Thursday, June 18, 2009
another great global warming article from the U.K.
2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved
Looking back over my columns of the past 12 months, one of their major themes was neatly encapsulated by two recent items from The Daily Telegraph.
By Christopher Booker
Published: 5:50PM GMT 27 Dec 2008
Comments 1145 | Comment on this article
Polar bear
Polar bears will be fine after all Photo: AP
The first, on May 21, headed "Climate change threat to Alpine ski resorts" , reported that the entire Alpine "winter sports industry" could soon "grind to a halt for lack of snow". The second, on December 19, headed "The Alps have best snow conditions in a generation" , reported that this winter's Alpine snowfalls "look set to beat all records by New Year's Day".
Easily one of the most important stories of 2008 has been all the evidence suggesting that this may be looked back on as the year when there was a turning point in the great worldwide panic over man-made global warming. Just when politicians in Europe and America have been adopting the most costly and damaging measures politicians have ever proposed, to combat this supposed menace, the tide has turned in three significant respects.
Related Articles
*
Scientists plan to stop global warming with mirrors
*
Global warming: Reasons why it might not actually exist
*
Climate deal possible under Obama, says Lord Stern
First, all over the world, temperatures have been dropping in a way wholly unpredicted by all those computer models which have been used as the main drivers of the scare. Last winter, as temperatures plummeted, many parts of the world had snowfalls on a scale not seen for decades. This winter, with the whole of Canada and half the US under snow, looks likely to be even worse. After several years flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century.
Ever shriller and more frantic has become the insistence of the warmists, cheered on by their army of media groupies such as the BBC, that the last 10 years have been the "hottest in history" and that the North Pole would soon be ice-free – as the poles remain defiantly icebound and those polar bears fail to drown. All those hysterical predictions that we are seeing more droughts and hurricanes than ever before have infuriatingly failed to materialise.
Even the more cautious scientific acolytes of the official orthodoxy now admit that, thanks to "natural factors" such as ocean currents, temperatures have failed to rise as predicted (although they plaintively assure us that this cooling effect is merely "masking the underlying warming trend", and that the temperature rise will resume worse than ever by the middle of the next decade).
Secondly, 2008 was the year when any pretence that there was a "scientific consensus" in favour of man-made global warming collapsed. At long last, as in the Manhattan Declaration last March, hundreds of proper scientists, including many of the world's most eminent climate experts, have been rallying to pour scorn on that "consensus" which was only a politically engineered artefact, based on ever more blatantly manipulated data and computer models programmed to produce no more than convenient fictions.
Thirdly, as banks collapsed and the global economy plunged into its worst recession for decades, harsh reality at last began to break in on those self-deluding dreams which have for so long possessed almost every politician in the western world. As we saw in this month's Poznan conference, when 10,000 politicians, officials and "environmentalists" gathered to plan next year's "son of Kyoto" treaty in Copenhagen, panicking politicians are waking up to the fact that the world can no longer afford all those quixotic schemes for "combating climate change" with which they were so happy to indulge themselves in more comfortable times.
Suddenly it has become rather less appealing that we should divert trillions of dollars, pounds and euros into the fantasy that we could reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 80 per cent. All those grandiose projects for "emissions trading", "carbon capture", building tens of thousands more useless wind turbines, switching vast areas of farmland from producing food to "biofuels", are being exposed as no more than enormously damaging and futile gestures, costing astronomic sums we no longer possess.
As 2009 dawns, it is time we in Britain faced up to the genuine crisis now fast approaching from the fact that – unless we get on very soon with building enough proper power stations to fill our looming "energy gap" - within a few years our lights will go out and what remains of our economy will judder to a halt. After years of infantile displacement activity, it is high time our politicians – along with those of the EU and President Obama's US – were brought back with a mighty jolt into contact with the real world.
I must end this year by again paying tribute to my readers for the wonderful generosity with which they came to the aid of two causes. First their donations made it possible for the latest "metric martyr", the east London market trader Janet Devers, to fight Hackney council's vindictive decision to prosecute her on 13 criminal charges, ranging from selling in pounds and ounces to selling produce "by the bowl" (to avoid using weights her customers dislike and don't understand). The embarrassment caused by this historic battle has thrown the forced metrication policy of both our governments, in London and Brussels, into total disarray.
Since Hackney backed out of allowing four criminal charges against Janet to go before a jury next month, all that remains is for her to win her appeal in February against eight convictions which now look quite absurd (including those for selling veg by the bowl, as thousands of other London market traders do every day). The final goal, as Neil Herron of the Metric Martyrs Defence Fund insists, must then be a pardon for the late Steve Thoburn and the four other original "martyrs" who were found guilty in 2002 – after a legal battle also made possible by this column's readers – of breaking laws so ridiculous that the EU Commission has even denied they existed (but which are still on the statute book).
Readers were equally generous this year in rushing to the aid of Sue Smith, whose son was killed in a Snatch Land Rover in Iraq in 2005. Their contributions made it possible for her to carry on with the High Court action she has brought against the Ministry of Defence, with the sole aim of calling it to account for needlessly risking soldiers' lives by sending them into battle in hopelessly inappropriate vehicles. Thanks not least to Mrs Smith's determined fight, the Snatch Land Rover scandal, first reported here in 2006, has at last become a national cause celebre.
May I finally thank all those readers who have written to me in 2008 – so many that, as usual, it has not been possible to answer all their messages. But their support and information has been hugely appreciated. May I wish them and all of you a happy (if globally not too warm) New Year.
Looking back over my columns of the past 12 months, one of their major themes was neatly encapsulated by two recent items from The Daily Telegraph.
By Christopher Booker
Published: 5:50PM GMT 27 Dec 2008
Comments 1145 | Comment on this article
Polar bear
Polar bears will be fine after all Photo: AP
The first, on May 21, headed "Climate change threat to Alpine ski resorts" , reported that the entire Alpine "winter sports industry" could soon "grind to a halt for lack of snow". The second, on December 19, headed "The Alps have best snow conditions in a generation" , reported that this winter's Alpine snowfalls "look set to beat all records by New Year's Day".
Easily one of the most important stories of 2008 has been all the evidence suggesting that this may be looked back on as the year when there was a turning point in the great worldwide panic over man-made global warming. Just when politicians in Europe and America have been adopting the most costly and damaging measures politicians have ever proposed, to combat this supposed menace, the tide has turned in three significant respects.
Related Articles
*
Scientists plan to stop global warming with mirrors
*
Global warming: Reasons why it might not actually exist
*
Climate deal possible under Obama, says Lord Stern
First, all over the world, temperatures have been dropping in a way wholly unpredicted by all those computer models which have been used as the main drivers of the scare. Last winter, as temperatures plummeted, many parts of the world had snowfalls on a scale not seen for decades. This winter, with the whole of Canada and half the US under snow, looks likely to be even worse. After several years flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century.
Ever shriller and more frantic has become the insistence of the warmists, cheered on by their army of media groupies such as the BBC, that the last 10 years have been the "hottest in history" and that the North Pole would soon be ice-free – as the poles remain defiantly icebound and those polar bears fail to drown. All those hysterical predictions that we are seeing more droughts and hurricanes than ever before have infuriatingly failed to materialise.
Even the more cautious scientific acolytes of the official orthodoxy now admit that, thanks to "natural factors" such as ocean currents, temperatures have failed to rise as predicted (although they plaintively assure us that this cooling effect is merely "masking the underlying warming trend", and that the temperature rise will resume worse than ever by the middle of the next decade).
Secondly, 2008 was the year when any pretence that there was a "scientific consensus" in favour of man-made global warming collapsed. At long last, as in the Manhattan Declaration last March, hundreds of proper scientists, including many of the world's most eminent climate experts, have been rallying to pour scorn on that "consensus" which was only a politically engineered artefact, based on ever more blatantly manipulated data and computer models programmed to produce no more than convenient fictions.
Thirdly, as banks collapsed and the global economy plunged into its worst recession for decades, harsh reality at last began to break in on those self-deluding dreams which have for so long possessed almost every politician in the western world. As we saw in this month's Poznan conference, when 10,000 politicians, officials and "environmentalists" gathered to plan next year's "son of Kyoto" treaty in Copenhagen, panicking politicians are waking up to the fact that the world can no longer afford all those quixotic schemes for "combating climate change" with which they were so happy to indulge themselves in more comfortable times.
Suddenly it has become rather less appealing that we should divert trillions of dollars, pounds and euros into the fantasy that we could reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 80 per cent. All those grandiose projects for "emissions trading", "carbon capture", building tens of thousands more useless wind turbines, switching vast areas of farmland from producing food to "biofuels", are being exposed as no more than enormously damaging and futile gestures, costing astronomic sums we no longer possess.
As 2009 dawns, it is time we in Britain faced up to the genuine crisis now fast approaching from the fact that – unless we get on very soon with building enough proper power stations to fill our looming "energy gap" - within a few years our lights will go out and what remains of our economy will judder to a halt. After years of infantile displacement activity, it is high time our politicians – along with those of the EU and President Obama's US – were brought back with a mighty jolt into contact with the real world.
I must end this year by again paying tribute to my readers for the wonderful generosity with which they came to the aid of two causes. First their donations made it possible for the latest "metric martyr", the east London market trader Janet Devers, to fight Hackney council's vindictive decision to prosecute her on 13 criminal charges, ranging from selling in pounds and ounces to selling produce "by the bowl" (to avoid using weights her customers dislike and don't understand). The embarrassment caused by this historic battle has thrown the forced metrication policy of both our governments, in London and Brussels, into total disarray.
