Event Producer Service Level Agreement: Fill & Download for Free

Yes. Tjaart Lemmer is right that the Paris agreement is a fraud misusing the climate as ram rod to change the world economy. Here are references proving as much from the founders and current leaders.Maurice Strong founder of UN environment and climate change work.Or, as U.N. climate chief Christina Figueres pointedly remarked, the true aim of the U.N.’s 2014 Paris climate conference was “to change the [capitalist] economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.” As Endenhofer admits the environment is second fiddle as the helps us understand the alarmists willingness to go along with fudged data and ‘phony science.’Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come toknow what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCCJapanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physicalchemist.“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe ofscientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S GovernmentAtmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division ofNOAA.“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner forPhysics, Ivar Giaever.PARIS Accord Based on FraudBy Brendan GodwinWeather Observer and General MeteorologyBureau of Meteorology Mawson Antarctic 1974The Paris Accord is based on fraud. Carbon Dioxide or CO2 is essential for all life on earth. Without it we are all extinct.There is nothing unusual happing with the globe’s temperatures. No unusual warming.Our interglacial warm period peaked 8,000 years ago and we are cooling. We’ve come to the end of this interglacial and are about to enter the next ice age. Humans can do nothing to stop that.The globe has no temperature control knob, it is impossible for humans to control the globe’s temperature.CO2 does not produce warming. There’s not enough of it to do anything.It is warming that produces CO2. It is impossible for the cause to be the effect.CO2 has lagged temperature by 1,000 years for the past 1 mil years and it has never stopped the earth from entering an ice age, even when it was 4,000 ppm.CO2 is the gas of life. We need more not less of it and we should be regulating for more not less emissions. It is needed to grow our food crops.Paris is based on IPCC reports. The IPCC rely on their GCM models. None of the models rely on past climate history but rather a mathematical theory based on refuted, negated, fake and fraudulent science. They all incorporate:A “human fingerprint” or THS (Tropical Hot Spot) on the earth’s climate that doesn’t exist. IPCC’s AR2 report was fraudulently altered to remove scientific reports that were negative of their GHE definition;Lewis Fry Richardson’s flawed atmospheric model equation;Michael Mann’s fraudulent hockey stick graph in AR3;Arrhenius’ flawed hypothesis of the greenhouse effect; Arrhenius invented heat from nothing.The multiplier effect of water vapor feedback. The flawed CO2 increases water vapor hypothesis based on Arrhenius and the Charney report; From observations, water vapor is decreasing.A corrupted peer review process.Then back all this up by fraudulently altering the data to support the failed models that can’t even predict the last 30 years of hindsight.The money wasted on Paris will do absolutely nothing to the globe’s temperatures and is a waste. Paris is economic vandalism disguised as environmentalism. It is the political agenda of the communist movement. A wealth redistribution scheme to get rich countries to give away money to poor countries with the end goal to destroy capitalism.The problem with Turnbull is that he only listens to one side of the science, the side that suits him. There are 32,000 real scientists in the NIPCC who dissent from the IPCC.Politicians need to listen to the real science, not the fraudulent science.During the last ice age CO2 levels dropped to 180 ppm. Plants don’t grow with CO2 at 150 ppm or less. That’s our food crops. If we lower CO2 will face human extinction.It is the interglacial warm period that is causing CO2 to be released from the oceans.Only 3% of annual emissions are from humans. We need more not less to starve off human extinction in the next ice age that is about to hit us.Brendan GodwinWeather Observer and General MeteorologyBureau of Meteorologyhttps://climatism.blog/2018/07/1...OPINION COMMENTARYObama’s Climate Policy Is a Hot MessThe president hails the Paris Agreement again—even though it will solve nothing and cost trillions.By BJORN LOMBORGJune 30, 2016 7:06 p.m. ET[if ! lte IE 8]Obama’s Climate Policy Is a Hot MessWhen President Obama flew to Ottawa, Canada, on Wednesday to meet with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, promoting their climate-change policies was near the top of the agenda. “The Paris Agreement was a turning point for our planet,” the leaders’ joint statement said, referring to the climate pact signed with fanfare in April by nearly 200 nations. “North America has the capacity, resources and the moral imperative to show strong leadership building on the Paris Agreement and promoting its early entry into force.”Attracting rather less attention than the Ottawa meeting was a June 22 hearing on Capitol Hill. Testifying before the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy extolled the Paris Agreement as an “incredible achievement.” But when repeatedly asked, she wouldn’t explain exactly how much this treaty would actually cut global temperatures.The Paris Agreement will cost a fortune but do little to reduce global warming. In a peer-reviewed article published in Global Policy this year, I looked at the widely hailed major policies that Paris Agreement signatories pledged to undertake and found that they will have a negligible temperature impact. I used the same climate-prediction model that the United Nations uses.First, consider the Obama administration’s signature climate policy, the Clean Power Plan. The U.N.’s model shows that it will accomplish almost nothing. Even if the policy withstands current legal challenges and its cuts are totally implemented—not for the 14 years that the Paris agreement lasts, but for the rest of the century—the Clean Power Plan would reduce temperatures by 0.023 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.RELATED ARTICLESHistory of a Climate ConThe Myth of the Climate Change ‘97%’Two Can Play at Climate ‘Fraud’President Obama has made grander promises of future carbon cuts, beyond the plan’s sweeping restrictions on the power industry, but these are only vaguely outlined now. In the unlikely event that all of these extra cuts also happen, and are adhered to throughout the rest of the century, the combined reduction in temperatures would be 0.057 degrees. In other words, if the U.S. delivers for the whole century on the very ambitious Obama rhetoric, it would postpone global warming by about eight months at the end of the century.Or consider the Paris Agreement promises from the entire world using the reduction estimate from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the organization responsible for the Paris summit. The U.N.’s model reveals a temperature reduction by the end of the century of only 0.08 degrees Fahrenheit. If we generously assume that the promised cuts for 2030 are not only met (which itself would be a U.N. first), but sustained throughout the rest of the century, temperatures in 2100 would drop by 0.3 degrees—the equivalent of postponing warming by less than four years at the end of the century. A cut of 0.3 degrees matches the finding of a Massachusetts Institute of Technology analysis of the Paris Agreement last year.The costs of the Paris climate pact are likely to run to $1 trillion to $2 trillion annually throughout the rest of the century, using the best estimates from the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum and the Asia Modeling Exercise. Spending more than $100 trillion for such a feeble temperature reduction by the end of the century does not make sense.Some Paris Agreement supporters defend it by claiming that its real impact on temperatures will be much more significant than the U.N. model predicts. This requires some mental gymnastics and heroic assumptions. The group doing climate modeling for the U.S. State Department assumes that without the Paris Agreement emissions would be much higher than under any realistic scenario. With such an unrealistically pessimistic baseline, they can then magically show that the agreement will cut temperatures by 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit—with about 1.5 degrees of the drop coming from a reduction of these fantasy carbon emissions.The Climate Action Tracker, widely cited by Paris Agreement fans, predicts a temperature reduction of 1.6 degrees by the end of the century. But that model is based heavily on the assumption that even stronger climate policies will be adopted in the future—98% of the assumed reductions come after the current Paris Agreement promises to expire in 2030.Even this wishful thinking won’t achieve anything close to the 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) reduction that has become the arbitrary but widely adopted benchmark for what will be essential to avoid the worst effects of global warming.The Paris Agreement is the wrong solution to a real problem. We should focus more on green-energy research and development, like that promoted by Bill Gates and the Breakthrough Coalition. Mr. Gates has announced that private investors are committing $7 billion for clean energy R&D, while the White House will double its annual $5 billion green innovation fund. Sadly, this sorely needed investment is a fraction of the cost of the same administration’s misguided carbon-cut policies.Instead of rhetoric and ever-larger subsidies of today’s inefficient green technologies, those who want to combat climate change should focus on dramatically boosting innovation to drive down the cost of future green energy.The U.S. has already shown the way. With its relentless pursuit of fracking driving down the cost of natural gas, America has made a momentous switch from coal to gas that has done more to drive down carbon-dioxide emissions than any recent climate policy. Turns out that those who gathered in Paris, France, could learn a little from Paris, Texas.Mr. Lomborg, president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, is the author of “Cool It” (Knopf, 2007) and “Smartest Targets for the World” (Copenhagen Consensus, 2015).JAMES MATKINYes, a cost-benefit analysis highlights the climate alarmists debacle. This is important to head off government mania for new carbon taxes. Australians killed their carbon tax after seeing the gross waste of resources with no impact on the environment. The tax harms export industries subject to world pricing. The tax does not prevent “carbon leakage” when “emissions simply rise overseas” beyond the control of Australia.http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/IER_AustraliaCarbonTaxStudy.pdfFurther, the whole mission of reducing C02 to save the planet is foolish. Dr. Patrick Moore explains - “CO2 is a pollutant only to politicians and bureaucrats.... By itself, it is incapable of warming the climate by more than a fraction of a degree. CO2 is an essential gas, without which there would be no life on earth. CO2 is plant food.