Record Retention Policy - Widener University: Fill & Download for Free

YES. What follows are leading climate scientists who are skeptical of so called climate change and why the real deniers are those alarmists who deny the long view of living in the middle of an ice age and the reality of natural variability from solar cycles. Many forces including the earth’s orbital tilt not human emissions of trace amounts of CO2, the air we all exhale with every breath to stay alive, have a major effect on the climate.A major point documented by the Working Group 1 of the IPCC against alarmist theories who deny natural variability in the recent warming and blame humans for the change is the inability to separate the natural from the human impacts.Think about this fact. In 1995 2000+ climate scientists from around the world working on the UN IPCC project concluded as follows:In the 1995 2nd Assessment Report of the UN IPCC the scientists included these three statements in the draft:1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”2. “No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of observed climate change) to anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) causes.”3. “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”[NATURAL VARIABILITY OVERPOWERS ANY HUMAN IMPACT]Instead of accepting the uncertainty of our complex climate and the difficulty of finding evidence that parses or separates human effects from the dominant natural effects the draft summary was ignored along with the scientists plea for more research with a detailed program outlined. No, the UN General Assembly leaders took over the science Report without credibility and published this dishonest conclusion HIDING THE WORKING GROUP DISSENT.“The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.”This sordid story of mendacity is told objectively and documented by Bernie Lewin in this book -The author allows these select passages from his book for discussion. They show how the IPCC was threatened with extinction for failing to find human climate change and then the political arm of the UN interfered and fudged the reports using the Michael Mann fudged hockey stick graphs that erased conventional history of the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age. -Following the welcoming addresses by the Italian President and Environment Minister, there first came Patrick Obasi, Secretary General of the WMO. At the conclusion of a speech mostly making recommendations for the future direction of the IPCC, he noted that the most important result in the current assessment is the evidence for a ‘discernible human influence on global climate’.682 Next came the new head of UNEP, Elizabeth Dowdeswell, who opened with the now familiar narrative of triumph: A decade ago, the scientific community alerted the world to the likelihood that we humans are causing the global climate to change. Five years ago, you said you were very confident that this is indeed the case, but that it would be ten years before we would experience any consequences. Now, just five years later, you are reporting that effects of global warming are upon us. As you put it in your report, ‘The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate’.683 Later in her speech, this key component of the report’s message is summarised, without qualification, as ‘human activities are affecting the global climate’ and so… For the first time, we have evidence that a signal of global warming is beginning to emerge from the ‘noise’ of natural variability. In other words, you [the IPCC] have given the world a reality check. You have pinched us and we have realised we are not dreaming. Climate change is with us. The question is: what do we do with this knowledge?684Lewin, Bernie. Searching for the Catastrophe Signal: The Origins of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 286-287). Global Warming Policy Foundation. Kindle Edition.A fudged hockey stick by Mann saved the IPCC from being damned out of existenceUnder Houghton and Watson the IPCC third assessment would champion the work of another young scientist who in 1998 produced a temperature trend graph that seemed to have solved Barnett’s problem of a natural variability ‘yardstick’. Using proxy data stretching back to the end of the Medieval Warm Period and instrumental data for the last 100 years, Michael Mann’s results showed such a rapid general warming trend over the last 100 years that it towered over previous fluctuations, thus leaving no room for doubt that something extraordinary is now underway.735Mann soon extended his study back across an entire millennium and this so-called ‘Hockey Stick’ graph is what featured in the IPCC third assessment report. When the report was released in 2001, the graph was the most spectacular vehicle for its promotion; it was also later widely used by governments promoting emissions-reduction policies.These campaigns were not unduly affected by the concerns that were soon raised about the methodology of the graph’s construction, nor by the ensuing Hockey Stick controversy, which would grow to be much larger and endure much longer than the Chapter 8 controversy.736 Instead, the visual impact of the Hockey Stick continued to overwhelm any doubt that there was already a discernible human influence on the global climate.If we consider the other lead authors of Chapter 8, we find that they would suffer little from the