Since Hackney backed out of allowing four criminal charges against Janet to go before a jury next month, all that remains is for her to win her appeal in February against eight convictions which now look quite absurd (including those for selling veg by the bowl, as thousands of other London market traders do every day). The final goal, as Neil Herron of the Metric Martyrs Defence Fund insists, must then be a pardon for the late Steve Thoburn and the four other original "martyrs" who were found guilty in 2002 – after a legal battle also made possible by this column's readers – of breaking laws so ridiculous that the EU Commission has even denied they existed (but which are still on the statute book).
Readers were equally generous this year in rushing to the aid of Sue Smith, whose son was killed in a Snatch Land Rover in Iraq in 2005. Their contributions made it possible for her to carry on with the High Court action she has brought against the Ministry of Defence, with the sole aim of calling it to account for needlessly risking soldiers' lives by sending them into battle in hopelessly inappropriate vehicles. Thanks not least to Mrs Smith's determined fight, the Snatch Land Rover scandal, first reported here in 2006, has at last become a national cause celebre.
May I finally thank all those readers who have written to me in 2008 – so many that, as usual, it has not been possible to answer all their messages. But their support and information has been hugely appreciated. May I wish them and all of you a happy (if globally not too warm) New Year.
Here is one of the best articles breaking down man made global warming
By Dr. S. Fred Singer, posted January 7, 2008
Global warming, man made or natural?
The following is adapted from a lecture delivered on the Hillsdale College campus on June 30, 2007, during a seminar entitled "Economics and the Environment," sponsored by the Charles R. and Kathleen K. Hoogland Center for Teacher Excellence.
Wild firesIN THE PAST few years there has been increasing concern about global climate change on the part of the media, politicians, and the public. It has been stimulated by the idea that human activities may influence global climate adversely and that therefore corrective action is required on the part of governments. Recent evidence suggests that this concern is misplaced. Human activities are not influencing the global climate in a perceptible way. Climate will continue to change, as it always has in the past, warming and cooling on different time scales and for different reasons, regardless of human action. I would also argue that - should it occur - a modest warming would be on the whole beneficial.
This is not to say that we don't face a serious problem. But the problem is political. Because of the mistaken idea that governments can and must do something about climate, pressures are building that have the potential of distorting energy policies in a way that will severely damage national economies, decrease standards of living, and increase poverty. This misdirection of resources will adversely affect human health and welfare in industrialized nations, and even more in developing nations. Thus it could well lead to increased social tensions within nations and conflict between them.
If not for this economic and political damage, one might consider the present concern about climate change nothing more than just another environmentalist fad, like the Alar apple scare or the global cooling fears of the 1970s. Given that so much is at stake, however, it is essential that people better understand the issue.
Man-Made Warming?
The most fundamental question is scientific: Is the observed warming of the past 30 years due to natural causes or are human activities a main or even a contributing factor?
At first glance, it is quite plausible that humans could be responsible for warming the climate. After all, the burning of fossil fuels to generate energy releases large quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The CO2 level has been increasing steadily since the beginning of the industrial revolution and is now 35 percent higher than it was 200 years ago. Also, we know from direct measurements that CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" which strongly absorbs infrared (heat) radiation. So the idea that burning fossil fuels causes an enhanced "greenhouse effect" needs to be taken seriously.
But in seeking to understand recent warming, we also have to consider the natural factors that have regularly warmed the climate prior to the industrial revolution and, indeed, prior to any human presence on the earth. After all, the geological record shows a persistent 1,500-year cycle of warming and cooling extending back at least one million years.
In identifying the burning of fossil fuels as the chief cause of warming today, many politicians and environmental activists simply appeal to a so-called "scientific consensus." There are two things wrong with this. First, there is no such consensus: An increasing number of climate scientists are raising serious questions about the political rush to judgment on this issue. For example, the widely touted "consensus" of 2,500 scientists on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an illusion: Most of the panelists have no scientific qualifications, and many of the others object to some part of the IPCC's report. The Associated Press reported recently that only 52 climate scientists contributed to the report's "Summary for Policymakers."
Likewise, only about a dozen members of the governing board voted on the "consensus statement" on climate change by the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Rank and file AMS scientists never had a say, which is why so many of them are now openly rebelling. Estimates of skepticism within the AMS regarding man-made global warming are well over 50 percent.
The second reason not to rely on a "scientific consensus" in these matters is that this is not how science works. After all, scientific advances customarily come from a minority of scientists who challenge the majority view or even just a single person (think of Galileo or Einstein). Science proceeds by the scientific method and draws conclusions based on evidence, not on a show of hands.
But aren't glaciers melting? Isn't sea ice shrinking? Yes, but that's not proof for human-caused warming. Any kind of warming, whether natural or human-caused, will melt ice. To assert that melting glaciers prove human causation is just bad logic.
What about the fact that carbon dioxide levels are increasing at the same time temperatures are rising? That's an interesting correlation; but as every scientist knows, correlation is not causation. During much of the last century the climate was cooling while CO2 levels were rising. And we should note that the climate has not warmed in the past eight years, even though greenhouse gas levels have increased rapidly.
What about the fact - as cited by, among others, those who produced the IPCC report - that every major greenhouse computer model (there are two dozen or so) shows a large temperature increase due to human burning of fossil fuels? Fortunately, there is a scientific way of testing these models to see whether current warming is due to a man-made greenhouse effect. It involves comparing the actual or observed pattern of warming with the warming pattern predicted by or calculated from the models. Essentially, we try to see if the "fingerprints" match "fingerprints" meaning the rates of warming at different latitudes and altitudes.
For instance, theoretically, greenhouse warming in the tropics should register at increasingly high rates as one moves from the surface of the earth up into the atmosphere, peaking at about six miles above the earth's surface. At that point, the level should be greater than at the surface by about a factor of three and quite pronounced, according to all the computer models. In reality, however, there is no increase at all. In fact, the data from balloon-borne radiosondes show the very opposite: a slight decrease in warming over the equator.
The fact that the observed and predicted patterns of warming don't match indicates that the man-made greenhouse contribution to current temperature change is insignificant. This fact emerges from data and graphs collected in the Climate Change Science Program Report 1.1, published by the federal government in April 2006. It is remarkable and puzzling that few have noticed this disparity between observed and predicted patterns of warming and drawn the obvious scientific conclusion.
What explains why greenhouse computer models predict temperature trends that are so much larger than those observed? The answer lies in the proper evaluation of feedback within the models. Remember that in addition to carbon dioxide, the real atmosphere contains water vapor, the most powerful greenhouse gas. Every one of the climate models calculates a significant positive feedback from water vapor - i.e., a feedback that amplifies the warming effect of the CO2 increase by an average factor of two or three. But it is quite possible that the water vapor feedback is negative rather than positive and thereby reduces the effect of increased CO2.
There are several ways this might occur. For example, when increased CO2 produces a warming of the ocean, a higher rate of evaporation might lead to more humidity and cloudiness (provided the atmosphere contains a sufficient number of cloud condensation nuclei). These low clouds reflect incoming solar radiation back into space and thereby cool the earth. Climate researchers have discovered other possible feedbacks and are busy evaluating which ones enhance and which diminish the effect of increasing CO2.
Natural Causes of Warming
A quite different question, but scientifically interesting, has to do with the natural factors influencing climate. This is a big topic about which much has been written. Natural factors include continental drift and mountain-building, changes in the Earth's orbit, volcanic eruptions, and solar variability. Different factors operate on different time scales. But on a time scale important for human experience - a scale of decades, let's say - solar variability may be the most important.
Solar influence can manifest itself in different ways: fluctuations of solar irradiance (total energy), which has been measured in satellites and related to the sunspot cycle; variability of the ultraviolet portion of the solar spectrum, which in turn affects the amount of ozone in the stratosphere; and variations in the solar wind that modulate the intensity of cosmic rays (which, upon impact into the earth's atmosphere, produce cloud condensation nuclei, affecting cloudiness and thus climate).
Scientists have been able to trace the impact of the sun on past climate using proxy data (since thermometers are relatively modern). A conventional proxy for temperature is the ratio of the heavy isotope of oxygen, Oxygen-18, to the most common form, Oxygen-16.
A paper published in Nature in 2001 describes the Oxygen-18 data (reflecting temperature) from a stalagmite in a cave in Oman, covering a period of over 3,000 years. It also shows corresponding Carbon-14 data, which are directly related to the intensity of cosmic rays striking the earth's atmosphere. One sees there a remarkably detailed correlation, almost on a year-by-year basis. While such research cannot establish the detailed mechanism of climate change, the causal connection is quite clear: Since the stalagmite temperature cannot affect the sun, it is the sun that affects climate.
Policy Consequences
If this line of reasoning is correct, human-caused increases in the CO2 level are quite insignificant to climate change. Natural causes of climate change, for their part, cannot be controlled by man. They are unstoppable. Several policy consequences would follow from this simple fact:
*
Regulation of CO2 emissions is pointless and even counterproductive, in that no matter what kind of mitigation scheme is used, such regulation is hugely expensive.
*
The development of non-fossil fuel energy sources, like ethanol and hydrogen, might be counterproductive, given that they have to be manufactured, often with the investment of great amounts of ordinary energy. Nor do they offer much reduction in oil imports.
*
Wind power and solar power become less attractive, being uneconomic and requiring huge subsidies.
*
Substituting natural gas for coal in electricity generation makes less sense for the same reasons.