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-biuanF5eYTRUMP -Exiting the Mad Hatter’s climate tea partyGuest BloggerTrump was 100% right (not just 97%) to show real leadership and walk away from ParisPresident Trump has rejected and exited the Paris climate treaty – walked America away from the Mad Hatter tea party that was the entire multi-decade, often hysterical and always computer model-driven UN climate process. My article this week explains why this bold move was the 100% right, ethical, moral and scientific thing to do: for the economic security of American workers and families … and the betterment of all mankind.Guest essay by Paul DriessenI can guess why a raven is like a writing-desk, Alice said. “Do you mean you think you can find out the answer?” said the March Hare. “Exactly so,” said Alice. “Then you should say what you mean,” the March Hare went on. “I do,” Alice replied. “At least I mean what I say. That’s the same thing, you know.”“Not the same thing a bit!” said the Hatter. “You might just as well say, ‘I see what I eat’ is the same thing as ‘I eat what I see’!” “You might just as well say,” added the Dormouse, ‘I breathe when I sleep’ is the same thing as ‘I sleep when I breathe’!” “It IS the same thing with you,” said the Hatter.Can you imagine stumbling upon the Mad Hatter’s tea party, watching as the discussions become increasingly absurd – and yet wanting a permanent seat at the table? Could Lewis Carroll have been having nightmares about the Paris climate treaty when he wrote Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland?President Trump was 100% correct (not just 97%) when he showed true leadership this week – and walked America away from the madness laid out before him and us on the Paris climate table.From suggestions that Earth’s climate was balmy and stable until the modern industrial era, to assertions that humans can prevent climate change and extreme weather events by controlling atmospheric carbon dioxide levels – to claims that withdrawing from Paris would “imperil our planet’s very survival” – the entire process has been driven by computer models and hysteria that have no basis in empirical science.There is no convincing real-world evidence that plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide has replaced the powerful natural forces that have driven Earth’s climate from time immemorial. Moreover, even if the United States totally eliminated its fossil fuels, atmospheric CO2 levels would continue to climb. China and India are building new coal-fired power plants at a feverish clip. So is Germany. And China is financing or building dozens of additional coal-burning electricity generators in Africa, Asia and elsewhere.Plus, even if alarmists are right about CO2, and every nation met its commitments under Paris, average planetary temperatures in 2100 would be just 0.2 degrees Celsius (0.3 F) lower than if we did nothing.But “our closest allies” wanted Trump to abide by Obama’s commitment. Some did, because they want America to shackle its economy and drive energy prices into the stratosphere the same way they have. Others dearly want to follow a real leader, and walk awayfrom the mad Paris tea party themselves.But even poor countries signed the Paris treaty. Yes, they did – because they are under no obligation to reduce their coal, oil or natural gas use or their CO2 emissions. And because they were promised $100 billion a year in cash, plus free state-of-the-art energy technologies, from developed nations that would have become FMCs (formerly rich countries) as they slashed their energy use and de-industrialized.But the Paris climate treaty was voluntary; the United States wouldn’t have to do all this. Right. Just like it’s voluntary for you to pay your taxes. China, India and poor developing countries don’t have to do anything. But the USA would have been obligated to slash its oil, gas and coal use and carbon dioxide emissions. It could impose tougher restrictions, but it could not weaken them. And make no mistake: our laws, Constitution, legal system, the Treaty on Treaties and endless lawsuits by environmentalist pressure groups before friendly judges would have ensured compliance and ever more punishing restrictions.But hundreds of companies say we should have remained in Paris. Of course they do. Follow the money.If we are to avoid a climate cataclysm, “leading experts” say, the world must impose a $4-trillion-per-year global carbon tax, and spend $6.5 trillion a year until 2030 to switch every nation on Earth from fossil fuels to renewable energy. That’s a lot of loot for bankers, bureaucrats and crony corporatists.But, they assure us, this transition and spending would bring unimaginable job creation and prosperity. If you believe that, you’d feel right at home in Alice’s Wonderland and Looking Glass world.Who do you suppose would pay those princely sums? Whose jobs would be secure, and whose would be expendable: sacrificed on the altar of climate alarmism? Here’s the Planet Earth reality.Right now, fossil fuels provide 80% of all the energy consumed in the USA – reliably and affordably, from relatively small land areas. Wind and solar account for 2% of overall energy needs, expensively and intermittently, from facilities across millions of acres. Biofuels provide 3% – mostly from corn grown on nearly 40 million acres. About 3% comes from hydroelectric, 3% from wood and trash, 9% from nuclear.Kentucky, Ohio, West Virginia and other states that generate electricity with our abundant coal and natural gas pay 8 to 10 cents per kilowatt-hour. California, Connecticut, New York and other states that impose wind, solar and anti-fossil fuel mandates pay 15 to 18 cents. Families in closely allied ultra-green Euro countries pay an average of 26 US cents per kWh, but 36 cents in Germany, 37 cents in Denmark.EU manufacturers are already warning that these prices could send companies, factories, jobs and CO2 emissions to China and other non-Euro countries. EU electricity prices have skyrocketed 55% since 2005; 40% of UK households are cutting back on food and other essentials, to pay for electricity; a tenth of all EU families now live in green energy poverty. Elderly people are dying because they can’t afford heat!The Paris treaty would have done the same to the United States, and worse.The Heritage Foundation says Paris restrictions would cost average US families $30,000 in cumulative higher electricity prices over the next decade. How much of their rent, mortgage, medical, food, clothing, college and retirement budgets would they cut? Paris would eliminate 400,000 high-pay manufacturing, construction and other jobs – and shrink the US economy by $2.5 trillion by 2027. Other analysts put the costs of remaining in Paris much higher than this – again for no climate or environmental benefits.Big hospitals like Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center’s Comprehensive Cancer Center in Winston-Salem, NC and Inova Fairfax Women’s and Children’s Hospital in Northern Virginia pay about $1.5 million per year at 9 cents/kWh – but $3 million annually at 18 cents … $5 million at 30 cents … and nearly $7 million at 40 cents. How many jobs and medical services would those rate hikes wipe out?Malls, factories and entire energy-intensive industries would be eliminated. Like families and small businesses, they would also face the new reality of having pricey electricity when it happens to be available, off and on all day, all week, when the wind blows or sun shines, instead of when it’s needed. Drilling and fracking, gasoline and diesel prices, trucking and travel, would also have been hard hit.Americans are largely prohibited from mining iron, gold, copper, rare earth and other metals in the USA. Paris treaty energy prices and disruptions would have ensured that American workers could not turn metals from anywhere into anything – not even wind turbines, solar panels or ethanol distillation plants.Most of the “bountiful” renewable energy utopia jobs would have been transporting, installing and maintaining wind turbines and solar panels made in China. Even growing corn and converting it to ethanol would have been made cost-prohibitive. But there would have been jobs for bureaucrats who write and enforce the anti-energy rules – and process millions of new unemployment and welfare checks.Simply put, the Paris climate treaty was a terrible deal for the United States: all pain, no gain, no jobs, no future for the vast majority of Americans – with benefits flowing only to politicians, bureaucrats and crony capitalists. President Trump refused to ignore the realities of this economic suicide pact, this attempted global government control of American lives, livelihoods and living standards.That is why he formally declared that the United States is withdrawing from the treaty. He could now submit it for advice, consent – and rejection – by the Senate. He could also withdraw the United States from the underlying UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, or negotiate that reflects empirical science and is fair to America and its families and workers. But what is really important now is this:We are out of Paris! President Trump is leading the world back from the climate insanity precipice.Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.Exiting the Mad Hatter's climate tea partyThe Paris climate fund is starting to bite!Global Green Climate Fund demands $400m, fastClimate finance is a key issue if the rules governing the Paris Agreement are to be finalised at a meeting in Poland in December. Picture: ThinkstockAustralia has been called to immediately commit a further $400 million to replenish a Green Climate Fund to help developing countries cope with the impacts of climate change.This could increase to billions of dollars each year as the nation’s “fair share” contribution to a promised $US100 billion-a-year in global climate finance that was considered crucial to delivering the Paris Agreement.The GCF was set up by the 194 countries party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 2010 and had a key role in the Paris Agreement.A new funding template published by World Resources Institute said Australia should be the sixth-biggest donor to the GCF despite being responsible for only 1.8 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions.The formula was developed by former GCF board member Jacob Waslander, who said replenishment of the fund should be based on “objective criteria”.The formula uses national income, share of cumulative greenhouse gas emissions between 1850 and 1990 and the present level of emissions per capita.According to this calculation, Australia should contribute 4.25 per cent of funds to the GCF, behind the US, Britain, Japan, Germany and Canada.Australia’s share of funding should be bigger than those of France, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands. New Zealand should be responsible for 1.08 per cent.Climate finance is a key issue if the rules governing the Paris Agreement are to be finalised at a meeting in Poland in December.The GCF has been in turmoil with a breakdown in decision-making and the resignation of the chief executive, Australian Howard Bamsley, in June.The US, which has been ranked as responsible for 45 per cent of funding under the WRI model, has delivered only $US1 billion ($1.4bn) of its initial $US3bn pledge. Donald Trump says the US will make no more contributions.Mr Waslander said three ­issues needed to be resolved for the GCF to work effectively.They were confidence that promised money would arrive, the effectiveness of the GCF board, and the way in which board members were selected and to whom they should report.The WRI formula indicates Australia’s liability for $US100bn a year of climate funding to developing countries could be as much as $4bn a year.But not all of the $US100bn a year would be delivered through the GCF and other countries were being pressured to contribute, possibly reducing Australia’s share. These would include major emitters such as China, G20 member nations and Middle Eastern nations such as Qatar.Contributions from these countries would be voluntary.According to DFAT, Australia had invested more than half of a commitment made in 2015 to spend $1bn over five years to support developing countries build climate resilience and reduce emissions. This included $300m over four years for climate action in the Pacific.