controversy, but they won none of the accolades afforded Santer, which is hardly surprising given that they were not always entirely in accord with the IPCC line. Tom Wigley’s expressed scepticism of the science behind climate action extended beyond the determination of natural variability. We will remember that just after the lead author meeting in Asheville he had published a commentary on the Met Office’s neat tracking of the recent global temperature trend, questioning the simulation of the sulphate effect and the apparent success of the modelling prediction. But even before Asheville he also questioned the scientific-economic rationale behind the rush towards emissions reduction. Collaborating with energy economists on a study partly funded by the energy industry, he concluded that it is not advisable to start curbing emissions for another 30 years.* Still, he remained fiercely loyal to Santer during the Chapter 8 controversy and to all the scientists working under the funding generated by the scare. His continuing `loyal opposition’ is particularly evident in emails leaked in 2009, which show that during the Hockey Stick controversy he was at the same time working hard behind the scenes to fend off skeptics while privately agreeing with much of the criticism of Mann’s work.* 738Lewin, Bernie. Searching for the Catastrophe Signal: The Origins of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 308-309). Global Warming Policy Foundation. Kindle Edition.Sanders is a left wing politician and this group sadly have a reputation of not telling the truth about the science.– Christine Stewart,former Canadian Minister of the Environment“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change provides the greatest opportunity tobring about justice and equality in the world.”– Christine Stewart,>**CAMILLE PAGLIA** (Camille Paglia | Salon.com)>OCTOBER 10, 2007 11:19AM (UTC)>**I too grew up in upstate New York. I am an environmental groundwater geologist (who almost majored in fine arts). Your take on the ****Al Gore** (http://dir.salon.com/topics/al_gore/)**/global warming pseudo-catastrophe was right on target. Anyone can read up on Holocene geology and see that climate changes are caused by polar wandering and magnetic reversals. It is entertaining, yet sad to read bloviage from ****Leonardo DiCaprio** (http://dir.salon.com/topics/leonardo_dicaprio/)**, who is so self-centered that he thinks the earth's history and climate is a function of his short personal stay on this planet. Still he, Al Gore, Prince Charles and so on, ad nauseam, continue with their jet-set lifestyles. What hypocrisy!**>Thank you for your input on the mass hysteria over global warming. The simplest facts about geology seem to be missing from the mental equipment of many highly educated people these days. There is far too much credulity placed in fancy-pants, speculative computer modeling about future climate change. Furthermore, hand-wringing media reports about hotter temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere are rarely balanced by acknowledgment of the recent cold waves in South Africa and Australia, the most severe in 30 years.>Where are the intellectuals in this massive attack of groupthink? Inert, passive and cowardly, the lot of them. True intellectuals would be alarmed and repelled by the heavy fog of dogma that now hangs over the debate about climate change. More skeptical voices need to be heard. Why are liberals abandoning this issue to the right wing, which is successfully using it to contrast conservative rationality with liberal emotionalism? The environmental movement, whose roots are in nature-worshipping Romanticism, is vitally important to humanity, but it can only be undermined by rampant propaganda and half-truths.>The paranoid withdrawal fantasy (The paranoid withdrawal fantasy)>**Camille Paglia** is a second-wave feminist and an American (United States - RationalWiki) academic specializing in literature (Literature - RationalWiki) and culture, particularly topics around gender (Gender - RationalWiki), sex (Sex - RationalWiki), and sexuality (Sexuality - RationalWiki). She has taught at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia since 1984, but is better known for her books and journalism. In 2005 she was voted #20 on a list of top public intellectuals by *Prospect* and *Foreign Policy* magazines.>**Nobel Laureate in Physics Dr. Ivar Giaever; "Global Warming is Pseudoscience"**https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdTlXuTwvEQ&t=65s>Published on 3 May 2018>Nobel Laureate Dr. Kary Mullis is correct in his assessment of the current state of climate science, describing it as a "Joke".>As he correctly points out, there is no scientific evidence whatever that our CO2 is, or can ever "drive" climate change.>There is also no published empirical scientific evidence that any CO2, whether natural or man-made, causes warming in the troposphere.>Mullis earned a Bachelor of Science (BS) degree in chemistry from the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta in 1966, he then received a PhD in biochemistry from the University of California, Berkeley in 1973.>His Nobel Prize was awarded in 1993.