None of this is intended to argue against energy conservation. On the contrary, conserving energy reduces waste, saves money, and lowers energy prices -irrespective of what one may believe about global warming
Science vs. Hysteria
You will note that this has been a rational discussion. We asked the important question of whether there is appreciable man-made warming today. We presented evidence that indicates there is not, thereby suggesting that attempts by governments to control greenhouse-gas emissions are pointless and unwise. Nevertheless, we have state governors calling for CO2 emissions limits on cars; we have city mayors calling for mandatory CO2 controls; we have the Supreme Court declaring CO2 a pollutant that may have to be regulated; we have every industrialized nation (with the exception of the U.S. and Australia) signed on to the Kyoto Protocol; and we have ongoing international demands for even more stringent controls when Kyoto expires in 2012. What's going on here?
To begin, perhaps even some of the advocates of these anti-warming policies are not so serious about them, as seen in a feature of the Kyoto Protocol called the Clean Development Mechanism, which allows a CO2 emitter - i.e., an energy user - to support a fanciful CO2 reduction scheme in developing nations in exchange for the right to keep on emitting CO2 unabated. "Emission trading" among those countries that have ratified Kyoto allows for the sale of certificates of unused emission quotas. In many cases, the initial quota was simply given away by governments to power companies and other entities, which in turn collect a windfall fee from consumers. All of this has become a huge financial racket that could someday make the UN's "Oil for Food" scandal in Iraq seem minor by comparison. Even more fraudulent, these schemes do not reduce total CO2 emissions - not even in theory.
It is also worth noting that tens of thousands of interested persons benefit directly from the global warming scare - at the expense of the ordinary consumer. Environmental organizations globally, such as Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and the Environmental Defense Fund, have raked in billions of dollars. Multi-billion-dollar government subsidies for useless mitigation schemes are large and growing. Emission trading programs will soon reach the $100 billion a year level, with large fees paid to brokers and those who operate the scams. In other words, many people have discovered they can benefit from climate scares and have formed an entrenched interest. Of course, there are also many sincere believers in an impending global warming catastrophe, spurred on in their fears by the growing number of one-sided books, movies, and media coverage.
The irony is that a slightly warmer climate with more carbon dioxide is in many ways beneficial rather than damaging. Economic studies have demonstrated that a modest warming and higher CO2 levels will increase GNP and raise standards of living, primarily by improving agriculture and forestry. It's a well-known fact that CO2 is plant food and essential to the growth of crops and trees - and ultimately to the well-being of animals and humans.
You wouldn't know it from Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, but there are many upsides to global warming: Northern homes could save on heating fuel. Canadian farmers could harvest bumper crops. Greenland may become awash in cod and oil riches. Shippers could count on an Arctic shortcut between the Atlantic and Pacific. Forests may expand.
Mongolia could become an economic superpower. This is all speculative, even a little facetious. But still, might there be a silver lining for the frigid regions of Canada and Russia? "It's not that there won't be bad things happening in those countries," economics professor Robert O. Mendelsohn of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies says. "But the idea is that they will get such large gains, especially in agriculture, that they will be bigger than the losses." Mendelsohn has looked at how gross domestic product around the world would be affected under different warming scenarios through 2100. Canada and Russia tend to come out as clear gainers, as does much of northern Europe and Mongolia, largely because of projected increases in agricultural production.
To repeat a point made at the beginning: Climate has been changing cyclically for at least a million years and has shown huge variations over geological time. Human beings have adapted well, and will continue to do so.
* * *
The nations of the world face many difficult problems. Many have societal problems like poverty, disease, lack of sanitation, and shortage of clean water. There are grave security problems arising from global terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Any of these problems are vastly more important than the imaginary problem of man-made global warming. It is a great shame that so many of our resources are being diverted from real problems to this non-problem. Perhaps in ten or 20 years this will become apparent to everyone, particularly if the climate should stop warming (as it has for eight years now) or even begin to cool.
We can only trust that reason will prevail in the face of an onslaught of propaganda like Al Gore's movie and despite the incessant misinformation generated by the media. Today, the imposed costs are still modest, and mostly hidden in taxes and in charges for electricity and motor fuels. If the scaremongers have their way, these costs will become enormous. But I believe that sound science and good sense will prevail in the face of irrational and scientifically baseless climate fears.
S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, a distinguished research professor at George Mason University, and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project. He performed his undergraduate studies at Ohio State University and earned his Ph.D. in Physics from Princeton University. He was the founding dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami, the founding director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service, and served for five years as vice chairman of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere. Dr. Singer has written or edited over a dozen books and monographs, including, most recently, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years.
Global warming, man made or natural?
The following is adapted from a lecture delivered on the Hillsdale College campus on June 30, 2007, during a seminar entitled "Economics and the Environment," sponsored by the Charles R. and Kathleen K. Hoogland Center for Teacher Excellence.
Wild firesIN THE PAST few years there has been increasing concern about global climate change on the part of the media, politicians, and the public. It has been stimulated by the idea that human activities may influence global climate adversely and that therefore corrective action is required on the part of governments. Recent evidence suggests that this concern is misplaced. Human activities are not influencing the global climate in a perceptible way. Climate will continue to change, as it always has in the past, warming and cooling on different time scales and for different reasons, regardless of human action. I would also argue that - should it occur - a modest warming would be on the whole beneficial.
This is not to say that we don't face a serious problem. But the problem is political. Because of the mistaken idea that governments can and must do something about climate, pressures are building that have the potential of distorting energy policies in a way that will severely damage national economies, decrease standards of living, and increase poverty. This misdirection of resources will adversely affect human health and welfare in industrialized nations, and even more in developing nations. Thus it could well lead to increased social tensions within nations and conflict between them.
If not for this economic and political damage, one might consider the present concern about climate change nothing more than just another environmentalist fad, like the Alar apple scare or the global cooling fears of the 1970s. Given that so much is at stake, however, it is essential that people better understand the issue.
Man-Made Warming?
The most fundamental question is scientific: Is the observed warming of the past 30 years due to natural causes or are human activities a main or even a contributing factor?
At first glance, it is quite plausible that humans could be responsible for warming the climate. After all, the burning of fossil fuels to generate energy releases large quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The CO2 level has been increasing steadily since the beginning of the industrial revolution and is now 35 percent higher than it was 200 years ago. Also, we know from direct measurements that CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" which strongly absorbs infrared (heat) radiation. So the idea that burning fossil fuels causes an enhanced "greenhouse effect" needs to be taken seriously.
But in seeking to understand recent warming, we also have to consider the natural factors that have regularly warmed the climate prior to the industrial revolution and, indeed, prior to any human presence on the earth. After all, the geological record shows a persistent 1,500-year cycle of warming and cooling extending back at least one million years.
In identifying the burning of fossil fuels as the chief cause of warming today, many politicians and environmental activists simply appeal to a so-called "scientific consensus." There are two things wrong with this. First, there is no such consensus: An increasing number of climate scientists are raising serious questions about the political rush to judgment on this issue. For example, the widely touted "consensus" of 2,500 scientists on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an illusion: Most of the panelists have no scientific qualifications, and many of the others object to some part of the IPCC's report. The Associated Press reported recently that only 52 climate scientists contributed to the report's "Summary for Policymakers."
Likewise, only about a dozen members of the governing board voted on the "consensus statement" on climate change by the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Rank and file AMS scientists never had a say, which is why so many of them are now openly rebelling. Estimates of skepticism within the AMS regarding man-made global warming are well over 50 percent.
The second reason not to rely on a "scientific consensus" in these matters is that this is not how science works. After all, scientific advances customarily come from a minority of scientists who challenge the majority view or even just a single person (think of Galileo or Einstein). Science proceeds by the scientific method and draws conclusions based on evidence, not on a show of hands.
But aren't glaciers melting? Isn't sea ice shrinking? Yes, but that's not proof for human-caused warming. Any kind of warming, whether natural or human-caused, will melt ice. To assert that melting glaciers prove human causation is just bad logic.
What about the fact that carbon dioxide levels are increasing at the same time temperatures are rising? That's an interesting correlation; but as every scientist knows, correlation is not causation. During much of the last century the climate was cooling while CO2 levels were rising. And we should note that the climate has not warmed in the past eight years, even though greenhouse gas levels have increased rapidly.
What about the fact - as cited by, among others, those who produced the IPCC report - that every major greenhouse computer model (there are two dozen or so) shows a large temperature increase due to human burning of fossil fuels? Fortunately, there is a scientific way of testing these models to see whether current warming is due to a man-made greenhouse effect. It involves comparing the actual or observed pattern of warming with the warming pattern predicted by or calculated from the models. Essentially, we try to see if the "fingerprints" match "fingerprints" meaning the rates of warming at different latitudes and altitudes.
For instance, theoretically, greenhouse warming in the tropics should register at increasingly high rates as one moves from the surface of the earth up into the atmosphere, peaking at about six miles above the earth's surface. At that point, the level should be greater than at the surface by about a factor of three and quite pronounced, according to all the computer models. In reality, however, there is no increase at all. In fact, the data from balloon-borne radiosondes show the very opposite: a slight decrease in warming over the equator.
The fact that the observed and predicted patterns of warming don't match indicates that the man-made greenhouse contribution to current temperature change is insignificant. This fact emerges from data and graphs collected in the Climate Change Science Program Report 1.1, published by the federal government in April 2006. It is remarkable and puzzling that few have noticed this disparity between observed and predicted patterns of warming and drawn the obvious scientific conclusion.
What explains why greenhouse computer models predict temperature trends that are so much larger than those observed? The answer lies in the proper evaluation of feedback within the models. Remember that in addition to carbon dioxide, the real atmosphere contains water vapor, the most powerful greenhouse gas. Every one of the climate models calculates a significant positive feedback from water vapor - i.e., a feedback that amplifies the warming effect of the CO2 increase by an average factor of two or three. But it is quite possible that the water vapor feedback is negative rather than positive and thereby reduces the effect of increased CO2.
