton.[1] Critics may suggest that increased poverty has driven costs up since 2001. Despite the recession, however, poverty rates have increased by less than one percent under President Bush and remain lower than the average poverty rates under the Clinton Administration. Nonetheless, poverty-relief programs have grown faster under President Bush.
Results Matter More
These spending numbers are not intended to prove that President Bush has been “better” on poverty issues than other presidents. Government programs should be judged by their results and value, not just by their budgets. From the 1960s through the mid-1990s, Washington spent more than $5 trillion on anti-poverty programs that did not make a dent in the poverty rate. Record-low poverty rates were finally achieved in the late 1990s not because of extra federal funding, but as a result of welfare reforms moving low-income individuals out of the welfare system and into the workforce while also promoting family formation.[2] Those who judge America’s progress against poverty by spending levels confuse inputs with outputs.
What’s Really in the Budget
Despite critics’ claims of major cuts, President Bush’s budget actually increases spending on poverty programs by 2 percent. After expanding 42 percent since 2001, these programs certainly can stand to grow a little more slowly than before. The budget’s proposals to save money from these programs are designed to increase efficiency and better serve targeted populations, not to reduce benefits. For example, the President proposes saving $60 billion from Medicaid over the decade by restructuring prescription drug payment formulas as well as by cracking down on state schemes to defraud the program. He then proposes $16 billion in new Medicaid and S-CHIP spending and a $120 billion in new health tax incentives. This is a net expansion of assistance.
And although some anti-poverty programs are reduced, they are by no means singled out. The President calls for a crackdown on corporate welfare by shaving $8 billion over the next decade from farm subsidies for large agribusinesses and by eliminating the Advanced Technology Program, which subsidizes dozens of Fortune 500 companies. In order to reduce runaway spending and budget deficits, additional spending cuts are spread across programs such as energy, justice, transportation, and water projects.
Conclusion
Budgets are about setting priorities, and all programs must be on the table in order to restrain federal spending. That said, the large increases in poverty-relief spending since 2001—and the additional (albeit smaller) increase proposed for 2006—show that the President is not disproportionately targeting poor families for budget cuts. More importantly, vital programs that have succeeded in reducing poverty will continue to operate effectively.
Brian M. Riedl is Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
[1] Calculated from Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2006: Historical Tables. Medicaid figures are from Table 8.5, while other costs represents budget functions 604, 605 and 609 in Table 3.2.
[2]See Robert Rector, “Understanding Poverty and Economic Inequality in the United States,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1796, September 15, 2004, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1796.cfm.
Presidential Frontrunners (from both parties) Would Surrender America's Borders
by Chuck Baldwin February 6, 2007
Looking at the potential presidential frontrunners for both the Democrat and Republican parties reveals that virtually everyone of them would surrender America's borders. Not one of the presidential frontrunners from either party would protect our borders against illegal immigration. Just the opposite. They would continue George Bush's policy of wide open borders, including his determination to grant amnesty to illegals. In other words, when it comes to protecting our borders, there is not a nickel's worth of difference between the two major parties' leading presidential contenders.
Democratic presidential frontrunners include John Edwards, Barak Obama, and Hillary Clinton. Republican frontrunners include John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Rudy Giuliani.
In fact, virtually every Democratic candidate, and even the vast majority of Republican candidates, would provide no relief to America's border problems. And, yes, that includes Sam Brownback and Newt Gingrich. Notable exceptions include Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, and Tom Tancredo, with Tancredo at the head of the class.
Obviously, should Hunter, Paul, or Tancredo miraculously win the White House, the push for a North American Union (NAU) complete with a NAFTA superhighway and a trilateral, hemispheric government, would be stopped dead in its tracks. For this reason, the GOP machine (and the insiders who control it) will never allow someone such as Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, or Tom Tancredo to obtain the nomination.
It's time the American people faced a hard, cold reality: no matter who the two major parties nominate in November 2008, the push for open borders, amnesty for illegal aliens, and the NAU will continue unabated. In other words, anyone one believes that unimpeded illegal immigration (and related issues) just might be the biggest threat to our national sovereignty and security (and count me as one who does) will not be able to vote for either the Republican or Democratic nominee in 2008. It's time to start preparing for that reality now.
Does that mean that Republicans should not do everything they can to help Tancredo, Paul, or Hunter gain the nomination? Of course not. If the vast majority of the GOP rank and file would get solidly behind these three men, one of them might have a chance of succeeding. However, the track record of the GOP faithful is not very reassuring.
Instead of supporting principled, uncompromising men of integrity, such as the three men named above, Republican voters will doubtless buy into the party mantra of pragmatism and help nominate another spineless globalist such as currently occupies the White House, which will leave us exactly where we are now.