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1FnWFlDvxEWho is the most famous person who denies natural variation and mother nature as governing climate change?Home (Newsmax.com - Breaking news from around the globe) | Newsfront (Newsmax.com - Breaking news from around the globe: U.S. news, politics, world, health, finance, video, science, technology, live news stream)**Monday December 03, 2018****Physicist Dyson: Obama 'Chose the Wrong Side' on Climate Change**>Freeman Dyson (Nadine Rupp/Getty Images)By Greg Richter | Wednesday, 14 October 2015 09:32 PM>Noted theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson says he votes for Democrats, but is disappointed with the position President Barack Obama has taken on climate change.>Dyson worked on climate change before his retirement as professor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton in 1994, and said in an interview with the **U.K. Register** (Top boffin Freeman Dyson on climate change, interstellar travel, fusion, and more) that scientists are ignoring their own data that show climate change isn't happening as quickly as their models are predicting.>"It's very sad that in this country, political opinion parted [people's views on climate change]," Dyson said. "I'm 100 percent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this issue, and the Republicans took the right side.">Climate change, he said, "is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?">In the past 10 years the discrepancies between what is observed and what is predicted have become much stronger," Dyson said. "It's clear now the models are wrong, but it wasn't so clear 10 years ago. I can't say if they'll always be wrong, but the observations are improving and so the models are becoming more verifiable.">Carbon dioxide isn't as bad for the environment as claimed, he said, and actually does more good than harm.>Among Dyson's suggestions for combating climate change are building up topsoil and inducing snowfall to prevent the oceans from rising.>Dyson is best known for his work in quantum electrodynamics and nuclear engineering.Read Newsmax: Physicist Dyson: Obama 'Chose the Wrong Side' on Climate Change | Newsmax.com - Breaking news from around the globe (Physicist Dyson: Obama 'Chose the Wrong Side' on Climate Change)>**The Top Five Skeptical Climate-Change Scientists****[2]** (The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics)>**1. Lennart O. Bengtsson**>Bengtsson was born in Trollhättan, Sweden, in 1935. He holds a PhD (1964) in meteorology from the University of Stockholm. His long and productive career included positions as Head of Research and later Director at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts in Reading in the UK (1976 — 1990), and as Director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg (1991 — 2000). Bengtsson is currently Senior Research Fellow with the Environmental Systems Science Centre at the University of Reading, as well as Director Emeritus of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology.Bengtsson’s scientific work has been wide-ranging, including everything from climate modelling and numerical weather prediction to climate data and data assimilation studies. Most recently, he has been involved in studies and modeling of the water cycle and extreme events. From his twin home bases in the UK and Germany, he has cooperated closely over the years with scientists in the US, Sweden, Norway, and other European countries.Bengtsson is best known to the general public due to a dispute which arose in 2014 over a paper he and his colleagues had submitted to *Environmental Research Letters*, but which was rejected for publication for what Bengtsson believed to be “activist” reasons. The paper disputed the uncertainties surrounding climate sensitivity to increased greenhouse gas concentrations contained in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth and Fifth Assessment Reports. Bengtsson and his co-authors maintained that the uncertainties are greater than the IPCC Assessment Reports claim. The affair was complicated by the fact that Bengtsson had recently agreed to serve on the board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), a climate skeptic organization. When Bengtsson voiced his displeasure over the rejection of his paper, and mainstream scientists noticed his new affiliation with the GWPF, intense pressure was brought to bear, both in public and behind the scenes, to force Bengtsson to recant his criticism of the journal in question and to resign from the GWPF. He finally did both of these things, but not without noting bitterly in his letter of resignation:>I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting [sic] such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.>I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting [sic] anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.>[14] (The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics)Bengtsson is the author or co-author of over 180 peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters, as well as co-editor of several books (see below). In addition to numerous grants, commission and board memberships, honorary degrees, and other forms of professional recognition, he has received the Milutin Milanković Medal (1996) bestowed by the European Geophysical Society, the Descartes Prize (2005) bestowed by the European Union, the International Meteorological Organization Prize (2006), and the Rossby Prize (2007) bestowed by the Swedish Geophysical Society. Bengtsson is an Honorary Member of the American Meteorological Society (AMS), a Member of the New York Academy of Sciences and the Gesellschaft Deutscher Naturforscher und Ärzte, an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society (UK), and a Fellow of the Swedish Academy of Science, the Finnish Academy of Science, and the European Academy.