There are several ways this might occur. For example, when increased CO2 produces a warming of the ocean, a higher rate of evaporation might lead to more humidity and cloudiness (provided the atmosphere contains a sufficient number of cloud condensation nuclei). These low clouds reflect incoming solar radiation back into space and thereby cool the earth. Climate researchers have discovered other possible feedbacks and are busy evaluating which ones enhance and which diminish the effect of increasing CO2.
Natural Causes of Warming
A quite different question, but scientifically interesting, has to do with the natural factors influencing climate. This is a big topic about which much has been written. Natural factors include continental drift and mountain-building, changes in the Earth's orbit, volcanic eruptions, and solar variability. Different factors operate on different time scales. But on a time scale important for human experience - a scale of decades, let's say - solar variability may be the most important.
Solar influence can manifest itself in different ways: fluctuations of solar irradiance (total energy), which has been measured in satellites and related to the sunspot cycle; variability of the ultraviolet portion of the solar spectrum, which in turn affects the amount of ozone in the stratosphere; and variations in the solar wind that modulate the intensity of cosmic rays (which, upon impact into the earth's atmosphere, produce cloud condensation nuclei, affecting cloudiness and thus climate).
Scientists have been able to trace the impact of the sun on past climate using proxy data (since thermometers are relatively modern). A conventional proxy for temperature is the ratio of the heavy isotope of oxygen, Oxygen-18, to the most common form, Oxygen-16.
A paper published in Nature in 2001 describes the Oxygen-18 data (reflecting temperature) from a stalagmite in a cave in Oman, covering a period of over 3,000 years. It also shows corresponding Carbon-14 data, which are directly related to the intensity of cosmic rays striking the earth's atmosphere. One sees there a remarkably detailed correlation, almost on a year-by-year basis. While such research cannot establish the detailed mechanism of climate change, the causal connection is quite clear: Since the stalagmite temperature cannot affect the sun, it is the sun that affects climate.
Policy Consequences
If this line of reasoning is correct, human-caused increases in the CO2 level are quite insignificant to climate change. Natural causes of climate change, for their part, cannot be controlled by man. They are unstoppable. Several policy consequences would follow from this simple fact:
*
Regulation of CO2 emissions is pointless and even counterproductive, in that no matter what kind of mitigation scheme is used, such regulation is hugely expensive.
*
The development of non-fossil fuel energy sources, like ethanol and hydrogen, might be counterproductive, given that they have to be manufactured, often with the investment of great amounts of ordinary energy. Nor do they offer much reduction in oil imports.
*
Wind power and solar power become less attractive, being uneconomic and requiring huge subsidies.
*
Substituting natural gas for coal in electricity generation makes less sense for the same reasons.
None of this is intended to argue against energy conservation. On the contrary, conserving energy reduces waste, saves money, and lowers energy prices -irrespective of what one may believe about global warming
Science vs. Hysteria
You will note that this has been a rational discussion. We asked the important question of whether there is appreciable man-made warming today. We presented evidence that indicates there is not, thereby suggesting that attempts by governments to control greenhouse-gas emissions are pointless and unwise. Nevertheless, we have state governors calling for CO2 emissions limits on cars; we have city mayors calling for mandatory CO2 controls; we have the Supreme Court declaring CO2 a pollutant that may have to be regulated; we have every industrialized nation (with the exception of the U.S. and Australia) signed on to the Kyoto Protocol; and we have ongoing international demands for even more stringent controls when Kyoto expires in 2012. What's going on here?
To begin, perhaps even some of the advocates of these anti-warming policies are not so serious about them, as seen in a feature of the Kyoto Protocol called the Clean Development Mechanism, which allows a CO2 emitter - i.e., an energy user - to support a fanciful CO2 reduction scheme in developing nations in exchange for the right to keep on emitting CO2 unabated. "Emission trading" among those countries that have ratified Kyoto allows for the sale of certificates of unused emission quotas. In many cases, the initial quota was simply given away by governments to power companies and other entities, which in turn collect a windfall fee from consumers. All of this has become a huge financial racket that could someday make the UN's "Oil for Food" scandal in Iraq seem minor by comparison. Even more fraudulent, these schemes do not reduce total CO2 emissions - not even in theory.
It is also worth noting that tens of thousands of interested persons benefit directly from the global warming scare - at the expense of the ordinary consumer. Environmental organizations globally, such as Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and the Environmental Defense Fund, have raked in billions of dollars. Multi-billion-dollar government subsidies for useless mitigation schemes are large and growing. Emission trading programs will soon reach the $100 billion a year level, with large fees paid to brokers and those who operate the scams. In other words, many people have discovered they can benefit from climate scares and have formed an entrenched interest. Of course, there are also many sincere believers in an impending global warming catastrophe, spurred on in their fears by the growing number of one-sided books, movies, and media coverage.
The irony is that a slightly warmer climate with more carbon dioxide is in many ways beneficial rather than damaging. Economic studies have demonstrated that a modest warming and higher CO2 levels will increase GNP and raise standards of living, primarily by improving agriculture and forestry. It's a well-known fact that CO2 is plant food and essential to the growth of crops and trees - and ultimately to the well-being of animals and humans.
You wouldn't know it from Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, but there are many upsides to global warming: Northern homes could save on heating fuel. Canadian farmers could harvest bumper crops. Greenland may become awash in cod and oil riches. Shippers could count on an Arctic shortcut between the Atlantic and Pacific. Forests may expand.
Mongolia could become an economic superpower. This is all speculative, even a little facetious. But still, might there be a silver lining for the frigid regions of Canada and Russia? "It's not that there won't be bad things happening in those countries," economics professor Robert O. Mendelsohn of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies says. "But the idea is that they will get such large gains, especially in agriculture, that they will be bigger than the losses." Mendelsohn has looked at how gross domestic product around the world would be affected under different warming scenarios through 2100. Canada and Russia tend to come out as clear gainers, as does much of northern Europe and Mongolia, largely because of projected increases in agricultural production.
To repeat a point made at the beginning: Climate has been changing cyclically for at least a million years and has shown huge variations over geological time. Human beings have adapted well, and will continue to do so.
* * *
The nations of the world face many difficult problems. Many have societal problems like poverty, disease, lack of sanitation, and shortage of clean water. There are grave security problems arising from global terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Any of these problems are vastly more important than the imaginary problem of man-made global warming. It is a great shame that so many of our resources are being diverted from real problems to this non-problem. Perhaps in ten or 20 years this will become apparent to everyone, particularly if the climate should stop warming (as it has for eight years now) or even begin to cool.
We can only trust that reason will prevail in the face of an onslaught of propaganda like Al Gore's movie and despite the incessant misinformation generated by the media. Today, the imposed costs are still modest, and mostly hidden in taxes and in charges for electricity and motor fuels. If the scaremongers have their way, these costs will become enormous. But I believe that sound science and good sense will prevail in the face of irrational and scientifically baseless climate fears.
S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, a distinguished research professor at George Mason University, and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project. He performed his undergraduate studies at Ohio State University and earned his Ph.D. in Physics from Princeton University. He was the founding dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami, the founding director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service, and served for five years as vice chairman of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere. Dr. Singer has written or edited over a dozen books and monographs, including, most recently, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Great article from Star Parker at World Net Daily
Fast-tracking the nanny state
Posted: June 13, 2009
1:00 am Eastern
© 2009
President Obama wants health care reform this year.
He said at a town hall meeting the other day that he won't tolerate "endless delay" and that we probably won't reform health care if we don't do it this year.
Now why is that, Mr. President? Will the U.S. Congress be on vacation for the remaining three years of your term?
Consider that it's not unusual to take a full session of Congress – two years – to pass legislation a fraction of the size and consequence of health care reform. Yet our president is demanding that a bill to overhaul a $2.5 trillion sector of our economy – one sixth of it – be considered and passed in a few short weeks.
It ought to be clear that this is not about taking an honest and sincere look at how to make this a better country and how to do a better job at delivering health care to Americans. It's impossible to look at something this massive and deal with it in such a short time frame.
Milton Friedman's classic "Capitalism and Freedom" explains how individual liberty can only thrive when accompanied by economic liberty
This is about raw politics. When Mr. Obama says that if we don't get "it" done this year we probably won't get "it" done, he doesn't mean reforming health care. He means reforming it the way he and Ted Kennedy want to do it. Government run, nanny state health care.
To pull it off, they have to move fast.
First, the White House knows that Mr. Obama's honeymoon won't last forever. While his personal approval ratings remain high at 60 percent, his disapproval rating now at 33 percent is almost twice where it stood last February. And, in latest Gallup polling, the majority now disapprove of how Obama is handling government spending. So the White House wants action now on health care while their man is still popular.
Second, the White House knows that next year is an election year. It will be far more difficult to get senators and congressmen to play ball.
Third, they know that the big reason Hillary Care failed in 1993 was that the American people were given an opportunity to look at it and consider it. They don't want to make the same mistake of giving voters a chance to actually understand what is about to happen to them. They know that the more Americans have an opportunity to take a look at the bureaucrat run, nanny state health care freight train, the more likely they will jump of the track.
Breathlessness is a great political technique – telling voters that the world will end if we don't get X passed now.
This is how the $800 billion dollar "stimulus" bill got passed earlier this year. We were flashed images of the Great Depression of the 1930s and told our only hope is the stimulus bill.