An entire thesis can be written on this. Is the virus a cause that exert an effect we see in some states and nations in the world Or the effect has appeared for a reason and the virus was made to be seen as cause?Read below very carefully and make your own decision. I picked this up fromInvestigation of Sterilization Camp Funding—India from Welcome to PRI - PRILook up for: India's sterilisation scandal and gates foundation. If you can’t find then read below that I simply copied from the research work PDF documents. I don’t have any literary contribution in it.Written by Celeste McGovern and by Produced by the Population Research Institute. India is now manufacturing 1.5 billion deses of vaccines. Beware!!!Ok before you go ahead its worth to have a quick view on the following:Coronavirus not an epidemic in UK, say Oxford University experts -- Coronavirus not an epidemic in UK, say Oxford University expertsAndIndia's sterilisation scandal - The LancetThen go to the following to understand vulnerability of unsuspecting general genuinely nice and modest and respectful Indian public who believe in God. This is the contribution of British (White) Raj.Start:One in three Indian women have been sterilized. (Data derived from the Demographic and Health Surveys.)ContentsExecutive summary………………………………………………………………………..…………5Background: Population Control in India……………………………………………………………6Report:Business as usual ………………………………………………………………………….…7One Family’s nightmare…………………………………………………………...…………8Who is to blame? ………………………………………………………………………….....9USAID denial……………………………………………………………………….………10All-American Field Support………………………………………………………………...14USAID tied to “results” ……………………………………………………….……………15Resurrection of the IUD……………………………………………………….………….…16Gates funding………………………………………………………………………..………28Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………...……………20Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………………….….……Executive summaryState family planners penalize health workers if they do not bring in their quota of women for sterilization. To fulfill their quotas, health workers offer money or gifts to women if they accept sterilization. Some are paid as little as 600 rupees–about $10 –to be sterilized. Other times, they withhold genuine medical aid to the woman or her child. Young childless women consent to procedures by thumbprint unaware that it will leave them infertile. Forced, coerced, or simply lied to, internationally funded programs in India systematically sterilize men and women without their consent.The harried frenzy to fulfill quotas leaves the women in unsanitary and abusive procedures. The resulting abuses are harrowing; dozens of women being sterilized on school desks by doctors operating by flashlight; women maimed in the quest to meet government sterilization quotas.Some see–and feel–doctors pull shreds of their organs from their abdomens during procedures. Doctors reuse gloves and needles for dozens of surgeries. Doctors know that the legal numerical limit on sterilizations performed per day is not enforced; their compensation per sterilization, however, is real and immediate.COMPLICITY IN ABUSEIn 1992, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) designed and signed the bilateral agreement to a program called the “Innovations in Family Planning Services” (IFPS) which it continues to implement in India. Through this program, USAID has funded and participated in tens of thousands of sterilization camps which engage in abusive sterilization practices. Between 2003 and 2006 alone, the USAID-funded program supported over 60,000 camps and sterilized over 810,000 men and women.In some cases, USAID funding is several degrees removed from horrific abuse, but there is no doubt that USAID money in India is complicit in coercive sterilization programs.The pervasive and frequent nature of the abuse makes complicity hard to avoid; sterilization camps are not a rare exceptions relegated to remote places. Approximately 1 in 3 Indian women of reproductive age has been sterilized, and, among these women, at least 1 in 3 did not give informed consent to the sterilization. A conservative estimate places the number of women inIndia who have been coercively sterilized at 28 million.1 India’s sterilization programs systematically violate basic human rights in the world’s second most populous country.As long as sterilization quotas take precedent over the consent and the health of the woman, the United States cannot justify participating in “family planning programs” in India. Despite verbal assurances of reform, India’s “family planning” programs remain so riddled with horrific abuse, that participating partners cannot avoid complicity. Until India enacts genuine and lasting reform, the people of the United State must withdraw their participation from India’s “family planning” programs.BackgroundINDIAWith three million square kilometres of land to its name, India encompasses a diverse geographic area from the Himalayas to the Indian Ocean. India gained independence from Britain in 1947, and--with over 1.2 billion persons—the federal republic is the world’s largest democracy. The geographic diversity and large population make India one of the most diverse places on earth. The most commonly spokenare Hindi and English, but India holds hundreds of native languages.In its attempt to rectify generations ofcaste and genderdiscrimination, Indiahasaffirmative action in schooling, politics, and employment. Despite large improvements, India still continues to struggle with violence and discrimination against women and girls.India’s economy is beginning to harness its vast resources and its GDPgrowth rate averaged 6.8% per year between 2000 and today.22 CIA World Factbook: India <Central Intelligence Agency>3 Morse, Anne and Mosher, Steven. “A Once and Future Tragedy: India’s sterilization campaign 39 years later.” PRI Review. 24 Jun, 2014 <http://pop.org/content/once-and-future-tragedy-india%E2%80%99s-sterilization-campaign-39-years-later>4 Morse, Anne. “Aborting Indian Democracy.” PRI Review.9 Jan, 2015 <Aborting Indian Democracy - PRI>5 Data compiled from the UN Population Division and the Demographic and Health Survey.POPULATION CONTROL IN INDIAPopulation control has a sordid and extensive history in India. In the 1970’s India’s prime minister ruled by decree during an “emergency period.” In this twenty-one month period, the government coercively sterilized 11 million men and women.3India is known for its compul-suasion tactics (a combination of compulsion and persuasion) to reduce its population.Seven states with a population of over 430 million persons prohibit those with more than two children from holding local public office.4To mitigate its recurring problem with unsanitary and coercive camps, Indialegally prohibits doctorsfrom performingmore than 30 sterilizations in a twenty-four hour period. Sex-selection abortion is also illegal in India as well. These laws are not enforced. POPULATION CONTROL IN INDIA5Total fertility Rate:1970 5.5Total fertilityRate:2015 2.5Population growth rate 1.2%Women sterilized: total 30%Women sterilized: married 37%Women sterilized: unmarried, sexually active 48%Women sterilized: informed about other contraceptive methods 28%Women sterilized:informed procedure was permanent 66%Men sterilized 1%Sex-ratio at birth (males: females) 112:100USAID Funding of Sterilization Camps in IndiaWomen's wombs are inflated with bicycle pumps. Some are paid as little as 600 rupees –about $10 –tobe sterilized. Some see –and feel –doctors pull shreds of their organs from their abdomens during procedures. Doctors reuse gloves and needles for dozens of surgeries. Antibiotics or painkillers, if used, may be tainted with rat poison.These are justa few of the details about India's “family planning” programs that have emerged in the wake of the latest population control tragedy: the deaths in November of 14 women at a government sponsored sterilization “camp” in central India where health officials' reportssay 83 women underwent surgical sterilization at the hands of one doctor in just a few hours.66 “Indian doctors 'use bicycle pump' to inflate women’s abdomens during sterilisation surgery.” The Independent, Tuesday 02 December, 2014. Indian doctors 'use bicycle pump' during sterilisation surgery7 “Fact-Finding Report on Sterilization, Access to Contraceptive Information and Services, and Women’s Health in Bilaspur District, Chhattisgarh 14-18 November 2014,” Human Rights Law Network.PRI has numerous documents which demonstrate unambiguously that America's foreign aid agency USAID has underwritten such camps in India for decades. They also establish that the agency –in concert with a host of American charity groups, India's biggest bank and private funders like Bill and Melinda Gates –has been the primary architect and a major overseer of the country’s state-run population control.BUSINESS AS USUALTwo days after the news broke about the deaths of the women in Chhattisgarh at an abandoned rural hospital –while Indian health officials and human rights activists were denouncing the camp and the surgeon who conducted it was hiding from the swelling numbers of protesters in the district of Bilaspur–it was business as usual in the rural town of Gaurella just about 40 km north where workers were holding their twice-weekly sterilization day at the local health center.The death toll was not as high –only one woman died but many more were hospitalized. It probably wouldn't have been reported at all except for the events earlier in the week. The Delhi based Human Rights Law Network had sent an activist and two lawyers to speak with the deceased women's relatives and health workers in Chhattisgarh. The stories recounted in their report released in December illustrate one of the darkest and cruellest population control regimes on earth.7ONE FAMILY'S NIGHTMAREChaitiBai was 22 years old and the mother of a six year old and 7 month old baby. She had never used contraception between her pregnancies but she had been feeling unwell in October 2014 and was jaundiced. So when the mitanin –or community health worker –came to her door and told her she could receive treatment at the Community Health Center in Gaurella, she agreed. The health center has a target of sterilizing 800 women each year, but the worker never mentioned sterilization or family planning to Chaiti.Upon arrival at the center, Chaiti's husband Budh Singh was given a blank paper to sign. Unlike many in the center, he and his wife could read and write, but there was not text on the paper. He signed for his wife's medical treatment anyway. No one mentioned family planning or sterilization and Budh was ushered outside to wait.A few hours later, when he was allowed into the recovery room, Budh found Chaiti among many women lying on the filthy floor, barely conscious. A health worker gave him some medicinesfor his wife, but no instructions and no paperwork.The following evening Chaiti began vomiting. The health center sent her by ambulance to the district hospital three hours away the following day, but she died en route. Bud Singh received a compensationcheque from the government for 200,000 rupees –about $3200.WHO IS TO BLAME?Health officials reported that some of the medicines used in Chhattisgarh contained a banned chemical used to poison rats. Police arrested the head of the company that made the drugs in Bilaspur and shut his factories. But other reports cited rusty surgical equipment causing infection as the cause of deaths. Many blamed the butchery of the greedy surgeon who, working for 100 rupees per operation according to one news report, was accused of trying to cram as many as he could in an afternoon's work.88 “India probe uncovers shared needles, poor hygiene after sterilisation deaths,” Mail online, 02 December, 2014. India probe uncovers shared needles, poor hygiene after sterilisati...9 ”India sterilisations were ‘my moral responsibility’, says doctor,” The Guardian, Thursday 13 November, 2014. India sterilisations were ‘my moral responsibility’, says doctor10 “U.S.