**Professional Website** (Bengtsson Lennart)**Selected Books*** *Geosphere-Biosphere Interactions and Climate* (Cambridge University Press, 2001)* *The Earth’s Cryosphere and Sea Level Change* (Springer, 2012)* *Observing and Modeling Earth’s Energy Flows* (Springer, 2012)* *Towards Understanding the Climate of Venus: Applications of Terrestrial Models to Our Sister Planet* (Springer, 2013)>**2. John R. Christy**>Christy was born in Fresno, California, in 1951. He holds a PhD (1987) in atmospheric science from the University of Illinois. He is currently Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.Christy is best known for work he did with Roy W. Spencer beginning in 1979 on establishing reliable global temperature data sets derived from microwave radiation probes collected by satellites. Theirs was the first successful attempt to use such satellite data collection for the purpose of establishing long-term temperature records. Although the data they collected were initially controversial, and some corrections to the interpretation of the raw data had to be made, the work — which is coming up on its fortieth anniversary — remains uniquely valuable for its longevity, and is still ongoing. Christy has long been heavily involved in the climate change/global warming discussion, having been a Contributor or Lead Author to five Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports relating to satellite temperature records. He was a signatory of the 2003 American Geophysical Union’s (AGU) statement on climate change, although he has stated that he was “very upset” by the AGU’s more extreme 2007 statement.[15] (The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics)Christy began voicing doubts about the growing climate-change consensus in the 2000s. In an interview with the BBC from 2007, he accused the IPCC process of gross politicization and scientists of succumbing to “group-think” and “herd instinct.”[16] (The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics); In 2009, he made the following statement in testimony to the House Ways and Means Committee (altogether, he has testified before Congress some 20 times):>From my analysis, the actions being considered to “stop global warming” will have an imperceptible impact on whatever the climate will do, while making energy more expensive, and thus have a negative impact on the economy as a whole. We have found that climate models and popular surface temperature data sets overstate the changes in the real atmosphere and that actual changes are not alarming. And, if the Congress deems it necessary to reduce CO2 emissions, the single most effective way to do so by a small, but at least detectable, amount is through the massive implementation of a nuclear power program.>[17] (The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics)Christy has not been shy about publicizing his views, making many of the same points in an op-ed piece he published with a colleague in 2014 in the *Wall Street Journal*.[18] (The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics)In an interview with the *New York Times* published that same year, he explains the price he has had to pay professionally for his skeptical stance toward the climate-change consensus.[19] (The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics)However, Christy stands his ground, refusing to give in to *ad hominem* attacks or the exercise of naked political power, insisting the issues must be discussed on the scientific merits alone.Christy is the author or co-author of numerous peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters (for a selection of a few of his best-known articles, see below). In 1991, Christy was awarded the Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement bestowed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for his groundbreaking work with Spencer. A Fellow of the American Meteorological Society (AMS), since 2000 Christy has been Alabama’s official State Climatologist.**Academic Website** (The Atmospheric Science Department)**Selected Publications*** ”Variability in daily, zonal mean lower-stratospheric temperatures," *Journal of Climate*, 1994, 7: 106 — 120.* ”Precision global temperatures from satellites and urban warming effects of non-satellite data," *Atmospheric Environment*, 1995, 29: 1957 — 1961.* ”How accurate are satellite ’thermometers'?," *Nature*, 1997, **3**89: 342 — 343.* “Multidecadal changes in the vertical structure of the tropical troposphere,” *Science*, 2000, **2**87: 1242 — 1245.* ”Assessing levels of uncertainty in recent temperature time series," *Climate Dynamics*, 2000, 16: 587 — 601.* ”Reliability of satellite data sets," *Science*, 2003, **3**01: 1046 — 1047.* ”Temperature changes in the bulk atmosphere: beyond the IPCC," in Patrick J. Michaels, ed., *Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming*. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005.* ”A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions," *International Journal of Climatology*, 2008, 28: 1693 — 1701.* ”Limits on CO2 climate forcing from recent temperature data of Earth," *Energy & Environment*, 2009, 20: 178 — 189.