Now, three months later, it's clear that our current economy bears no resemblance to the 1930s, that signs of recovery are emerging, and thus far only 6 percent of the $800 billion "stimulus" pot of political lard has been spent.
The trillions in new debt have been piled up at such a dizzying pace in the last few months Americans are numb. The federal government take from our economy has jumped from one-fifth of it to one-fourth.
Now, Mr. Obama and his Democrat colleagues want to layer on a new government health care plan to "compete" with private plans. "Compete" means raising taxes a few trillion dollars to provide subsidized insurance
and, in some cases, free insurance, through a government plan in which all Americans will eventually wind up, and putting federal bureaucrats in charge of approving what health care procedures we are permitted.
The health care nanny state freight train is moving. Will we wake up before it's too late?
Posted: June 13, 2009
1:00 am Eastern
© 2009
President Obama wants health care reform this year.
He said at a town hall meeting the other day that he won't tolerate "endless delay" and that we probably won't reform health care if we don't do it this year.
Now why is that, Mr. President? Will the U.S. Congress be on vacation for the remaining three years of your term?
Consider that it's not unusual to take a full session of Congress – two years – to pass legislation a fraction of the size and consequence of health care reform. Yet our president is demanding that a bill to overhaul a $2.5 trillion sector of our economy – one sixth of it – be considered and passed in a few short weeks.
It ought to be clear that this is not about taking an honest and sincere look at how to make this a better country and how to do a better job at delivering health care to Americans. It's impossible to look at something this massive and deal with it in such a short time frame.
Milton Friedman's classic "Capitalism and Freedom" explains how individual liberty can only thrive when accompanied by economic liberty
This is about raw politics. When Mr. Obama says that if we don't get "it" done this year we probably won't get "it" done, he doesn't mean reforming health care. He means reforming it the way he and Ted Kennedy want to do it. Government run, nanny state health care.
To pull it off, they have to move fast.
First, the White House knows that Mr. Obama's honeymoon won't last forever. While his personal approval ratings remain high at 60 percent, his disapproval rating now at 33 percent is almost twice where it stood last February. And, in latest Gallup polling, the majority now disapprove of how Obama is handling government spending. So the White House wants action now on health care while their man is still popular.
Second, the White House knows that next year is an election year. It will be far more difficult to get senators and congressmen to play ball.
Third, they know that the big reason Hillary Care failed in 1993 was that the American people were given an opportunity to look at it and consider it. They don't want to make the same mistake of giving voters a chance to actually understand what is about to happen to them. They know that the more Americans have an opportunity to take a look at the bureaucrat run, nanny state health care freight train, the more likely they will jump of the track.
Breathlessness is a great political technique – telling voters that the world will end if we don't get X passed now.
This is how the $800 billion dollar "stimulus" bill got passed earlier this year. We were flashed images of the Great Depression of the 1930s and told our only hope is the stimulus bill.
Now, three months later, it's clear that our current economy bears no resemblance to the 1930s, that signs of recovery are emerging, and thus far only 6 percent of the $800 billion "stimulus" pot of political lard has been spent.
The trillions in new debt have been piled up at such a dizzying pace in the last few months Americans are numb. The federal government take from our economy has jumped from one-fifth of it to one-fourth.
Now, Mr. Obama and his Democrat colleagues want to layer on a new government health care plan to "compete" with private plans. "Compete" means raising taxes a few trillion dollars to provide subsidized insurance
and, in some cases, free insurance, through a government plan in which all Americans will eventually wind up, and putting federal bureaucrats in charge of approving what health care procedures we are permitted.
The health care nanny state freight train is moving. Will we wake up before it's too late?
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Read this and look at the video
16:1602/03/2009
MOSCOW, March 2 (RIA Novosti) - Washington has told Moscow that Russian help in resolving Iran's nuclear program would make its missile shield plans for Europe unnecessary, a Russian daily said on Monday, citing White House sources.
U.S. President Barack Obama made the proposal on Iran in a letter to his Russian counterpart, Dmitry Medvedev, Kommersant said, referring to unidentified U.S. officials.
Iran's controversial nuclear program was cited by the U.S. as one of the reasons behind its plans to deploy a missile base in Poland and radar in the Czech Republic. The missile shield has been strongly opposed by Russia, which views it as a threat to its national security. The dispute has strained relations between the former Cold War rivals, already tense over a host of other differences.
The leaders have exchanged letters and had a telephone conversation since Obama was sworn into office in January, Kommersant said. The first high-level Russia-U.S. meeting will take place later this week, when Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov meets with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Geneva.
Moscow has not yet responded to the proposal by Obama, the paper said, adding that a decision was unlikely to be made during Lavrov and Clinton's meeting.
The issue is likely to be discussed when Obama and Medvedev meet in London on April 2 on the sidelines of the G20 summit of world leaders to address the financial crisis. Earlier reports said Medvedev had also invited the U.S. leader to visit Russia and the date of Obama's first visit to the largest country in the world could be announced in the British capital.
In an interview on Sunday with Spanish media, Medvedev said he hoped to discuss the issue of missile defense with Obama in London. He also said he hoped the new U.S. administration would display a "more creative approach" to the issue than its predecessors.
"We have received signals from our American colleagues," Medvedev said. "I expect those signals will turn into specific proposals. I hope to discuss the issue, which is extremely important for Europe, with U.S. President Barack Obama."
The United States and other Western nations suspect Tehran of secretly seeking nuclear weapons. Iran says its nuclear program is purely aimed at generating electricity. However, unlike his predecessor, George W. Bush, Obama has stated a preference for diplomatic efforts to resolve the dispute.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on the NBC television channel on Sunday that the Islamic Republic was not close to building a nuclear bomb. "They're not close to a stockpile, they're not close to a weapon at this point, and so there is some time," Gates said.
Gates also said that while more sanctions should be imposed against Iran, the door should not be closed to diplomacy.
MOSCOW, March 2 (RIA Novosti) - Washington has told Moscow that Russian help in resolving Iran's nuclear program would make its missile shield plans for Europe unnecessary, a Russian daily said on Monday, citing White House sources.
U.S. President Barack Obama made the proposal on Iran in a letter to his Russian counterpart, Dmitry Medvedev, Kommersant said, referring to unidentified U.S. officials.
Iran's controversial nuclear program was cited by the U.S. as one of the reasons behind its plans to deploy a missile base in Poland and radar in the Czech Republic. The missile shield has been strongly opposed by Russia, which views it as a threat to its national security. The dispute has strained relations between the former Cold War rivals, already tense over a host of other differences.
The leaders have exchanged letters and had a telephone conversation since Obama was sworn into office in January, Kommersant said. The first high-level Russia-U.S. meeting will take place later this week, when Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov meets with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Geneva.
Moscow has not yet responded to the proposal by Obama, the paper said, adding that a decision was unlikely to be made during Lavrov and Clinton's meeting.
The issue is likely to be discussed when Obama and Medvedev meet in London on April 2 on the sidelines of the G20 summit of world leaders to address the financial crisis. Earlier reports said Medvedev had also invited the U.S. leader to visit Russia and the date of Obama's first visit to the largest country in the world could be announced in the British capital.
In an interview on Sunday with Spanish media, Medvedev said he hoped to discuss the issue of missile defense with Obama in London. He also said he hoped the new U.S. administration would display a "more creative approach" to the issue than its predecessors.
"We have received signals from our American colleagues," Medvedev said. "I expect those signals will turn into specific proposals. I hope to discuss the issue, which is extremely important for Europe, with U.S. President Barack Obama."
The United States and other Western nations suspect Tehran of secretly seeking nuclear weapons. Iran says its nuclear program is purely aimed at generating electricity. However, unlike his predecessor, George W. Bush, Obama has stated a preference for diplomatic efforts to resolve the dispute.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on the NBC television channel on Sunday that the Islamic Republic was not close to building a nuclear bomb. "They're not close to a stockpile, they're not close to a weapon at this point, and so there is some time," Gates said.
Gates also said that while more sanctions should be imposed against Iran, the door should not be closed to diplomacy.
Friday, May 22, 2009
A good idea on stimulating the economy
A radical proposal for real stimulus
posted at 11:20 am on May 22, 2009 by Doctor Zero
Send to a Friend | Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The Dow dropped another 150 points on Thursday, leaving it at 8292.13. It bounces around a bit, but it seems to be stuck around 600 points below where it was on the day Barack Obama was elected President. It peaked at 14908.08 in October 2007. Unemployment stands at 8.6%, after hanging around four to five percent during most of President Bush’s term. When nothing came of its multi-billion dollar “stimulus” plans and bailouts, the government started pouring good money after bad, just recently announcing it will throw another $7.5 billion at General Motors Acceptance Corporation, on top of the $5 billion it has already spent. Uncle Sam is also converting $884 million in loans to GMAC into equity, which means you, the taxpayer, are being forced to buy 35% interest in a disintegrating financial company, whose stock you wouldn’t normally purchase without getting drunk first. There are about 128 million taxpayers in the United States, so your share works out to a little over a hundred bucks taken out of your wallet and paid to GMAC since December. An already shaky auto industry is about to get walloped by new federally-mandated fuel efficiency increases, which is likely to depress new car sales as upper-income buyers cling to big, comfortable vehicles they won’t be able to purchase any more. And California has turned into a malignant tumor that will suck billions out of productive states with sane government, as the inevitable federal bailouts begin.