-U.K. Foreign Aid Tied to India’s Forced Sterilization Campaign” National Catholic Register, 09 May, 2012. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/u.s.-u.k.-foreign-aid-tied-to-indias-forced-sterilization-campaign/#ixzz3OKSecNKD11 “103 women sterilised in a day at West Bengal hospital; probe ordered,” NDTV, 06 February, 2013. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fmnGeK2cBMSurgeon R.K Gupta, who conducted the procedures did not understand the outrage, however. He told reporters that he had done more than 50,000 such surgeries and blamed the government for the number of women he sterilized on the day. “It is up to the administration to decide how many women would be kept for operation,” he said.9“It is up up to the administration to decide how many women would be kept for operation.”Indeed, human rights activists pointed to the government for failing to put a stop to the camps which not only violate the most basic national health and safety standards, but also clearly and egregiously breech national and international guidelines respecting human rights.Human rights activists have repeatedly documented that camps like those in Chhattisgarh are pervasive and routine throughout India. They've detailed how women are persuaded with cash incentives –or the chance to win a refrigerator or a car –and how they arecoerced –into sterilizations. And they have described cases inharrowing detail: young childless women consenting to procedures by thumbprint unaware that it would leave them infertile; dozens of women being sterilized on school desks by doctors operating by flashlight; women maimed in the quest to meet government sterilization quotas.10 Just last year, there was outrage after the national television station aired footageof women lined up and bleeding on the ground at a camp where 103 lower caste women had been sterilized in under five hours in another state.11Yet none of the Supreme Court of India rulings, international policies and declarations, ever seem to make a difference in India which has been a playground for population controllers for decades.8 “India probe uncovers shared needles, poor hygiene after sterilisation deaths,” Mail online, 02 December, 2014. India probe uncovers shared needles, poor hygiene after sterilisati...9 ”India sterilisations were ‘my moral responsibility’, says doctor,” The Guardian, Thursday 13 November, 2014. India sterilisations were ‘my moral responsibility’, says doctor10 “U.S.-U.K. Foreign Aid Tied to India’s Forced Sterilization Campaign” National Catholic Register, 09 May, 2012. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/u.s.-u.k.-foreign-aid-tied-to-indias-forced-sterilization-campaign/#ixzz3OKSecNKD11 “103 women sterilised in a day at West Bengal hospital; probe ordered,” NDTV, 06 February, 2013. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fmnGeK2cBMUSAID DENIALUSAID has deniedhaving anything to do with India's odious sterilization camps in the past but its recent response to PRI carefully distanced itself only from “involuntary sterilization” in India.“We are aware of the tragic deaths which have occurred in India related to female laproscopic sterilization surgeries,” a USAID spokesman said in a written statement to PRI. “We offer our deepest condolences and sympathies to the affected families. USAID does not support involuntary sterilization contraceptive services in India or in any other country in which we implement programs. U.S. law prohibits the use of foreign assistance funds to pay for the performance of involuntary sterilization as a method of family planning or to coerce or provide any financial incentive to any person to undergo sterilizations. Additional legal and policy requirements that apply to USAID-supported sterilization activities also help ensure the principles of voluntarism and informed choice.”But documents reveal that USAID has for more than two decades been at the helm of India's family planning programs, not just funding the massive directive that includes tens of thousands ofcamps, but overseeing and orchestrating the entire program, even encouraging cash incentives for sterilization and IUD insertion.A 2012 reportfrom the Washington, D.C based global health consulting firm, Futures Group International, for example, outlines USAID's 20 year involvement in one family planning program, funding more than 60,000 “integrative reproductive and child health camps” which provided more than 810,000 sterilizations in a single state in India, in itsfirst 10 years of operation—even providing transportation to the camps, but only for the sterilization “acceptors.”12The document describes a USAID designed program called the Innovations in Family Planning Services (IFPS). Determined to constrict India s population growth, USAID signed the IFPS bilateral agreement on September 30, 1992. It was launched as a 10 year program, with $325 million from USAID to be matched by $400 millio n from India's government. It targeted India's most populous state, Uttar Pradesh, because of its high fertility rate (5.2 children per woman) and its low contraceptive use (21% using a Western technology to prevent births).“The primary goal of the IFPS Project was to assist the state of Uttar Pradesh in reducing the rate of population growth to a level consistent with its social and economic objectives, objectives,” explains an affiliated program s website . In this long term goal, it i simplied that there is a need to lower the level of fertility significantly. 13Eventually, buoyed by its success, the IFPS extended into two more phases of operation between 2005 and 2012 in the states of Uttarakhand and Jharkhand. As well as providing reproductive health services, services,”USAID interventions included training, technical support, social marketing, behaviour change communication,communication,” and the cultivation of private public partnerships ” (PPPs) in the global family planning industry.As a first step towards achieving its long term goal in Uttar Pradesh, USAID and the IFPS created a special autonomous parastatal ” agency called the State Innovations in Family Planning Services Agency (SIFPSA) to provide flexibility and avoid bureaucratic delays. delays.” In other words, they made an unaccountable agency to operate away from public view and outside the democratic process. It was directed by members of the governments of India and Uttar Pradesh as well as representatives from USAID and a number of private sect or experts, all of whom, according to one report to USAID , it could afford to pay higher salaries than the governments could offer and had more control over finances. 14 The Futures Group report documents how SIFPSA and the IFPS have used every innovation they could think of to achieve USAID's population reduction goal: attracting and training providers,providers,” integration ” of family planning ” with immunization and other services; the recruitment and training of armies of community workers to act as motiva tors ” to persuade Indian women to accept Western pharmaceuticals and surgical interventions; incentive schemes for acceptors,”massive advertising campaigns on radio, TV, wall paintings and even puppet shows to “change behaviour;” sex education campaigns for teenagers; and campaigns to lure women to give birth in cleaner, safer delivery rooms –where they can also be contracepted. Even the local dairy co-operatives are utilized as a platform for propagandizing Western ideas about small families and promoting condoms, pills, IUDs and, of course, sterilization.1512 “20 Years of the Innovations in Family Planning Services Project in Uttar Pradesh, India Experiences, Lessons Learned and Achievements The Power of Innovations and Partnership,” Futures Group International for USAID,April, 2012. http://futuresgroup.com/files/publications/20_Years_of_IFPS_in_Uttar_Pradesh.pdf13 State Innovations in Family Planning Services Project Agency website Welcome :: SIFPSA14 EVALUATION: USAID/India Innovations in Family Planning Services Project Final Evaluation Report, May 2013. http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00JQ4B.pdf15 Opsit.16 USAID/INDIA STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE CLOSE OUT REPORT, http://www.oecd.org/derec/unitedstates/36133186.pdfWhile some of IFPS's interventions, such as improving hygiene in delivery rooms or training gynecologists, have arguably helped Indian women, the campaigns for women's “reproductive rights” and “children's health,” it is clear from the USAID and affiliates documents that all of the initiatives are ultimately aimed at achieving USAID’s paramount goal of reducing the number of children born in India.“Foreign donors have been funding sterilization in India almost since the inception of India's Family Planning Program,” Kerry McBroom, an American human rights lawyer with HRLN in Delhi told PRI. “Donor organizations need to be accountable for rights violations perpetrated with their funding. Activistshave made reports of unsafe and unethical sterilization for decades -it's impossible that donors are totally oblivious to the violations.”“All of the initiatives are ultimately aimed at achieving USAID’s paramount goal of reducing the number of children born in IndiaGiven that 85% of all family planning money goes to female sterilization, McBroom added, “wherever money is being spent for 'maternal health' or 'reproductive health' money is going for camps as they comprise a significant portion of both these projects.”Take, for example, how USAID paid for transport for women attending “reproductive and child health camps,” (RCH camps) but only if they agreed to be sterilization. One USAID/India Strategic Objective Close Out Report published by the Organisation for Economic C-operation and Development (OECD) describes a $168.3 million plan for “Reducing Fertility and Improving Reproductive Health in Northern India.“RCH camps, which are popular as Parivar Swasthya SewaDivas (Family Health Days)… provide an opportunity to integrate the efforts of providers and increase access to reproductive health services,” says the report. “Each camp included a gynecological check-up, child examination and immunization, family planning counselling and services and provision for transportation to clients who utilized sterilization services.”Each camp was scheduled in advance and publicized. In rural areas, attractive jingles on audio cassettes were played, said the report on the project overseen by the Department of Finance in India, the SIFPSA and ICICI, India's largest bank.