So, here is the sixty-four million dollar question: What will principled conservative voters do in 2008? My hope and prayer is that after failing to receive their party's nomination, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, and Duncan Hunter (or at least one of them) will leave the party and bring their (his) followers to the Constitution Party (CP). In all likelihood, the CP will have ballot access in over 45 states. It is already the third largest political party in the country and is currently the fastest growing political party in the nation. A national leader such as Paul, Tancredo, or Hunter would provide the CP with a very attractive alternative to the globalist candidates being offered by the two major parties.
By nature, I am not a single issue voter. However, I am sensible enough to realize that there are currently a handful of issues that will literally make or break America's future. And right now, the illegal immigration and emerging North American Union issues are at the very top of the list. Further failure on these issues will mean the end of America as we know it. And I mean very soon.
Regardless of what Hunter, Paul, and Tancredo ultimately do, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents who believe we must protect America's borders, stop the burgeoning North American Union, and secure our national sovereignty must be prepared to abandon the two major parties' presidential nominees in 2008 and support an "America First" third party candidate. Even a virtually unknown candidate with limited experience, but someone who understands the issues and has the backbone to do what is right, would be head and shoulders above what the two major parties are currently shoving down our throats.
Better start preparing yourselves for it now, folks.
Looking at the potential presidential frontrunners for both the Democrat and Republican parties reveals that virtually everyone of them would surrender America's borders. Not one of the presidential frontrunners from either party would protect our borders against illegal immigration. Just the opposite. They would continue George Bush's policy of wide open borders, including his determination to grant amnesty to illegals. In other words, when it comes to protecting our borders, there is not a nickel's worth of difference between the two major parties' leading presidential contenders.
Democratic presidential frontrunners include John Edwards, Barak Obama, and Hillary Clinton. Republican frontrunners include John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Rudy Giuliani.
In fact, virtually every Democratic candidate, and even the vast majority of Republican candidates, would provide no relief to America's border problems. And, yes, that includes Sam Brownback and Newt Gingrich. Notable exceptions include Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, and Tom Tancredo, with Tancredo at the head of the class.
Obviously, should Hunter, Paul, or Tancredo miraculously win the White House, the push for a North American Union (NAU) complete with a NAFTA superhighway and a trilateral, hemispheric government, would be stopped dead in its tracks. For this reason, the GOP machine (and the insiders who control it) will never allow someone such as Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, or Tom Tancredo to obtain the nomination.
It's time the American people faced a hard, cold reality: no matter who the two major parties nominate in November 2008, the push for open borders, amnesty for illegal aliens, and the NAU will continue unabated. In other words, anyone one believes that unimpeded illegal immigration (and related issues) just might be the biggest threat to our national sovereignty and security (and count me as one who does) will not be able to vote for either the Republican or Democratic nominee in 2008. It's time to start preparing for that reality now.
Does that mean that Republicans should not do everything they can to help Tancredo, Paul, or Hunter gain the nomination? Of course not. If the vast majority of the GOP rank and file would get solidly behind these three men, one of them might have a chance of succeeding. However, the track record of the GOP faithful is not very reassuring.
Instead of supporting principled, uncompromising men of integrity, such as the three men named above, Republican voters will doubtless buy into the party mantra of pragmatism and help nominate another spineless globalist such as currently occupies the White House, which will leave us exactly where we are now.
So, here is the sixty-four million dollar question: What will principled conservative voters do in 2008? My hope and prayer is that after failing to receive their party's nomination, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, and Duncan Hunter (or at least one of them) will leave the party and bring their (his) followers to the Constitution Party (CP). In all likelihood, the CP will have ballot access in over 45 states. It is already the third largest political party in the country and is currently the fastest growing political party in the nation. A national leader such as Paul, Tancredo, or Hunter would provide the CP with a very attractive alternative to the globalist candidates being offered by the two major parties.
By nature, I am not a single issue voter. However, I am sensible enough to realize that there are currently a handful of issues that will literally make or break America's future. And right now, the illegal immigration and emerging North American Union issues are at the very top of the list. Further failure on these issues will mean the end of America as we know it. And I mean very soon.
Regardless of what Hunter, Paul, and Tancredo ultimately do, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents who believe we must protect America's borders, stop the burgeoning North American Union, and secure our national sovereignty must be prepared to abandon the two major parties' presidential nominees in 2008 and support an "America First" third party candidate. Even a virtually unknown candidate with limited experience, but someone who understands the issues and has the backbone to do what is right, would be head and shoulders above what the two major parties are currently shoving down our throats.
Better start preparing yourselves for it now, folks.
Whose Side Is Bush On?
by Chuck Baldwin January 31, 2007
There was someone in the gallery during President George W. Bush's State of the Union speech that he would not dare publicly recognize. Even though he knew she was there, I'm confident he never even bothered to look up at Gallery 5, Row B, Seat 9, because sitting in that seat was Monica Ramos, the wife of imprisoned former Border Patrol agent Ignacio Ramos. She was the invited guest of Republican California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher.