It’s hard to see any of the signs of renewed economic growth that Obama keeps hallucinating about in press conferences. It’s time for some real economic stimulus - the fraudulent pork bill shoved down the nation’s throat by Democrats didn’t even pretend to “stimulate” anything until 2010. How do you stimulate an economy? Well, throwing money at favored constituencies doesn’t work - if those constituencies were wealth creators, they wouldn’t need infusions of pork. Bailing out failed business models is merely subsidizing failure. There are two things that would provide immediate stimulus: tax cuts, which spur positive business growth immediately, because quarterly and yearly business plans take upcoming tax rates into consideration, and the creation of new markets for businesses to exploit. Obama’s corporate socialism has the needs of the economy exactly reversed - instead of having government take over failed businesses, we need failed government programs to be released into the private sector, spurring employment and spending on infrastructure. The private sector would love to gain the opportunity to bring its innovation and energy to a previously moribund government-controlled industry, and the taxes formerly collected to fund a bloated and inefficient federal department could flow directly into the pockets of taxpaying citizens, like a jolt of electricity. To rescue our economy, it’s time for some of that out-of-the-box thinking we keep hearing this Administration values. Let’s set partisan considerations aside and do something dramatic.
Mr. President, it’s time to privatize education.
According to the U.S. Department of Education, roughly $553 billion was collected in tax revenue to fund the public school system in 2007. I couldn’t find any 2008 numbers, but of course they’re bound to be even higher. Can you imagine the economic stimulus of dropping a half-trillion dollar market into the private sector? The frenzy of companies forming to compete for the best teachers, build the most attractive educational infrastructure, and market their services to discerning parents would be astonishing.
The tax savings to citizens would be significant. Of course, we would need to provide educational vouchers for lower-income citizens, so some educational taxes would still need to be collected… but the federal government current spends over $9000 per year, on average, to educate each student. It’s much higher than that in some areas, most notably Washington, D.C., which spends a whopping $25,000.00 per student. Does anyone doubt that competitive private schools can do better, especially when the economies of scale for handling seventy million customers kick in? Parochial schools already offer superior education at less than half the average cost of government schools.
American public education is a textbook study of a failed government program. American students lag behind the rest of the developed world in almost every category, and their performance gets worse with every passing year. As far back as the early Eighties, the Education Secretary released a report called A Nation At Risk: The Imperative for Education Reform, which included this infamous statement: “If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.” Things have gotten a lot worse in the last 25 years, not least because of the tremendous amount of time wasted on foolish political indoctrination, including mandatory training in the official state religion of environmentalism - something that has gotten so out of hand that a “separation of church and state” lawsuit is just itching to be filed. The Obamas obviously had the good sense to keep their daughters far away from the awful public schools of Washington… just like every single liberal Democrat president before them.
The government has proven utterly unable to cope with the most disruptive elements of public education, a dreary litany of horrors that every parent can recite by heart: disruptive students, disconnected parents, violence in the schools, grade inflation, and the crush of immigrant students from families that refuse to assimilate. Hidebound government functionaries can’t conceive of any solutions to these problems, but I’ll bet highly motivated, innovative private entrepreneurs can. Parents who can shop around for the best schools will vote with their feet if private schools don’t measure up. The District of Columbia was filled with parents who desperately pursued an opportunity to escape from the hell created by Congress and the teachers’ unions - until Obama took it away from them.
Much of the cost of public education comes from a bloated, union-heavy bureaucracy, tangled in a cozy relationship with Jimmy Carter’s Department of Education. The teachers’ unions are heavy contributors to the Democrat Party, and they receive value for their money, with tired 60s radicals settled into tenured positions, and a vast army of federal officials and union apparatchiks crushing good teachers who struggle valiantly to provide a decent education in a crazy system. The flaws in government education are grown through every brick of public schools, like a vine that can’t be cleared away without bringing the whole building down. Everyone familiar with the state educational system knows there is no way to reform it - its problems are built in to a system that provides such tremendous opportunities for political indoctrination, has so few mechanisms for dealing with poor teacher performance, and provides huge funds to a union that uses them to buy vast political power.
Have the courage to make a sacrifice for America, Mr. Obama - it’s time for your government, your Party, and Bill Ayers to make do with less for a change. Dissolve the Department of Education, promote a right-to-work law that will shatter the teachers’ union, and begin the privatization of the educational system. It would go a long way toward getting us back to the economic performance and unemployment figures of your predecessor, which so far you have only been able to regard with envy and confusion. It might get us back to a 10,000 Dow… and produce a class of 2010 that understands exactly what that means.
This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.
posted at 11:20 am on May 22, 2009 by Doctor Zero
Send to a Friend | Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The Dow dropped another 150 points on Thursday, leaving it at 8292.13. It bounces around a bit, but it seems to be stuck around 600 points below where it was on the day Barack Obama was elected President. It peaked at 14908.08 in October 2007. Unemployment stands at 8.6%, after hanging around four to five percent during most of President Bush’s term. When nothing came of its multi-billion dollar “stimulus” plans and bailouts, the government started pouring good money after bad, just recently announcing it will throw another $7.5 billion at General Motors Acceptance Corporation, on top of the $5 billion it has already spent. Uncle Sam is also converting $884 million in loans to GMAC into equity, which means you, the taxpayer, are being forced to buy 35% interest in a disintegrating financial company, whose stock you wouldn’t normally purchase without getting drunk first. There are about 128 million taxpayers in the United States, so your share works out to a little over a hundred bucks taken out of your wallet and paid to GMAC since December. An already shaky auto industry is about to get walloped by new federally-mandated fuel efficiency increases, which is likely to depress new car sales as upper-income buyers cling to big, comfortable vehicles they won’t be able to purchase any more. And California has turned into a malignant tumor that will suck billions out of productive states with sane government, as the inevitable federal bailouts begin.
It’s hard to see any of the signs of renewed economic growth that Obama keeps hallucinating about in press conferences. It’s time for some real economic stimulus - the fraudulent pork bill shoved down the nation’s throat by Democrats didn’t even pretend to “stimulate” anything until 2010. How do you stimulate an economy? Well, throwing money at favored constituencies doesn’t work - if those constituencies were wealth creators, they wouldn’t need infusions of pork. Bailing out failed business models is merely subsidizing failure. There are two things that would provide immediate stimulus: tax cuts, which spur positive business growth immediately, because quarterly and yearly business plans take upcoming tax rates into consideration, and the creation of new markets for businesses to exploit. Obama’s corporate socialism has the needs of the economy exactly reversed - instead of having government take over failed businesses, we need failed government programs to be released into the private sector, spurring employment and spending on infrastructure. The private sector would love to gain the opportunity to bring its innovation and energy to a previously moribund government-controlled industry, and the taxes formerly collected to fund a bloated and inefficient federal department could flow directly into the pockets of taxpaying citizens, like a jolt of electricity. To rescue our economy, it’s time for some of that out-of-the-box thinking we keep hearing this Administration values. Let’s set partisan considerations aside and do something dramatic.
Mr. President, it’s time to privatize education.
According to the U.S. Department of Education, roughly $553 billion was collected in tax revenue to fund the public school system in 2007. I couldn’t find any 2008 numbers, but of course they’re bound to be even higher. Can you imagine the economic stimulus of dropping a half-trillion dollar market into the private sector? The frenzy of companies forming to compete for the best teachers, build the most attractive educational infrastructure, and market their services to discerning parents would be astonishing.
The tax savings to citizens would be significant. Of course, we would need to provide educational vouchers for lower-income citizens, so some educational taxes would still need to be collected… but the federal government current spends over $9000 per year, on average, to educate each student. It’s much higher than that in some areas, most notably Washington, D.C., which spends a whopping $25,000.00 per student. Does anyone doubt that competitive private schools can do better, especially when the economies of scale for handling seventy million customers kick in? Parochial schools already offer superior education at less than half the average cost of government schools.
American public education is a textbook study of a failed government program. American students lag behind the rest of the developed world in almost every category, and their performance gets worse with every passing year. As far back as the early Eighties, the Education Secretary released a report called A Nation At Risk: The Imperative for Education Reform, which included this infamous statement: “If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.” Things have gotten a lot worse in the last 25 years, not least because of the tremendous amount of time wasted on foolish political indoctrination, including mandatory training in the official state religion of environmentalism - something that has gotten so out of hand that a “separation of church and state” lawsuit is just itching to be filed. The Obamas obviously had the good sense to keep their daughters far away from the awful public schools of Washington… just like every single liberal Democrat president before them.
The government has proven utterly unable to cope with the most disruptive elements of public education, a dreary litany of horrors that every parent can recite by heart: disruptive students, disconnected parents, violence in the schools, grade inflation, and the crush of immigrant students from families that refuse to assimilate. Hidebound government functionaries can’t conceive of any solutions to these problems, but I’ll bet highly motivated, innovative private entrepreneurs can. Parents who can shop around for the best schools will vote with their feet if private schools don’t measure up. The District of Columbia was filled with parents who desperately pursued an opportunity to escape from the hell created by Congress and the teachers’ unions - until Obama took it away from them.
Much of the cost of public education comes from a bloated, union-heavy bureaucracy, tangled in a cozy relationship with Jimmy Carter’s Department of Education. The teachers’ unions are heavy contributors to the Democrat Party, and they receive value for their money, with tired 60s radicals settled into tenured positions, and a vast army of federal officials and union apparatchiks crushing good teachers who struggle valiantly to provide a decent education in a crazy system. The flaws in government education are grown through every brick of public schools, like a vine that can’t be cleared away without bringing the whole building down. Everyone familiar with the state educational system knows there is no way to reform it - its problems are built in to a system that provides such tremendous opportunities for political indoctrination, has so few mechanisms for dealing with poor teacher performance, and provides huge funds to a union that uses them to buy vast political power.