“SIFPSA has funded 47,889 camps over a six-year period from 1998,” says the report. “On an average, 100 clients attended each camp and more than half of these accessed integrated MCH Services.It adds: “Since most of these camps were in remote rural areas, the availability of a team of surgeons, anesthetist and female gynecologist were ensured from the district level. Enhanced budget for maintenance and fuelfor vehicles was provided so that an adequate number of vehicles could be deployed to transport doctors to RCH camp sites and sterilization clients to their homes.”Indicators used to measure the success of the USAID funded program included the “contraceptive prevalence rate” and the “total fertility rate” in Uttar Pradesh. Other indicators of progress were the percentage of babies born to trained providers and the percentage of women who received two tetanus toxoid (TT) vaccine injections during pregnancy –a questionable service considering that tetanus vaccines were recently surrounded with accusations of being tainted with contraceptive antibodies in Kenya, and all the more suspect in a campaign dedicated to reducing fertility.1717 The tense standoff between Catholic14 November, 2014. bishops and the Kenyan government over tetanus vaccines, The Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/11/14/the-tense-standoff-between-catholic-bishops-and-the-kenyan-government-over-tetanus-vaccines/18 Wikipedia. EngenderHealth - Wikipedia19 2010 Annual Report, The Centre for Development and Population Activities. http://www.cedpa.org/files/2533_file_2010_Annual_Report_sm1.pdf“Attendance at the RCH camps grew over time,” explains the Futures Group report. “By 2003, each camp on an average served 100 clients and more than half of the sterilization operations in the IFPS districts were performed at the RCH camps. Through March 2006, IFPS had supported 60,148 RCH camps, providing 525,000 antenatal check-ups, sterilization services to 810,000 men and women...” along, of course with a host of other family planning and immunization services.ALL-AMERICAN FIELD SUPPORT“Field support” groups listed in various documents include Johns Hopkins University, its affiliated non-profit “health organization” Jhpiego, the New York City-based Association for Voluntary Surgical Contraception (AVSC) which was founded as the Sterilization League of New Jersey in 1937 to “provide for the improvement of the human stock by the selective sterilization of the mentally defective and of those afflicted with inherited or inheritable physical disease." It is currently known as Engender Health.18Other groups financed by USAID to carry out the population control objective in India are the Washington, DC based Centre for Development and Population Activities (CEDPA), which trains health workers and “motivators” on the ground and produces family planning literature, CARE International, PopTech, a global “innovation” group based in Cambden, Maine, the New York City based Population Council, the Chapel Hill, NC based medical training and technological support group Intrahealth International, and the Washington, D.C based Population Reference Bureau.These group's websites attest that they are still busy in family planning inIndia and many acknowledge USAID funding. CEDPA's most recent reportlists $5.8 million in grants from the US government in 2010 for example, as well dozens of other private and corporate funders including the Ford Foundation, the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the Exxon Mobil Foundation.19USAID TIED TO “RESULTS”The OECD report also elucidates how USAID encouraged India's sterilization quota system to develop by carefully financing its activities in India. It used a unique mechanism known as “performance based disbursement (PBD”) in which the dollar value was attached to “a set of targeted results” agreed upon between USAID and SIFPSA. “The targets for achievement were set at an achievable yet ambitious level to emphasize the focus on achieving results,” according to the OECD.Of course, on the surface it looked as though population targets were being dropped. As USAID noted to PRI this week, US law forbids funding them. The 1999 Tiarht Amendment prohibits the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)from funding any family-planning program that has targets or quotas, is coercive, has financial or other incentives or involves non-consensual experimentation. If any of these requirements is violated or a “pattern or practice of violations” emerges, the administrator of USAID has 60 days to submit a report of findings and remedies to the Committee on International Relations and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Affairs.It was damaging for India to keep quotas in the open after all the bad publicity China's One Child Policy was eliciting in the 90s anyway, so in 1996 India adopted a “Target-Free Approach” to family planning. But recent investigations by human rights activists in India have found that population targets and sterilization quotas are still routine and widespread. “Every state sets targets in its annual health plan for female sterilization, male sterilization, insertion of IUDs, and distribution of contraceptive pills,” says a 2012 report from Human Rights Watch (HRW)based on interviews with 50 Indian health workers. “A central government body, the National Project Coordination Committee, reviews these targets and allocates funds for family planning in every State.20 India: Target-Driven Sterilization Harming Women, 12 July, 2012. India: Target-Driven Sterilization Harming Women21 Effectiveness of Fund Allocation and Spending for the National Rural Health Mission in Uttarakhand, India Block and Facility Report, March 2014, The Policy Project. http://www.healthpolicyproject.com/pubs/377_UttarakhandPhaseFINAL.pdf22 SIFPSA website. Welcome :: SIFPSAAnd the funds, at least in part, are coming from USAID. A 2014 report of the Health Policy Project, a five-year cooperative agreement funded by USAID in 2010 and implemented by Futures Group, Futures Institute CEDDPA and others, details how funds to India’s National Rural Health Mission in the state of Uttarakhand are dispersed through a labyrinth of implementing District Health Societies and their underling organizations and how “RCH Flexipool funds are used for reproductive and child health programming, which includes maternal health, child health, family planning, JSY, RCH camps, and compensation for sterilisation.”21State family planners, working to ensure that the people sending the cash are pleased, can get draconian to meet their quotas.“They shoutat those who have not fulfilled their targets during meetings. It’s humiliating,” one worker told HRW. “They say, “If others can achieve the target, why can’t you? You must know some women? You must have relatives or some contacts after working in the villages? Use them and get women operated [sterilized].”“In much of the country, authorities aggressively pursue targets, especially for female sterilization, by threatening health workers with salary cuts or dismissals,” the HRW report adds. “As a result,some health workers pressure women to undergo sterilization without providing sufficient information, either about possible complications, its irreversibility, or safer sex practices after the procedure.”“I have to keep going to women’s houses,” one worker explained. “Sometimes in one week I go 10 times to one woman’s house.”It's also why at financial year end or when new budgets are being written, sterilization targets can suddenly swell in India. Dr. Abhijit Das from the Centre for Health and Social Justice, told HRW investigators,that in Bihar state for example, fewer than 150,000 sterilization operations were “achieved” in 2005-2006 but that target for 2011-2012 was set at 650,000 –nearly a four-fold increase. Similarly, the state of Madhya Pradesh set a target of 700,000 sterilizations, doubling what was achieved in earlier years.SIFPSA’s “target-free” policies were simply a bugbear that family planners had to work around, while still playing the numbers game. SIFPSA's website describes how it “kick-started the government sterilization programme after setbacks due to the introduction of the target-free approach and expanded services provided in camps by funding 60,148 integrated RCH camps in 33 districts of [Uttar Pradesh] and 5 districts of Uttranchal.”22And there is no sign of India retreating from its population control objectives. Apress releaseissued last month by the Government of India’s Ministry of Health and Family Welfare details new “schemes and awareness campaigns” by the government “to stabilize the population of the country.” These include a new emphasis on “post-partumsterilization,” a “compensation scheme for sterilisation acceptors” which has been “enhanced for 11 high focus states with high TFR,” a National Family Planning Indemnity Scheme which protects “providers and accredited institutions “against litigation in the event of death or complications following sterilizations.It also describes how the government made World Population Day a mandatory celebration in 2013, which is marked by “Mobilization Fortnight” and “Population Stabilization Fortnight” government funded campaigns marked by increased population control activity including camps.23RESURRECTION OF THE IUDClearly, India's sterilization camps are a public relations nightmare for health officials and any foreigners even remotely involved. It's not likely the way most American elite designers and “innovators” of the programs envisioned their population control being executed. But it is the reality.Another new population stabilization “scheme” listed by the GOI is an “emphasis” on resurrecting hormonal and copper IUDs, intrauterine devices that are surgically implanted in the uterus to prevent conception for up to five years.IUDs fell out of fashion in the US in the 1980s after as many as 200,000 American women testified they were injured by the notorious Dalkon Shield –and their market has never really recovered. Given the complications associated with IUDs from displacement (one 2014 studydescribes their migration to the peritoneal cavity is a known complication and they have even been found to migrate to the intestine), and expulsion to perforation of the uterus and infection,24 it's hard not to wonder why a development agency would choose it for a country where women are dying from filthy sterilizations. It also is known to cause heavy bleeding in some women which would be a particular problem among Indian women, more than half of whom (56%) HRLN reports are anemic.2523 “Population Stabilization.” Press Release of the Government of India Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, 05 December, 2014. http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=11269924 “Laparoscopic removal of migrated intrauterine device embedded in intestine.” Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons, July 2014. Laparoscopic removal of migrated intrauterine device embedded in intestine - PubMed25 See no. 2.But in the mid 2000s USAID started looking for more ways to reduce fertility in the developing world and The Contraceptive and Reproductive Health Technologies Research and Utilization (CRTU), a five-year (2005-2010) agreement with Durham, NC based Family Health International (now FHI360) resulted. FHI started working in a number of countries including India through its Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW), the Population Council, the Indian Council of Medical Research, the Constella Futures Group, SIFPSA and, of course, the government of India's most populous state, Uttar Pradesh, towards supporting the “revitalization” of family planning, “especially the IUD.”In 2007, USAID sponsored a symposiumwith FHI360, about developing a “comprehensive strategy for IUD repositioning.” Dr L.B.Prasad, the director general of India's MOHFW once again highlighted the growing population of India. He said that “limiting methods” of contraception (ie., sterilization”) were not so acceptable as they once were and that they wouldn't really affect population growth enough since sterilizing couples had already had all the children they want. In order to really get numbers down, he said, they needed “birth spacing” and the Copper T380A IUD was the answer to be “promoted by changing the mindsets and attitudes of people and providers.”2626 Symposium to Develop a Comprehensive Strategy for IUD Repositioning, Report of FHI 360, 03 March , 2008. http://www.fhi360.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/Symposium%20to%20Develop%20a%20Comprehensive%20Strategy%20for%20IUD%20Repositioning.pdf27 “Evaluation of Safety, Efficacy, and Expulsion of Post-Placental and Intra-Cesarean Insertion of Intrauterine Contraceptive Devices (PPIUCD).”Mishra S. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India. October, http://2014.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25368457This explains why currently at all of SIFPSA/ USAID/India affiliates’ websites, including those belonging to Jhpiego at Johns Hopkins University and Engender Health include copious documentation about the benefits and need for promoting social awareness and acceptance of Long Acting Reversible Contraceptives (LARCs)s like the IUD; and strategizing about social marketing and social franchising to “create a market” and “increase demand” for the devices. Once again, advertising agencies and media are enlisted, providers are being trained in the technicalities, and community workers deployed en masseto bring women intohospitals for safe, clean deliveries where they can have IUDs inserted within 10 minutes of delivery.A studypublished in October 2014 in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of Indiasays that post-partuminsertion of a copper IUD is “safe and effective” and “cash incentives to the accepter, motivator and of course provider would bring about a substantial progress in the PPIUCD use in developing countries like India.”27USAID seem to have been well ahead of that trend. One USAID/INDIA Innovations in Family Planning Services Final Evaluation Reportfrom May 2013 discusses the implementation of a compensation scheme for IUDs and sterilizations, without any mention of the Tiahrt Amendment. “Janani Suraksha Yojana (JSY), a safe motherhood intervention under the NRHM [National Rural HealthMission], is being implemented with the objective of reducing maternal and neonatal mortality by promoting institutional delivery among poor pregnant women.”“The success of the scheme is determined by the increase in institutional delivery among poor families,” explains the report. “All mothers irrespective of age, birth order, or income group (BPL & APL) will get cash assistance of Rs 1400 in a lump sum at the time of delivery. ASHAs [Accredited Social Health Activists] receive Rs 600 for accompanying a rural delivery and Rs 200 for an urban delivery.” The USAID document says that sterilization is equally rewarded under the scheme with 600 rupees for a tubectomy and 1,100 rupees for vasectomy.2828 See. No. 9, p. 12.29 See No. 15.30 Gates Foundation website. OPP108438631 Gates Foundation website. OPP1084463Of course, there is no guarantee that IUD provision in India will be any safer, cleaner or more ethical than the sterilization camps were meant to be. HRW interviewed health workers who said India is already implementing the “camp approach” to IUDs. One doctor in Tamil Nadu said camps in her district insert IUDs in 30 to 35 women a day and activists are documenting cases of women having the devices inserted without consent and refused their requests to have them removed.29GATES FUNDINGUSAID said last week that it no longer supports its SIFPSA offspring. There are new strategies in play and private sector funding and corporate profiteering are playing a greater role today, although there is considerable overlap between all these agencies. Rajeev Shah, the Administrator of USAID's $22 billion annual budget, for instance, spent years in leadership positions at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation before he launched his government career.Melinda Gates appears now to be leading the charge for IUD programs for India and the rest of the developing world. Her foundation website says it gave $3million last year to Jhpiego Corporation to “provide support to the Family Planning Division, MoHFW, Government of India, as [it] takes leadership and management in providing voluntary, high-quality FP services in India with a special focus on the six high TFR [total fertility rate] states of UP, Bihar, Jharkhand, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh.25 She awarded another $5 million to Cambridge, MA based Abt Associates, a favorite of USAID, to promote a “basket of contraceptives including injectable contraceptives” to couples in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh.26And she gave FHI360 –a group that has been working in India over the past two decades --$3million for a multi-center study on IUDs.30While Gates has distanced herself from population control, Gates' family planning ties are hard to disentangle from their population control roots. Her foundation awarded $15 million this year,for example, to “promote accountability” of family planning programming in India and other countries to Johns Hopkins University31 –a group that has been among those at the helm in India under IFPS for the past decades while women suffered the most barbarous sterilization abuses. But the Gates Foundation declined to answer PRI’s questions about its programs in India.Some might consider the USAID/Gates “technological” approach to family planning amidst the deeply entrenched cultural context of India naïve. The question remains whether IUDs, latex rubber gloves for sterilizations and US-sponsored free condoms for men will do anything to truly help women in the country where they are still tortured to death in witch-hunts, half are married before age 18 and millions of baby girls are killed by infanticide. Indeed, the USAID approach—increasing Western pharmaceutical and device consumption and reducing by sterilization the number of babies born to Indian women –population control by definition –seems only tohave added to the exploitation and suffering of India’s women. Already more than 20 years of history of US underwriting of this population control tyranny is documented in tedious government and NGO policy reports. The reality is told in heart-breakingdetail by human rights activists, by the women themselves, and by their surviving families and children. America must now decide whether it wants that legacy to continue.Bibliography“103 women sterilised in a day at West Bengal hospital; probe ordered,” NDTV, 06 February, 2013. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fmnGeK2cBM2010 Annual Report, The Centre for Development and Population Activities. http://www.cedpa.org/files/2533_file_2010_Annual_Report_sm1.pdf“210 women tortured to death for 'witchcraft' in Chhattisgarh, many await justice.”The Times of India, 06 December, 2014. 210 women tortured to death for 'witchcraft' in Chhattisgarh, many await justice | India News - Times of India“20 Years of the Innovations in Family Planning Services Project in Uttar Pradesh, India Experiences, Lessons Learned and Achievements The Power of Innovations and Partnership,” Futures Group International for USAID,April, 2012. http://futuresgroup.com/files/publications/20_Years_of_IFPS_in_Uttar_Pradesh.pdfCountry Profiles: India. CIA World Factbook. Central Intelligence AgencyEffectiveness of Fund Allocation and Spending for the National Rural Health Mission in Uttarakhand, India Block and Facility Report, March 2014, The Policy Project. http://www.healthpolicyproject.com/pubs/377_UttarakhandPhaseFINAL.pdfEVALUATION: USAID/India Innovations in Family Planning Services Project Final Evaluation Report, May 2013. http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00JQ4B.pdf“Evaluation of Safety, Efficacy, and Expulsion of Post-Placental and Intra-Cesarean Insertion of Intrauterine Contraceptive Devices” (PPIUCD).”Mishra S. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India. October, http://2014.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25368457“Fact-Finding Report on Sterilization, Access to Contraceptive Information and Services, and Women’s Health in Bilaspur District, Chhattisgarh 14-18 November 2014,” Human Rights Law Network.Gates Foundation website. OPP1084386Gates Foundation website. OPP1084463Gates Foundation website. OPP1099538Gates Foundation website. OPP1079004“Indian doctors 'use bicycle pump' to inflate women’s abdomens during sterilisation surgery.” The Independent, Tuesday 02 December, 2014. Indian doctors 'use bicycle pump' during sterilisation surgery“India probe uncovers shared needles, poor hygiene after sterilisation deaths,” Mail online, 02 December, 2014. India probe uncovers shared needles, poor hygiene after sterilisati...“India sterilisations were ‘my moral responsibility’, says doctor,” The Guardian, Thursday 13 November, 2014. India sterilisations were ‘my moral responsibility’, says doctorIndia: Target-Driven Sterilization Harming Women, 12 July, 2012. India: Target-Driven Sterilization Harming WomenInformed consent variables; Demographic and Healthy Surveys. Accessed January 2015.“Laparoscopic removal of migrated intrauterine device embedded in intestine.” Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons, July 2014. Laparoscopic removal of migrated intrauterine device embedded in intestine - PubMedMorse, Anne. “Aborting Indian Democracy.” PRI Review. 9 Jan, 2015 Aborting Indian Democracy - PRIMorse, Anne and Mosher, Steven. “A Once and Future Tragedy: India’s sterilization campaign 39 years later.” PRI Review. 24 Jun, 2014 http://pop.org/content/once-and-future-tragedy-india%E2%80%99s-sterilization-campaign-39-years-later“Population Stabilization.” Press Release of the Government of India Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, 05 December, 2014. Untitled PageSIFPSA website. Welcome :: SIFPSAState Innovations in Family Planning Services Project Agency website. Welcome :: SIFPSASymposium to Develop a Comprehensive Strategy for IUD Repositioning, Report of FHI 360, 03 March , 2008. http://www.fhi360.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/Symposium%20to%20Develop%20a%20Comprehensive%20Strategy%20for%20IUD%20Repositioning.pdfThe tense standoff between Catholic14 bishops and the Kenyan government over tetanus vaccines, The Washington Post, November, 2014. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/11/14/the-tense-standoff-between-catholic-bishops-and-the-kenyan-government-over-tetanus-vaccines/USAID/INDIA STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE CLOSE OUT REPORT, http://www.oecd.org/derec/unitedstates/36133186.pdf“U.S.-U.K. Foreign Aid Tied to India’s Forced Sterilization Campaign” National Catholic Register, 09 May, 2012. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/u.s.-u.k.-foreign-aid-tied-to-indias-forced-sterilization-campaign/#ixzz3OKSecNKDUN Population Division; fertility data; accessed January 2015AcknowledgementsThis investigation was completed and written by Celeste McGovern to whom PRI would like to give a special thanks. This report was compiled by Anne Morse.