* ”What do observational datasets say about modeled tropospheric temperature trends since 1979?," *Remote Sensing*, 2010, 2: 2148 — 2169.* ”IPCC: cherish it, tweak it or scrap it?," *Nature*, 2010, **4**63: 730 — 732.* ”The international surface temperature initiative global land surface databank: monthly temperature data release description and methods," *Geoscience Data Journal*, 2014, 1: 75 — 102.>**3. Judith A. Curry**>Curry was born in 1953. She holds a PhD (1982) in geophysical sciences from the University of Chicago. She has taught at the University of Wisconsin, Purdue University, Pennsylvania State University, the University of Colorado at Boulder, and Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech). In 2017, under a torrent of criticism from her colleagues and negative stories in the media, she was forced to take early retirement from her position as Professor in the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, a position she had held for 15 years (during 11 of those years, she had been Chair of the School). Curry is currently Professor Emerita at Georgia Tech, as well as President of Climate Forecast Applications Network, or CFAN (see below), an organization she founded in 2006.Curry is an atmospheric scientist and climatologist with broad research interests, including atmospheric modeling, the polar regions, atmosphere-ocean interactions, remote sensing, the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research, and hurricanes, especially their relationship to tornadoes. Before retiring, she was actively researching the evidence for a link between global warming and hurricane frequency and severity.Curry was drummed out of academia for expressing in public her reservations about some of the more extreme claims being made by mainstream climate scientists. For example, in 2011, she published (with a collaborator) an article stressing the uncertainties involved in climate science and urging caution on her colleagues.[20] (The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics)After having posted comments along these lines on other people’s blogs for several years, in 2010, she created her own climate-related blog, Climate Etc. (see below), to foster a more open and skeptical discussion of the whole gamut of issues involving climate change/global warming. She also gave testimony some half dozen times between 2006 and 2015 to Senate and House subcommittees, expressing in several of them her concerns about the politicization of the usual scientific process in the area of climate change. Writing on her blog in 2015 about her most-recent Congressional testimony, Curry summarized her position as follows:>The wickedness of the climate change problem provides much scope for disagreement among reasonable and intelligent people. Effectively responding to the possible threats from a warmer climate is made very difficult by the deep uncertainties surrounding the risks both from the problem and the proposed solutions.>The articulation of a preferred policy option in the early 1990’s by the United Nations has marginalized research on broader issues surrounding climate variability and change and has stifled the development of a broader range of policy options.>We need to push the reset button in our deliberations about how we should respond to climate change.>[21] (The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics)Finding herself denounced as a “climate change denier” and under intense pressure to recant her views, in 2017 Curry instead took early retirement from her job at Georgia Tech and left academia, citing the “craziness” of the present politicization of climate science. She continues to be active in the field of climatology through her two blogs and her many public lectures.Curry is the author or co-author of more than 180 peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters, as well as the co-author or editor of three books (see below). She has received many research grants, been invited to give numerous public lectures, and participated in many workshops, discussion panels, and committees, both in the US and abroad. In 2007, Curry was elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).**Academic Website** (Judith Curry's Home Page)**Professional Website** (JUDITH CURRY | strip-header-layout)**Personal Website** (Climate Etc.)**Selected Books*** *Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans* (Academic Press, 1988)* *Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences* (Academic Press, 2003)* *Thermodynamics, Kinetics, and Microphysics of Clouds* (Cambridge University Press, 2014)>**4. Richard S. Lindzen**>Lindzen was born in Webster, Massachusetts, in 1940. He holds a PhD (1964) in applied mathematics from Harvard University. He is currently Professor Emeritus in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT.Already in his PhD dissertation, Lindzen made his first significant contribution to science, laying the groundwork for our understanding of the physics of the ozone layer of the atmosphere.[22] (The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics)After that, he solved a problem that had been discussed for over 100 years by some of the best minds in physics, including Lord Kelvin, namely, the physics of atmospheric tides (daily variations in global air pressure).