Representative Rohrabacher is incensed at Bush's Justice Department for imprisoning Ramos and former Border Patrol agent Jose Alonso Compean for their actions in the shooting and wounding of a Mexican drug smuggler.
In case you missed the story, the two BP agents intercepted a Mexican drug smuggler who brought more than 700 pounds of marijuana (that we know of) across the border into the United States. In the process of attempting to capture the criminal, he pointed something at the agents, and they opened fire. He was apparently hit in the buttocks, as he turned to run. However, the smuggler appeared to not be injured, as he continued to run swiftly back into Mexico and into a waiting van. Both van and smuggler raced out of sight. The smuggler's weapon was not found.
Why, you ask, were the two agents imprisoned (for a term of more than 11 years each, no less)? For firing their weapons and not filing the proper paperwork. You read it right.
"TJ Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, a union representing 1,500 agents, argued failure to report the discharge of a firearm is an administrative offense that, at the most, merits a five-day suspension," reports World Net Daily.
"How that translates into 11-and 12-year prison terms is beyond me," Bonner said.
Making matters worse, the Mexican drug smuggler was even granted full immunity by the Justice Department and brought back at U.S. taxpayers' expense to testify against the agents. He is even being allowed to sue the two agents for over $5 million for having his "civil rights" violated. No, he is not an American citizen. He is a Mexican criminal who entered the United States illegally for the express purpose of smuggling drugs.
More than 70 lawmakers signed a petition pleading with President Bush to pardon the two agents. To no avail. Agents Ramos and Compean began their prison terms on January 17.
Representative Rohrabacher called President Bush a "disgrace" for refusing to pardon the two BP agents. About Bush, he said, "This is the worst betrayal of American defenders I have ever seen." He further said, "He [Bush] obviously thinks more of his agreements with Mexico than the lives of American people and backing up his defenders."
Rep. Joe Wilson said, "Convicting Ramos and Compean is a slap in the face to every American who respects the rule of law and expects our government to enforce its own laws."
However, the story gets even more bizarre. Writing for World Net Daily, Jerome Corsi reports, "New evidence suggests prosecuting U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton of El Paso lied about how the government found the fleeing illegal alien Mexican drug smuggler, Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, according to a Border Patrol advocate closely following the case of former agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Campean.
"Contrary to claims, no Mexican attorney was involved as an intermediary offering to reveal the identity of the drug smuggler and bring him back to the U.S. in exchange for given immunity to testify against Border Patrol, contended Andy Ramirez, chairman of Friends of the Border Patrol.
"'It's shocking how much lying Johnny Sutton has done about Aldrete-Davila,' he told WND."
Ramirez said emphatically, "If the truth about how the government got their hands on Aldrete-Davila had been told to the jury, there is no way the jury would have believed a word of his story that he was unarmed."
Obviously, much of the prosecutor's cased hinged on the testimony of the drug smuggler that he was not armed. In the end, the jury had to decide in favor of a U.S. Attorney and a Mexican drug smuggler or the two Border Patrol agents. Pathetically, they chose to believe the Mexican criminal and the collaborating U.S. Attorney.
Worse still, President Bush ignored the pleas of members of Congress and the thousands of American citizens begging him to pardon the two agents.
In response to Bush's decision to leave the two BP agents behind bars, Rohrabacher's spokeswoman, Tara Setmayer, said that the "lives of two brave men, her husband Ignacio Ramos and Border Patrol agent Jose Compean, have been destroyed by an inexplicable policy of open borders and amnesty this administration has toward our southern border.
"If the Bush administration cared about securing our borders, these two law enforcement officers would not be behind bars, and U.S. prosecuting attorneys wouldn't be prosecuting Border Patrol agents while drug smugglers go free."
Congressman Rohrabacher even went so far as to say, "He [President Bush] talks about being a Christian, but he has shown no Christian charity." He went on to say that because of the decision of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and President Bush to prosecute the two Border Patrol agents, "The word is out that the southern border is undefended. Border agents won't dare to draw their weapons, and the drug cartel will double their effort to drive a wedge in our border."
Makes one wonder whose side George W. Bush is on, doesn't it?
There was someone in the gallery during President George W. Bush's State of the Union speech that he would not dare publicly recognize. Even though he knew she was there, I'm confident he never even bothered to look up at Gallery 5, Row B, Seat 9, because sitting in that seat was Monica Ramos, the wife of imprisoned former Border Patrol agent Ignacio Ramos. She was the invited guest of Republican California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher.
Representative Rohrabacher is incensed at Bush's Justice Department for imprisoning Ramos and former Border Patrol agent Jose Alonso Compean for their actions in the shooting and wounding of a Mexican drug smuggler.