Great question. Unfortunately, when you ask anything climate-change-related, you will be answered by folks who have agendas. Their vested interests and ideological commitments all too often take priority over such old-fashioned concerns as honesty and factuality, so you do need to keep your critical-thinking hat on and be skeptical of both “sides.” (And yes, there really are two sides).For instance, Roger Fjellstad Olsen’s answer begins:No. Because he is not an expert on climate change. Michaels is a well known climate misinformer and think tank talking head for fossil fuels. Like most of the denier “experts”.(Note that Mr Olsen strangely fails to specify what Dr Michaels is a “denier” of. It certainly isn’t climate change—Dr Michaels has publicly stated that climate change is real hundreds of times.)Consider the foundation of Mr Olsen’s case against Dr Michaels:Because he is not an expert on climate change.But is this actually the case, or is it just Olsen’s way of saying “I, Roger Fjellstad Olsen, disagree with Dr Michaels?”Well, the Society of Environmental Journalists—which calls Dr Michaels a “skeptic and/or contrarian”—acknowledges that Michaels has following credentials.(Note: In the interests of space I had to omit huge chunks—indicated by […]—from Dr Michaels’ CV. For example, I cut out every single peer-reviewed scientific paper he authored between 1985 and 2001, and then some.) EDUCATION   A.B. Biological Sciences, l971, University of Chicago  S.M. Biology, 1975, University of Chicago  Ph.D. Special Graduate Committee on Ecological Climatology, 1979  University of Wisconsin-Madison  Dissertation: Atmospheric Anomalies and Crop Yields in  North America  PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE (Abbreviated)   Center for Climatic Research, University of Wisconsin, 1976-1979.  Research and Project Assistant;  Department of Environmental Sciences  University of Virginia  Assistant Professor, l980-1986  Associate Professor, 1986-1995  Professor, 1996  Virginia State Climatologist l980-present  Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies, Cato Institute, 1992-Present  Visiting Scientist, Marshall Institute, 1996-Present  PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES/AWARDS   Sigma Xi, The Scientific Honor Society  American Meteorological Society  (Program Chair, Committee on Applied Climatology, 1988-9)  (President, Central Virginia Chapter, 1986-87)  American Association for the Advancement of Science  American Association of State Climatologists  (President, 1987-88; Executive Board, 1986-89)  Association of American Geographers  Who's Who Worldwide/Platinum 1992-present  American Library Association: "Best Government Publications Worldwide"   award in 1994 for Virginia Climate Advisory  Association of American Geographers, 2003, co-author of climate science  "Paper of the Year".  COURSES OF INSTRUCTION   EVSC 100A/USEM 172: The Greenhouse Effect and Public Policy  EVSC 451: Undergraduate Synoptic Analysis  EVSC 447: Applied Climatology  EVAT 794: Climate-Ecosystem Dynamics  EVAT 796: Advanced Climatology   [...]  PUBLICATIONS   Senior Author unless otherwise noted  *Refereed Serial Publication, Book, or Book Chapter **Conference Proceeding with Prescreened Review ***Technical Report   l977. A Predictive Model for Wheat Yield in Sonora, Mexico. University of Wisconsin, Institute for Environmental Studies, Report #73. University of Wisconsin--Madison, 53706. 17pp. ***  1977. An Aggregated National Model for Wheat Yield in India. University of Wisconsin, Institute for Environmental Studies, Report #74. University of Wisconsin--Madison, 53706. 17pp.***  l978. A Predictive Model for Winter Wheat Yield in the U.S. Great Plains. University of Wisconsin, Institute for Environmental Studies, Report #94. University of Wisconsin--Madison, 53706. 44pp.***  1979. A Simple Large Area Crop/Climate Model for United States Winter Wheat. American Meteorological Society, 14th Conf. on Agric. and For. Meteor., Amer. Met. Soc., Minneapolis MN, pp 64-67.**  l981. The Climatic Sensitivity of 'Green Revolution' Wheat Culture in Sonora, Mexico, Envi. Consv. 8, 307-312.*  1981. Virginia's Climate. University of Virginia News Letter, Vol. 57, no.5, 17-20. (B.P. Hayden, Senior Author)***  1981. Comparison of the Climatic Sensitivity of "Green Revolution" Wheat Culture to that in the United States Great Plains. American Meteorological Society, 15th Conf. on Agric. and For. Meteor., Amer. Met. Soc., Anaheim CA, pp106-109.**  1982. The Response of the 'Green Revolution' to Climatic Variability. Cli. Change 4, 255-271.*  l982. Five Tropical Systems on Similar Tracks. Mon. Wea. Rev. 110, 883-885.*  l982. Atmospheric Pressure Patterns, Climatic Change, and Winter Wheat Yields in North America. Geoforum 13, 263-273.*  1982. Determination of the Climatic Component of Southern Pine Beetle Host Susceptibility with Multivariate Statistical Methods. Progress Report, USDA Cooperative Agreement 59/2513/1/3/006/0. 24pp.***  1982. Statistical-Dynamic Models for Virginia Corn Yields. Final Report, USDA Cooperative Agreement 58/319T/1/0308. 50pp., and addendum of 13pp.***  l983. Weather and the Southern Pine Beetle in Atlantic Coastal and Piedmont Regions. American Meteorological Society, 16th Conf. on Agric. and For. Meteor., Amer. Met. Soc., Fort Collins CO, pp 241-244.**  1983. Statistical-Dynamic Models for Virginia Corn Crops. American Meteorological Society, l6th Conf on Agric. and For. Meteor., Amer. Met. Soc., Fort Collins CO, pp 150-153. (T.J. Smith, Senior Author)**  1983. Improved Specification of the Climatic Component of Southern Pine Beetle Host Susceptibility with Multivariate Statistical Methods. Progress Report, USDA/UVa Cooperative Agreement 5-29309. 15pp.***  l983. Temporal and Spatial Changes in Mesoscale Climatic Patterns. American Meteorological Society, 2nd Conf. on Climatic Variations, Amer. Met. Soc., New Orleans LA, p20.**  1983. Price, Weather and "Acreage Abandonment" in Western Great Plains Wheat Culture. J. Clim. and Appl. Met.22, 1296-1303.*  1983. Climate and High Yielding Variety Wheat Yields. Geoforum 14, 441-446.*  l984. Modification of MOS-Derived Thunderstorm Probabilities over Complex Terrain with Continental Scale Upper Air Data. American Meteorological Society, 10th Conference on Weather Forecasting and Analysis. Amer. Met. Soc., Tampa FL, pp 160-164**.    [...]    2002 Abrupt Climate Noise. Energy and Environment 13, 19-20.*  2002 Development of a Discriminant Analysis Mixed Precipitation (DAMP)  Forecast Model for mid-Atlantic Winter Storms. 13th Conf. On Applied  Climatology, American Meteorological Society, Portland OR, 106-111**  (J.D. Hux, Senior Author)  2002 Climate Change Adaptations: Trends in Human Mortality Responses to Summer Heat in the United States. 15th conf on Biometeorology, Aerobiology, Kansas City, Paper 9B1.** (R.E. Davis, Senior Author).  2002 Spatial Pattern of Human Mortality Seasonality in U.S. Cities since 1964. 15th Conf. Of Biometeorology, Aerobiology, Kansas City, Paper 2B2** (R.E. Davis, Senior Author).  2003 Do Facts Matter Anymore? Energy and Environnment 14, 323-326.*  2003 Science or Political Science? An Assessment of the U.S. National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change. In Gough, M., Ed., Politicizing Science: The Alchemy of Policymaking. Hoover, Palo Alto. 313pp.*  2003 Das logische Paradigma einer gemaisigen glbalen Erwarming. VDI-Gesellschaft Energietecknik, Koln, Germany, 1-38.**  2003 Test for harmful collinearity among predictor variables used in modeling global temperature. Climate Research 24, 15-18.* (D.H. Douglass, Senior Author)  2003 Decadal changes in summer mortality in U.S. cities. Inter. Jour Biomet. 47, 166-175* (R. E. Davis, Senior Author).  2003 Changing heat-related mortality in the United States. Envir. Health Perspectives 111, 1712-1718.* (R.E. Davis, Senior Author) Climate Science "Paper of the Year", Association of American Geographers.   2003 Winter mortality, climate, and climate change in U.S. Cities. 37th Canadian Met. And Ocean. Soc. Cong., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.*** (R.E. Davis, senior author)  2004 Trends in Precipitation on the Wettest Days of the Year across the Contiguous United States. Int. J. Climatology 24, 1873-1882.*  2004 Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians and the Media. Cato Books, Washington DC.* 272pp + illustrations.  2004 Economic Signals in Global Temperature Histories. 14th Conf. on Applied Climatology, American Meteorological Society, Seattle WA. Paper no. J1.1.  2004 A Test for Corrections for Extraneous Signals in Gridded Surface Temperature Data.* (R. McKittrick, Senior Author)Climate Research 26, 159-174.  2004 Changing Heatwave Mortality in U.S. Cities.** (R.E. Davis, Senior Author) 14th Conf. on Applied Climatology, American Meteorological Society, Seattle WA. Paper no J8.4.  2004 Seasonality of Climate-human Mortality Relationships in U.S. Cities and Impacts of Climate Change.* (R.E. Davis, Senior Author) Climate Research 26, 61-76.  2004 Heat Wave Mortality in Large U.S. Cities.** (R.E. Davis, Senior Author) 16th Conf. on Biometeorology and Aerobiology, American Meteorological Society, Vancouver BC. Paper no A6.3.  2004 Disparity of Tropospheric and Surface Temperature Trends: New Evidence.* (D.H. Douglass, Senior Author) Geophysical Res. Lett. 31 doi: 10.1029/2004GL0212  Michaels, P.J., Knappenberger, P.C. and C. Lansea, 2005. Extended Comment On: "Impacts of CO2-Induced Warming on Simulated Hurricane Intensity and Precipitation: Sensitivity to the Choice of Model and Convective Scheme". Journal of Climate, 18, 5179-5182.*   Michaels, P.J., (Ed.), 2005. Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham MD. 304pp.*  Michaels, P.J., 2005. False Impressions: Misleading Statements, Glaring Omissions, and Erroneous Conclusions in the IPCC's Summary for Policymakers, 2001. In Shattered Consensus, pp 1-9.*  Michaels, P.J., Knappenberger, P.C., and R.E. Davis, 2006. Sea-Surface Temperatures and Tropical Cyclones in the Atlantic Basin, 1982-2005. Geophysical Research Letters, accepted in final form, April, 2006.*  Michaels, P.J., Knappenberger, P.C., and R.E. Davis, 2005. Sea Surface Temperature and Tropical Cyclone Intensity: Breaking the Paradigm. 15th Conference On Applied Climatology, American Meteorological Society, Savannah GA, June 19-23. Paper 2.4.**  Davis, R. E., Knappenberger, P.C., Michaels, P.J., and W. M. Novicoff, 2005. Changing Heat Wave Sensitivity in U.S. Cities. 15th Conference On Applied Climatology, American Meteorological Society, Savannah GA, June 19-23. Paper 4.6.**  Davis, R.E., Knappenberger, P.C., Michaels, P.J., and W.M. Novicoff, 2005. Evidence of Adaptation to Increasing Heat Wave Intensity and Duration in U.S. Cities. 17th International Congress on Biometeorology, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Bavaria, Germany, September 5-9.**  Davis, R. E., Michaels, P.J., and P.C. Knappenberger, 2006. Global Warming and Atlantic Hurricanes. 2006 Annual Meeting, Association of American Geographers, Chicago IL, March 7-11.