[23] (The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics)Next, he discovered the quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO), a cyclical reversal in the prevailing winds in the stratosphere above the tropical zone.[24] (The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics)Then, Lindzen and a colleague proposed an explanation for the “superrotation” of the highest layer of Venus’s atmosphere (some 50 times faster than the planet itself), a model that is still being debated.[25] (The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics)The idea for which Lindzen is best known, though, is undoubtedly the “adaptive infrared iris” conjecture.[26] (The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics)According to this model, the observed inverse correlation between surface temperature and cirrus cloud formation may operate as a negative feedback on infrared radiation (heat) build-up near the earth’s surface. According to this proposal, decreasing cirrus cloud formation when surface temperatures rise leads to increased heat radiation into space, while increasing cirrus cloud formation when surface temperatures decline leads to increased heat retention — much as the iris of the human eye adapts to ambient light by widening and narrowing. If correct, this phenomenon would be reason for optimism that global warming might be to some extent self-limiting. Lindzen’s hypothesis has been highly controversial, but it is still being discussed as a serious proposal, even by his many critics.Lindzen was a Contributor to Chapter 4 of the 1995 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Second Assessment, and to Chapter 7 of the 2001 IPCC Working Group 1 (WG1). Nevertheless, in the 1990s, Lindzen began to express his concern about the reliability of the computer models upon which official IPCC and other extreme climate projections are based. He has been especially critical of the notion that the “science is settled.” In a 2009 *Wall Street Journal* op-ed, he maintained that the science is far from settled and that “[c]onfident predictions of catastrophe are unwarranted.”[27] (The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics)For his trouble, Lindzen has suffered the usual brutal, *ad hominem* attacks from the climate-change establishment.Lindzen is author or co-author of nearly 250 peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters, as well as author, co-author, or editor of several books, pamphlets, and technical reports (see below). He is a Member of the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters, and a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Geophysical Union (AGU), and the American Meteorological Society (AMS).**Academic Website** (http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm)**Selected Books*** *Atmospheric Tides* (D. Reidel, 1970)* *Semidiurnal Hough Mode Extensions in the Thermosphere and Their Application* (Naval Research Lab, 1977)* *The Atmosphere — a Challenge: The Science of Jule Gregory Charney*(American Meteorological Society, 1990)* *Dynamics in Atmospheric Physics* (Cambridge University Press, 1990)>**5. Nir J. Shaviv**>Shaviv was born in Ithaca, New York, in 1972, but was raised in Israel. He holds a doctorate (1996) in physics from the Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa. He spent a year as an IBM Einstein Fellow at the highly prestigious Institute for Advanced Study inShaviv first made a name for himself (see his 1998 and 2001 papers, below) with his research on the relationship between inhomogeneities in stellar atmospheres and the Eddington limit (the equilibrium point at which the centrifugal force of stellar radiation production equals the centripetal force of gravitation). This theoretical work led to a concrete prediction that was later confirmed telescopically (see the 2013 *Nature*paper listed below).Of more direct relevance to the climate-change debate was a series of papers Shaviv wrote, beginning in 2002 (see below), detailing a bold theory linking earth’s ice ages with successive passages of the planet through the various spiral arms of the Milky Way galaxy, and with cosmic radiation more generally. He has also expressed his conviction that variations in solar radiation have played an equal, if not greater, role in the observed rise in mean global temperature over the course of the twentieth century than has human activity (see his 2012 paper, below). He maintains, not only that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have played a smaller role in global warming than is usually believed, but also that the earth’s climate system is not nearly so sensitive as is usually assumed.In recent years, Shaviv has become an active critic of the results and predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other organizations supporting the consensus view. In particular, he rejects the often-heard claim that “97% of climate scientists” agree that anthropogenic climate change is certain and highly dangerous. Shaviv emphasizes (see the video clip, below) that “science is not a democracy” and all that matters is the evidence for these claims — which he finds deficient.Shaviv is the author or co-author of more than 100 peer-reviewed journal articles or book chapters, of which some of the most important are listed below.**Academic Website** (Racah Institute of Physics)**Selected Publications*** ”Dynamics of fronts in thermally bi-stable fluids," *Astrophysical Journal*, 1992, **3**92: 106 — 117.