Have the courage to make a sacrifice for America, Mr. Obama - it’s time for your government, your Party, and Bill Ayers to make do with less for a change. Dissolve the Department of Education, promote a right-to-work law that will shatter the teachers’ union, and begin the privatization of the educational system. It would go a long way toward getting us back to the economic performance and unemployment figures of your predecessor, which so far you have only been able to regard with envy and confusion. It might get us back to a 10,000 Dow… and produce a class of 2010 that understands exactly what that means.
This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
How politics works: Senator Christopher Dodd and his cosy Irish cottage
This article from the telegraph uk
Posted By: Toby Harnden at Feb 24, 2009 at 05:44:00 [General]
Posted in: Foreign Correspondents
Tags:
View More
Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Christopher Dodd, COTTAGE, Edward R. Downe Jr, Galway , Inishnee, Ireland, Irish, Kevin Rennie, Roundstone, William Kessinger
An intriguing item here from the dogged Kevin Rennie of the Hartford Courant that highlights a classic example of why ordinary citizens become cynical about politicians and the way business in Washington is conducted.
Silver-haired Senator Christopher Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, has already been getting a lot of heat for his two 2003 VIP mortgage loans from Countrywide, one of the major actors in triggering the current financial crisis.
Seeking Senate re-election in 2010, the 2008 presidential candidate (he dropped out on the first day of voting after finishing seventh in Iowa, where he had moved with his family as a way of courting voters) is now in a bit of a sticky spot with another accommodation- his "cottage" on the lovely Irish island of Inishnee.
Some digging from Rennie (a lawyer and former Connecticut state legislator) reveals that as well as there being a cloud over Dodd's properties in Connecticut and Washington DC, considerable murkiness surrounds the financial arrangements for the purchase of his "cottage".
As Rennie outlines, Dodd became part owner of the 10-acre Galway property in 1994 along with Missouri businessman William Kessinger, whom Dodd knew through investor Edward R. Downe Jnr, who had pleaded guilty the previous year to insider trading charges. The mortgage was listed as "between $100,001 and $250,000". Downe was a witness to Kessinger's purchase.
In 2001, Dodd circumvented the US Justice Department to help get his pal Downe a full pardon on President Bill Clinton's last day in office. The following year, Dodd bought off Kessinger's two-thirds share of the "cottage" for, Dodd said, $127,000.
Ever since then, Dodd has continued to list the value of the property as "between $100,001 and $250,000".
Check out the picture of Dodd's "cottage" (provided to me by Rennie), where he spends summers and which is looked after during the rest of the year by a caretaker. It's not exactly the humble tumbledown abode with a leaky thatched roof, a fireplace with peat thrown on it and donkey tethered outside that the Senator might like you to envisage.
The nearby village of Roundstone is a celebrity hangout. When he's there, the Sunday Times reported in 2007, he's likely to "rub shoulders with [RTE's] Pat Kenny, Bill Whelan of Riverdance, Lochlann Quinn, the former AIB chairman, and the singer Brian Kennedy".
Given the Irish property boom, a conservative estimate would be that the house would be worth approaching $1 million, and very possibly much more than that.
So why hasn't Dodd declared a more realistic true value of the property? No doubt he didn't want to highlight the fact that he had a third splendid pile, to go along with his residences in DC and Connecticut, as he sought the presidency (remember how all those homes harmed John McCain?). Maybe he knew it would mean further scrutiny of his connection with the pardoned crook Downe.
Now that President Barack Obama - whom Dodd enthusiastically endorsed for president over Hillary Clinton - has declared a new era of ethical government in Washington, his former Senate colleague will order a fresh, long overdue reappraisal of its value. Or perhaps the Senate Ethics Committee will look into the matter.
Call me cynical, but I wouldn't advise you to hold your breath.
Added by me.
Not to mention the fact that Dodd had a job as a lawyer for 2 years before he was elected to the house for 6 years and then to the senate for now 29 years. A job that now pays only $168,500 per years, and less in previous years. How can he afford these several multi million dollar homes?
Posted By: Toby Harnden at Feb 24, 2009 at 05:44:00 [General]
Posted in: Foreign Correspondents
Tags:
View More
Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Christopher Dodd, COTTAGE, Edward R. Downe Jr, Galway , Inishnee, Ireland, Irish, Kevin Rennie, Roundstone, William Kessinger
An intriguing item here from the dogged Kevin Rennie of the Hartford Courant that highlights a classic example of why ordinary citizens become cynical about politicians and the way business in Washington is conducted.
Silver-haired Senator Christopher Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, has already been getting a lot of heat for his two 2003 VIP mortgage loans from Countrywide, one of the major actors in triggering the current financial crisis.
Seeking Senate re-election in 2010, the 2008 presidential candidate (he dropped out on the first day of voting after finishing seventh in Iowa, where he had moved with his family as a way of courting voters) is now in a bit of a sticky spot with another accommodation- his "cottage" on the lovely Irish island of Inishnee.
Some digging from Rennie (a lawyer and former Connecticut state legislator) reveals that as well as there being a cloud over Dodd's properties in Connecticut and Washington DC, considerable murkiness surrounds the financial arrangements for the purchase of his "cottage".
As Rennie outlines, Dodd became part owner of the 10-acre Galway property in 1994 along with Missouri businessman William Kessinger, whom Dodd knew through investor Edward R. Downe Jnr, who had pleaded guilty the previous year to insider trading charges. The mortgage was listed as "between $100,001 and $250,000". Downe was a witness to Kessinger's purchase.
In 2001, Dodd circumvented the US Justice Department to help get his pal Downe a full pardon on President Bill Clinton's last day in office. The following year, Dodd bought off Kessinger's two-thirds share of the "cottage" for, Dodd said, $127,000.
Ever since then, Dodd has continued to list the value of the property as "between $100,001 and $250,000".
Check out the picture of Dodd's "cottage" (provided to me by Rennie), where he spends summers and which is looked after during the rest of the year by a caretaker. It's not exactly the humble tumbledown abode with a leaky thatched roof, a fireplace with peat thrown on it and donkey tethered outside that the Senator might like you to envisage.
The nearby village of Roundstone is a celebrity hangout. When he's there, the Sunday Times reported in 2007, he's likely to "rub shoulders with [RTE's] Pat Kenny, Bill Whelan of Riverdance, Lochlann Quinn, the former AIB chairman, and the singer Brian Kennedy".
Given the Irish property boom, a conservative estimate would be that the house would be worth approaching $1 million, and very possibly much more than that.
So why hasn't Dodd declared a more realistic true value of the property? No doubt he didn't want to highlight the fact that he had a third splendid pile, to go along with his residences in DC and Connecticut, as he sought the presidency (remember how all those homes harmed John McCain?). Maybe he knew it would mean further scrutiny of his connection with the pardoned crook Downe.
Now that President Barack Obama - whom Dodd enthusiastically endorsed for president over Hillary Clinton - has declared a new era of ethical government in Washington, his former Senate colleague will order a fresh, long overdue reappraisal of its value. Or perhaps the Senate Ethics Committee will look into the matter.
Call me cynical, but I wouldn't advise you to hold your breath.
Added by me.
Not to mention the fact that Dodd had a job as a lawyer for 2 years before he was elected to the house for 6 years and then to the senate for now 29 years. A job that now pays only $168,500 per years, and less in previous years. How can he afford these several multi million dollar homes?
The Campaign To Bankrupt The Palin Family
Posted by Martin Knight (Profile)
Tuesday, March 24th at 5:21PM EDT
30 Comments
From just September till now, Sarah Palin has accumulated a personal dept of over $500,000 in legal fees defending herself against fake/false/frivolous ethics charges. That’s Five Hundred Thousand Dollars.
A group of Alaska liberals, with the apparent cooperation of members of the Alaska Democratic Party have been filing ethics charge after ethics charge against Sarah Palin. The aim? Not to get her impeached and booted from office, because every single one of the charges are frivolous, baseless and even fairly deranged - one was even filed in the name of a soap opera character - but something far more personal.
These people want to bankrupt the Palins and leave them destitute. They want to empty their bank accounts so that they cannot afford the basics and necessities of life after Governor Palin leaves office.
With the exception of the partisan ethics complaint filed against Palin because her husband (a private citizen) made it clear (as was his right) that he didn’t think a policeman (now a hero to liberals) who used a taser on a ten year old child should continue to keep his gun and badge, all of these ethics charges were filed after John McCain tapped her to be his Vice-President.
David Bonoir, as the House Democratic Whip pioneered this tactic in the mid-1990s after the Gingrich Revolution swept Republicans to their first Majority in forty years. Immediately after Congress resumed, Bonoir began filing ethics complaints - frivolous, partisan complaints that even Democratic members of the ethics committee mostly laughed away - against Newt Gingrich on a weekly basis, week after week like clockwork and sending out press releases to friendly press outlets. It was a despicable tactic, but Republicans and Newt dismissed it as a desperate loser antic and ended up being blindsided when liberal talking heads began to use the talking point of Newt being the Speaker with the most ethics complaints filed against him … ever.
But at least, Bonoir’s aim was political, and politics ain’t beanbag, after all.
These people’s aim is most assuredly not political. Frivolous charge-filers Andree McLeod, Zane Henning, Linda Kellen Biegel, etc. are affiliated with a group of liberals (how many on the “Journolist”, I wonder?) who went to Palin’s hometown of Wasilla immediately after she was tapped for the VP spot and dubbed themselves the “Wasilla Project” with the sole purpose of ensuring any and all manner of slander, innuendo and libel against Palin was publicized on YouTube and from there would hopefully make it into the mainstream media. Henning (who claims to be a “conservative”) and McLeod (who is a “registered Republican”) feature prominently in their videos in “interviews” repeating the Alaska Democratic Party’s campaign talking points on Palin on cue.