**  INVITED LECTURES AND TESTIMONY   Environmental Sciences Department Seminar, l980, 1986 (Univ. of  Virginia)  New Mexico State University, 1981 (Las Cruces NM)  Virginia Farm Bureau, l981, l982, l983  Virginia Small Grains Conference, l981, 1988 (Fredericksburg,  Williamsburg)  Environmental Sciences Undergraduate Seminar, l982, l983, 1985,  1987, 1990, 1992 (Univ. of Virginia)  Sigma Xi, University of Virginia, l982  Economics Honor Society, J. Madison University, l983 (Harrisonburg)  Colorado State University, Atm. Sci. Dept. Seminar 1983 (Fort  Collins CO)  Virginia Tech Short Course on Viticulture, l984 (Charlottesville)  American Meteorological Society, Central Virginia Chapter, l984  (Charlottesville)  National Academy of Sciences, Commission on Life Life Sciences,  l985 (Toronto)  University of Virginia Institute of Government, l985  University of Virginia Blandy Experimental Farm, 1986 (Boyce)  Virginia Mosquito Control Commission, 1986 (Williamsburg)  Virginia Water Resources Research Center, l986 (2), 1988 (Blacksburg)  Virginia Air Pollution Control Board, 1986 (Virginia Beach)  Virginia Tech Extension Service, l987, 1988 (Williamsburg)  Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, Colorado State  University, 1987 (Fort Collins)  Virginia Agricultural Chemical and Soil Fert. Assn. 1988 (Norfolk)  U.S. Geological Survey, Advisory Committee on Water Data, 1988 (New  Orleans)  University of Delaware, Geography Dept. Seminar 1988 (Newark DE)   [...]   Western Business Roundtable [Carefree AZ] 11/0  Virginia Tech, Program in Natural Resources [Alexandria VA] 2/06  American University, Issues Forum [Washington] 2/06  Marshall Institute Briefing, House of Representatives 2/06  Piedmont Master Gardeners [Charlottesville] 3/06  University of North Carolina College Republicans [Chapel Hill] 3/06  North Carolina Climate Commission [Raleigh] 3/06  John Locke Foundation [Raleigh] 3/06  HSBC Bank Leadership Forum [London] 4/06  JLT Insurance Institute [Lugano, Switzerland] 5/06  Virginia Academy of Sciences Negus Lecture 5/06  Albemarle County Farm Bureau 8/06  Bavarian-American Exchange Program [Washington] 8/06  Virginia Manufacturers Association [Richmond] 9/06  Heritage Foundation [Washington 9/06]  Cato Institute, Club 200 Seminar [Greenbrier WV] 9/06  Heritage Foundation [Washington] 10/06  Oberlin College General Lecture Series [Oberlin OH] 10/06  Richmond Rotary 10/06  North Carolina Forestry Association [Southern Pines NC] 10/06  University of Georgia, Geography Department Seminar [Athens GA] 11/06  Western Business Roundtable [Beaver Creek CO] 11/06  Chesapeake Bay Foundation [Edgewater MD] 12/06   *Top Ten Speaking Platforms in the U.S. (According to Fortune 250 CEOs)   THE VIRGINIA CLIMATE ADVISORY  The Advisory is a quarterly publication of the State Climatology Office, targeted for Education, Governmental Agencies, and the educated layman. Current circulation is approximately 4,000.In 1993, the Advisory was selected by the American Library Association as one of the 60 "best government information sources" in the world.   1980. 4 (1) Degree-days and energy usage in Virginia. 27pp.  l980. 4 (2) Modelling soybean/climate relationships. 24pp.  l980. 4 (3) History of tropical cyclones in Virginia. 33pp.  l981. 4 (4) History of drought in Virginia. 27pp.   1981. 5 (1) Satellite climatology. 26pp.  1981. 5 (2) Acid rainfall in Virginia. 26pp.  1981. 5 (3) Winter severity over Virginia. 26pp.  1982. 5 (4) Coastal cyclogenesis. 26pp.   1982. 6 (1) History of tornadoes in Virginia. 26pp.  l982. 6 (2) Lightning and damaging thunderstorms in Virginia. 26pp.  l982. 6 (3) Thunderstorm patterns over Virginia. 26pp.   l983. 6 (4) Virginia wind patterns. 26pp.   l983. 7 (1) Virginia fog frequency and distribution. 26pp.  l983. 7 (2) Origin and distribution of summertime haze over  Virginia. 26pp.  l983. 7 (3) Mountain temperature regimes. 26pp.  l984. 7 (4) The Carbon Dioxide controversy. 26pp.   1984. 8 (1) Precipitation and Elevation. 30pp.  1984. 8 (2) Improvements for Virginia Thunderstorm Forecasts. 30pp.  1984. 8 (3) Vineyard Microclimate. 30pp.  l985. 8 (4) Objective Improvement of Local Temperature Forecasts. 30pp.   1985. 9 (1) Radar Climatology of Piedmont Thunderstorms. 30pp.  1985. 9 (2) Cumulus Clusters. 30pp.  1985. 9 (3) Hurricane Gloria. 30pp.  1986. 9 (4) Winter History since 1890. 30pp.   1986. 10 (1) Climate and High-Level Nuclear Waste Disposal. 30pp.  1986. 10 (2) Carbon Dioxide/Climate Revisited. 30pp.  1986. 10 (3) Virginia Acid Rain Research. 30pp.  1987. 10 (4) Hurricanes, Drought, and Va Agriculture. 30pp.   1987. 11 (4) The Ozone Hole and Nuclear Winter. 30pp.  1987. 11 (2) Virginia Evaporation Regimes. 30pp.  1987. 11 (3) Virginia Snow Phobia. 30pp.  1988. 11 (4) Updated Climatic History. 30pp.   1988. 12 (1) Historical Floods. 30pp.  1988. 12 (2) Acid Precipitation Trajectories. 30pp.  1988 12 (3) Eastern Shore Hurricane History. 30pp.  1989 12 (4) Eastern Shore Northeaster History. 30pp.   1989 13 (1) Testimony on Greenhouse Effect. 30pp.  1989 13 (2) Hurricane Camille. 30pp.  1989 13 (3) Hurricane Hugo. 30pp.   1990 14 (2) Scales of Temperature Variation. 30pp.  1990 14 (3) Climate of Saudi Arabia. 30pp.  1990 14 (4) Sleet and Freezing Rain in Virginia. 30pp.   1991 15 (1) Virginia Growing Season Trends. 30pp.  1991 15 (2) Heat Stress. 30pp.  1991 15 (3) Autumn Color Change. 30pp.  1992 15 (4) 15 Years of the Advisory . 30pp.   1992 16 (1) Northeasters. 30pp.  1992 16 (2) Ligthtning. 30pp.  1992 16 (3) Hurricane Andrew. 30pp.  1993 16 (4) Annual Temperature Regimes. 30pp.   1993 17 (1) Blizzard of 1993. 30pp.  1993 17 (2) Tree Mortality. 30pp.  1993 17 (3) Cyclones and Climate Change. 30pp.  1993 17 (4) Regional Visibility. 30pp.   1994 18 (1) Rainfall Recurrence Intervals. 30pp.  1994 18 (2) United Nations Climate Treaties. 30pp.  1994 18 (3) Anticyclonic History. 30pp.   1995 19 (1) Improving Ice Storm Forecasts. 30pp.  1995 19 (2) Hot Weather Mortality. 30pp.  1995 19 (3) Internet Weather. 30pp.  1996 19 (4) Forecast Model on Internet. 30pp.   1996 20 (1) Winter of 1996. 30pp.  1996 20 (2) Annual Rainfall Climatology. 30pp.  1996 20 (3) Annual Snowfall Climatology. 30pp.  1997 20 (4) Extreme Temperatures in Virginia. 30pp.   1997 21 (1) Extratropical Cyclones. 30pp.  1997 21 (2) Regional Rainfall Extremes. 30pp.  1997 21 (3) Lack of El Nino influence in Virginia. 30pp.  1998 21 (4)   1998 22 (1)  1998 22 (2)  1998 22 (3)  1999 22 (4) Snowfall and Winter History. 30pp.   1999 23 (1) Indications of Climate Change. 30pp.  1999 23 (2) 1999 Drought in Perspective 1999 Virginia Climate Advisory Online, beginning December, 1999.  2000 Online:   Weather vs. Infrastructural Droughts  Virginia Climate: 1999 in Perspective  Book Review: The Global Stupidstorm   The Current Wisdom (Recent research in climate science)  Cherry Blossoms in DC   Growing Climate Concern  Just the Facts Please (Spring weather history)  A Closer Look at Visibility  A Careful Look at the New National Assessment   Not-so-hot   Wet, Cool Weather Doesn't Bug Asian Tiger Mosquito  Record Cold Comparison   October Sets All-Time Record Low for Precipitation   Cold Turkey (Cold Thanksgiving History)  Luke-Cold Leftover Turkey (2000 in Perspective)  Dreaming of a White Christmas?   Inaugural Weather   2001 Online  Too Cool for Words (Historical Perspective on Winter Cold)  Energy Usage vs. Cold Winters  Drought Task Force Makes Rain  Doppler Radar and Local Moisture Monitoring  National Academy Report on Global Warming  The Current Wisdom  Urbanization vs. True Warming in Virginia Records  Long Range Forecast Models  Precipitation and Water Shortages in Perspective    2002 Online  (Virginia Drought Emergency in 2002 shifted Advisories to Drought Updates)  1932: The Year Without a Winter  Drought Report from the State Climatology Office: 3/12, 4/10, 5/1  Summer of 1930: Harbinger of 2002?  Drought Report from the State Climatology Office  6/3, 7/2, 8/16, 8/19, 9/23, 10/22, 11/21.  2003 Online  Snowfall Records  New Plant Hardiness Zones  Twenty Days and Twenty Nights -- excessive rain days  In a Rainy Daze?  Isabel and Virginia's Vegetation Problem  Record Annual Virginia Rainfall  VIDEO CLIMATE ADVISORY   In January, 2003, the State Climatology Office switched largely to video Advisories, broadcast statewide on Public Television, Local Access, and Commerical broadcast (the last as PSA's). Spots vary between 1.5 and 2.5 minutes. Advisories are produced by the Virginia Farm Bureau.  2003:  Sleet and Freezing Rain in the Mid Atlantic (Jan) El Nino/La Nina (Feb) Transitional Season Weather (Mar) Tornadoes in Virginia (Apr) Moisture and Temperature (May) Hurricane Season Forecasts (Jun) Dew Point Temperatures (Jul) Wet Start to 2003 (Aug) History of Excessive Virginia Precipitation (Sep) Jet Stream and Precipitation (Oct) Isabel Damage (Nov) White Christmas Probability (Dec)  2004: The Farmer's Almanac (Jan) Precipitation Records in 2003 (Feb) Virginia Temperature Histories (Mar) Virginia Crop Yields (Apr) Virginia Precipitation Histories (May) Trends in Extreme Temperatures (Jun) Hurricane Season Outlook (Jul) Home Weather Instrumentation (Aug) Summer Temperature Departures (Sep) Summer Precipitation (Oct) Perceived Winter Cold (Nov) Record-Breaking Hurricane Season (Dec)  2005: Heating Degree Days (Jan) Snowfall and North Atlantic Oscillation (Feb) Late Season Snows (Mar) Late Spring Frost (Apr) Spring Moisture Status (May)  THE SOUTHEASTERN CLIMATE REVIEW  The Southeastern Climate Review is a technical and public service publication of the Southeast Regional Climate Center. Circulation is approximately 4,500.   1989 1 (1) Background on Climatic Change. 30pp. 1989 1 (2) Hurricane Camille. 30pp. 1989 1 (3) Hurricane Hugo. 30pp. 1989 1 (4) Severe Cold Outbreaks. 30pp.  1990 2 (1) Drought Preparedness. 30pp. 1990 2 (2) 1990 Atlantic Hurricane Recap. 30pp. 1990 2 (3) El Nino and Florida Wildfires. 30pp. 1991 2 (4) Southeastern Growing Seasons. 30pp.  1992 3 (1) Heavy Rainfall Events. 30pp. 1992 3 (2) Climate Change and Fishery Harvest. 30pp.  WORLD CLIMATE REVIEW  A quarterly national publication with a circulation of 15,000 reviewing current science and policy trends relating to Global Climatic Change. Publication began in Fall, 1992, and terminated in Spring, 1995. Each issue averaged 26 pages.  GOVERNMENT ADVISORY SERVICE   Governor's Inquiry--l980 drought  Governor's Inquiry--l981 drought  Virginia Farm Bureau--l983 drought  Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer  Services--Avian Influenza, l983-4  Virginia Air Pollution Control Board--Acid Precipitation, l984-1987  Governor's Task Force the Disposal of High-Level Nuclear Waste, l986.  Governor's Task Force on Drought, l986-present  Virginia Office of Economic Development, l986-present  Virginia Film Office, l986-present  Virginia Division of Forestry, l982-1987  Virginia Water Resources Research Center, 1986 (I had to truncate it there. The full CV is about twice that length.)Whew!At this point you might be wondering: if Olsen doesn’t consider Dr Michaels “an expert on climate change,” how high are his standards?What exactly does a guy have to do to get Mr Olsen’s respect?Prepare yourself to be blown away by Roger Fjellstad Olsen’s qualifications, according to Roger Fjellstad Olsen:A&R and Co-owner at Apollon Records AS (2014–present)Studied Climate Science & Music (piano , Vocal ,Guitar) at Most Viewed WriterLives in Bergen, Norway 1969–present1.3M content viewsActive in 7 SpacesKnows NorwegianSo, it seems Mr Olsen is a record-store owner who once studied climate change (and music!) somewhere.And he wants you to think Dr Michaels “is not a climate change expert.”Who to believe, who to believe?