In case you missed the story, the two BP agents intercepted a Mexican drug smuggler who brought more than 700 pounds of marijuana (that we know of) across the border into the United States. In the process of attempting to capture the criminal, he pointed something at the agents, and they opened fire. He was apparently hit in the buttocks, as he turned to run. However, the smuggler appeared to not be injured, as he continued to run swiftly back into Mexico and into a waiting van. Both van and smuggler raced out of sight. The smuggler's weapon was not found.
Why, you ask, were the two agents imprisoned (for a term of more than 11 years each, no less)? For firing their weapons and not filing the proper paperwork. You read it right.
"TJ Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, a union representing 1,500 agents, argued failure to report the discharge of a firearm is an administrative offense that, at the most, merits a five-day suspension," reports World Net Daily.
"How that translates into 11-and 12-year prison terms is beyond me," Bonner said.
Making matters worse, the Mexican drug smuggler was even granted full immunity by the Justice Department and brought back at U.S. taxpayers' expense to testify against the agents. He is even being allowed to sue the two agents for over $5 million for having his "civil rights" violated. No, he is not an American citizen. He is a Mexican criminal who entered the United States illegally for the express purpose of smuggling drugs.
More than 70 lawmakers signed a petition pleading with President Bush to pardon the two agents. To no avail. Agents Ramos and Compean began their prison terms on January 17.
Representative Rohrabacher called President Bush a "disgrace" for refusing to pardon the two BP agents. About Bush, he said, "This is the worst betrayal of American defenders I have ever seen." He further said, "He [Bush] obviously thinks more of his agreements with Mexico than the lives of American people and backing up his defenders."
Rep. Joe Wilson said, "Convicting Ramos and Compean is a slap in the face to every American who respects the rule of law and expects our government to enforce its own laws."
However, the story gets even more bizarre. Writing for World Net Daily, Jerome Corsi reports, "New evidence suggests prosecuting U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton of El Paso lied about how the government found the fleeing illegal alien Mexican drug smuggler, Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, according to a Border Patrol advocate closely following the case of former agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Campean.
"Contrary to claims, no Mexican attorney was involved as an intermediary offering to reveal the identity of the drug smuggler and bring him back to the U.S. in exchange for given immunity to testify against Border Patrol, contended Andy Ramirez, chairman of Friends of the Border Patrol.
"'It's shocking how much lying Johnny Sutton has done about Aldrete-Davila,' he told WND."
Ramirez said emphatically, "If the truth about how the government got their hands on Aldrete-Davila had been told to the jury, there is no way the jury would have believed a word of his story that he was unarmed."
Obviously, much of the prosecutor's cased hinged on the testimony of the drug smuggler that he was not armed. In the end, the jury had to decide in favor of a U.S. Attorney and a Mexican drug smuggler or the two Border Patrol agents. Pathetically, they chose to believe the Mexican criminal and the collaborating U.S. Attorney.
Worse still, President Bush ignored the pleas of members of Congress and the thousands of American citizens begging him to pardon the two agents.
In response to Bush's decision to leave the two BP agents behind bars, Rohrabacher's spokeswoman, Tara Setmayer, said that the "lives of two brave men, her husband Ignacio Ramos and Border Patrol agent Jose Compean, have been destroyed by an inexplicable policy of open borders and amnesty this administration has toward our southern border.
"If the Bush administration cared about securing our borders, these two law enforcement officers would not be behind bars, and U.S. prosecuting attorneys wouldn't be prosecuting Border Patrol agents while drug smugglers go free."
Congressman Rohrabacher even went so far as to say, "He [President Bush] talks about being a Christian, but he has shown no Christian charity." He went on to say that because of the decision of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and President Bush to prosecute the two Border Patrol agents, "The word is out that the southern border is undefended. Border agents won't dare to draw their weapons, and the drug cartel will double their effort to drive a wedge in our border."
Makes one wonder whose side George W. Bush is on, doesn't it?
Student Pledge to the Earth
by Jeffrey Robbins
We all need to do a better job of educating ourselves (re-educating more like it), but check out what your kids will learn among thousands of other things at school. Important to be educated as parents. Unless you don't mind humanist, socialist, communist tendencies...Start with Dewey and "The Humanist Manifesto" to understand what is being pushed...
We all need to do a better job of educating ourselves (re-educating more like it), but check out what your kids will learn among thousands of other things at school. Important to be educated as parents. Unless you don't mind humanist, socialist, communist tendencies...Start with Dewey and "The Humanist Manifesto" to understand what is being pushed...
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
By Timothy Ball
Monday, February 5, 2007
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.
In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.
I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.
Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.
I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.
Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.
I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.
Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com
Monday, February 5, 2007
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.
In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.
I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.
Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.
I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.
Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.
I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.
Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)