McLeod, Henning, Biegel and others like them have discovered, however, that no matter how frivolous their charges, no matter how far-fetched, no matter how bone-headed stupid, the Governor would still have to legally defend herself against them - meaning she’ll have to pay attorney fees as she goes before the Personnel Board. And so they have gotten down to business, and like David Bonoir against Gingrich, they’ve been filing ethics complaint after ethics complaint against Governor Palin, but this time with her bankruptcy in mind.
Palin is now owing the law firm she has been forced to retain to answer this storm of ethics charges over half a million dollars since September - and note that her annual salary as Governor of Alaska is only $125,000 with Todd Palin making about $86,000 as both a fisherman and an oil worker - with more of these suits and ethics charges being promised by these bottom feeders and others like them.
After bearing with these attacks, Palin finally let the situation be known when she filed her annual financial disclosure forms with the Alaska Public Offices Commission this week, writing to the Anchorage Daily News;
I must defend against these baseless ethics accusations out of my own pocket as the use of public monies to do so could itself violate state law …
… obviously we cannot afford to personally pay these bills - and really no future governor should feel the sense of financial vulnerability at the hands of those with a political vendetta bent on personal destruction …
Some have suggested a legal fund to pay these bills. We’ll have to pursue that.
And if she does pursue that, I doubt she’d have any problem paying off any legal fees for the next twenty years.
But it’s the fact that she has to consider doing this to keep her and her husband’s life savings - a man and woman with minor children at home - from disappearing altogether that should sicken all of us - I don’t know about any of you, but I’m literally shaking with rage here.
This is the politics of personal destruction at its most reprehensible … and these people need to have their names made public and turned to mud in Alaska and all over America. They need to have themselves mired in court and forced to pay hundreds upon hundreds of thousands in attorney’s fees defending themselves against charges of depriving the people of Alaska of the services of their governor because of nothing more than hate.
I knew the Left’s tactics were ugly, but this … this is beyond wrong, this is pure evil.
Tuesday, March 24th at 5:21PM EDT
30 Comments
From just September till now, Sarah Palin has accumulated a personal dept of over $500,000 in legal fees defending herself against fake/false/frivolous ethics charges. That’s Five Hundred Thousand Dollars.
A group of Alaska liberals, with the apparent cooperation of members of the Alaska Democratic Party have been filing ethics charge after ethics charge against Sarah Palin. The aim? Not to get her impeached and booted from office, because every single one of the charges are frivolous, baseless and even fairly deranged - one was even filed in the name of a soap opera character - but something far more personal.
These people want to bankrupt the Palins and leave them destitute. They want to empty their bank accounts so that they cannot afford the basics and necessities of life after Governor Palin leaves office.
With the exception of the partisan ethics complaint filed against Palin because her husband (a private citizen) made it clear (as was his right) that he didn’t think a policeman (now a hero to liberals) who used a taser on a ten year old child should continue to keep his gun and badge, all of these ethics charges were filed after John McCain tapped her to be his Vice-President.
David Bonoir, as the House Democratic Whip pioneered this tactic in the mid-1990s after the Gingrich Revolution swept Republicans to their first Majority in forty years. Immediately after Congress resumed, Bonoir began filing ethics complaints - frivolous, partisan complaints that even Democratic members of the ethics committee mostly laughed away - against Newt Gingrich on a weekly basis, week after week like clockwork and sending out press releases to friendly press outlets. It was a despicable tactic, but Republicans and Newt dismissed it as a desperate loser antic and ended up being blindsided when liberal talking heads began to use the talking point of Newt being the Speaker with the most ethics complaints filed against him … ever.
But at least, Bonoir’s aim was political, and politics ain’t beanbag, after all.
These people’s aim is most assuredly not political. Frivolous charge-filers Andree McLeod, Zane Henning, Linda Kellen Biegel, etc. are affiliated with a group of liberals (how many on the “Journolist”, I wonder?) who went to Palin’s hometown of Wasilla immediately after she was tapped for the VP spot and dubbed themselves the “Wasilla Project” with the sole purpose of ensuring any and all manner of slander, innuendo and libel against Palin was publicized on YouTube and from there would hopefully make it into the mainstream media. Henning (who claims to be a “conservative”) and McLeod (who is a “registered Republican”) feature prominently in their videos in “interviews” repeating the Alaska Democratic Party’s campaign talking points on Palin on cue.
McLeod, Henning, Biegel and others like them have discovered, however, that no matter how frivolous their charges, no matter how far-fetched, no matter how bone-headed stupid, the Governor would still have to legally defend herself against them - meaning she’ll have to pay attorney fees as she goes before the Personnel Board. And so they have gotten down to business, and like David Bonoir against Gingrich, they’ve been filing ethics complaint after ethics complaint against Governor Palin, but this time with her bankruptcy in mind.
Palin is now owing the law firm she has been forced to retain to answer this storm of ethics charges over half a million dollars since September - and note that her annual salary as Governor of Alaska is only $125,000 with Todd Palin making about $86,000 as both a fisherman and an oil worker - with more of these suits and ethics charges being promised by these bottom feeders and others like them.
After bearing with these attacks, Palin finally let the situation be known when she filed her annual financial disclosure forms with the Alaska Public Offices Commission this week, writing to the Anchorage Daily News;
I must defend against these baseless ethics accusations out of my own pocket as the use of public monies to do so could itself violate state law …
… obviously we cannot afford to personally pay these bills - and really no future governor should feel the sense of financial vulnerability at the hands of those with a political vendetta bent on personal destruction …
Some have suggested a legal fund to pay these bills. We’ll have to pursue that.
And if she does pursue that, I doubt she’d have any problem paying off any legal fees for the next twenty years.
But it’s the fact that she has to consider doing this to keep her and her husband’s life savings - a man and woman with minor children at home - from disappearing altogether that should sicken all of us - I don’t know about any of you, but I’m literally shaking with rage here.
This is the politics of personal destruction at its most reprehensible … and these people need to have their names made public and turned to mud in Alaska and all over America. They need to have themselves mired in court and forced to pay hundreds upon hundreds of thousands in attorney’s fees defending themselves against charges of depriving the people of Alaska of the services of their governor because of nothing more than hate.
I knew the Left’s tactics were ugly, but this … this is beyond wrong, this is pure evil.
Bachmann Quotes Jefferson; Strib Is Shocked Share Post Print March 24, 2009 Posted by John at 7:35 AM
Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is one of Minnesota's most effective spokesmen for conservatism, so our local media have collaborated with Democrats in trying to defeat her. The most recent attack on Michele arose out of my radio show last Saturday.
One of her staffers emailed us to ask if she could come on the show to talk about some public meetings she will be sponsoring in her district on the Obama administration's cap and trade legislation. We said sure, and I interviewed Michele for ten or twelve minutes. She explained some of the evils of cap and trade, and said that she is bringing an expert on the subject to speak at two meetings, one in St. Cloud and one in Woodbury. She encouraged the public to attend.
Not very controversial, one would think. But here is the headline in today's Minneapolis Star Tribune: "Obama's energy cap-and-trade plan has Bachmann talking about a revolution." If you read far enough, you find that she was quoting Thomas Jefferson:
"Thomas Jefferson told us, having a revolution every now and then is a good thing, and the people -- we the people -- are going to have to fight back hard if we're not going to lose our country," Bachmann said in the interview on WWTC-AM.
She said it with a laugh, and I don't think any of our listeners misunderstood her call for a taxpayer's revolt against the disastrous policies of the Obama administration. The Strib wove the Jefferson quote together with Bachmann's statement that she wants "people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back." As the paper implicitly acknowledges, Michele was saying that she wants citizens armed with information, which is why they should attend one of her public meetings with the cap and trade expert.
All in all, this shouldn't be fodder for a scare headline; and it wouldn't be if it didn't fit the local paper's campaign against a politician with whom it fervently disagrees. It's not hard to understand why Bachmann cruises to victory after victory, while the Star Tribune is in bankruptcy.
One of her staffers emailed us to ask if she could come on the show to talk about some public meetings she will be sponsoring in her district on the Obama administration's cap and trade legislation. We said sure, and I interviewed Michele for ten or twelve minutes. She explained some of the evils of cap and trade, and said that she is bringing an expert on the subject to speak at two meetings, one in St. Cloud and one in Woodbury. She encouraged the public to attend.
Not very controversial, one would think. But here is the headline in today's Minneapolis Star Tribune: "Obama's energy cap-and-trade plan has Bachmann talking about a revolution." If you read far enough, you find that she was quoting Thomas Jefferson:
"Thomas Jefferson told us, having a revolution every now and then is a good thing, and the people -- we the people -- are going to have to fight back hard if we're not going to lose our country," Bachmann said in the interview on WWTC-AM.
She said it with a laugh, and I don't think any of our listeners misunderstood her call for a taxpayer's revolt against the disastrous policies of the Obama administration. The Strib wove the Jefferson quote together with Bachmann's statement that she wants "people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back." As the paper implicitly acknowledges, Michele was saying that she wants citizens armed with information, which is why they should attend one of her public meetings with the cap and trade expert.
All in all, this shouldn't be fodder for a scare headline; and it wouldn't be if it didn't fit the local paper's campaign against a politician with whom it fervently disagrees. It's not hard to understand why Bachmann cruises to victory after victory, while the Star Tribune is in bankruptcy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)