* ”Origin of the high energy extragalactic diffuse gamma ray background," *Physical Review Letters*, 1995, 75: 3052 — 3055.* ”The Eddington luminosity limit for multiphased media," *Astrophysical Journal Letters*, 1998, **4**94: L193 — L197.* ”The theory of steady-state super-Eddington winds and its application to novae," *Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society*, 2001, **3**26: 126 — 146.* ”The spiral structure of the Milky Way, cosmic rays, and ice age epochs on Earth," *New Astronomy*, 2002, 8: 39 — 77.* ”Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?," *GSA Today*, July 2003, 13(7): 4 — 10.* ”Climate Change and the Cosmic Ray Connection," in Richard C. Ragaini, ed.,* International Seminar on Nuclear War and Planetary Emergencies: 30th Session: Erice, Italy, 18 — 26 August 200*3. Singapore: World Scientific, 2004.* ”On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget," *Journal of Geophysical Research*, 2005, **1**10: A08105.* ”On the link between cosmic rays and terrestrial climate”, *International Journal of Modern Physics A*, 2005, 20: 6662 — 6665.* ”Interstellar-terrestrial relations: variable cosmic environments, the dynamic heliosphere, and their imprints on terrestrial archives and climate," *Space Science Reviews*, 2006, **1**27: 327 — 465.* ”The maximal runaway temperature of Earth-like planets”, *Icarus*, 2011, **2**16: 403 — 414.* ”Quantifying the role of solar radiative forcing over the 20th century," *Advances in Space Research*, 2012, 50: 762 — 776.* ”The sensitivity of the greenhouse effect to changes in the concentration of gases in planetary atmospheres," *Acta Polytechnica*, 2013, 53(Supplement): 832 — 838.* ”An outburst from a massive star 40 days before a supernova explosion," *Nature*, 2013, **4**94: 65 — 67.

The Top Five Skeptical Climate-Change Scientists[2]1. Lennart O. BengtssonBengtsson was born in Trollhättan, Sweden, in 1935. He holds a PhD (1964) in meteorology from the University of Stockholm. His long and productive career included positions as Head of Research and later Director at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts in Reading in the UK (1976 — 1990), and as Director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg (1991 — 2000). Bengtsson is currently Senior Research Fellow with the Environmental Systems Science Centre at the University of Reading, as well as Director Emeritus of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology.Bengtsson’s scientific work has been wide-ranging, including everything from climate modelling and numerical weather prediction to climate data and data assimilation studies. Most recently, he has been involved in studies and modeling of the water cycle and extreme events. From his twin home bases in the UK and Germany, he has cooperated closely over the years with scientists in the US, Sweden, Norway, and other European countries.Bengtsson is best known to the general public due to a dispute which arose in 2014 over a paper he and his colleagues had submitted to Environmental Research Letters, but which was rejected for publication for what Bengtsson believed to be “activist” reasons. The paper disputed the uncertainties surrounding climate sensitivity to increased greenhouse gas concentrations contained in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth and Fifth Assessment Reports. Bengtsson and his co-authors maintained that the uncertainties are greater than the IPCC Assessment Reports claim. The affair was complicated by the fact that Bengtsson had recently agreed to serve on the board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), a climate skeptic organization. When Bengtsson voiced his displeasure over the rejection of his paper, and mainstream scientists noticed his new affiliation with the GWPF, intense pressure was brought to bear, both in public and behind the scenes, to force Bengtsson to recant his criticism of the journal in question and to resign from the GWPF. He finally did both of these things, but not without noting bitterly in his letter of resignation:I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting [sic] such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting [sic] anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.[14]Bengtsson is the author or co-author of over 180 peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters, as well as co-editor of several books (see below). In addition to numerous grants, commission and board memberships, honorary degrees, and other forms of professional recognition, he has received the Milutin Milanković Medal (1996) bestowed by the European Geophysical Society, the Descartes Prize (2005) bestowed by the European Union, the International Meteorological Organization Prize (2006), and the Rossby Prize (2007) bestowed by the Swedish Geophysical Society. Bengtsson is an Honorary Member of the American Meteorological Society (AMS), a Member of the New York Academy of Sciences and the Gesellschaft Deutscher Naturforscher und Ärzte, an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society (UK), and a Fellow of the Swedish Academy of Science, the Finnish Academy of Science, and the European Academy.Professional WebsiteSelected BooksGeosphere-Biosphere Interactions and Climate (Cambridge University Press, 2001)The Earth’s Cryosphere and Sea Level Change (Springer, 2012)Observing and Modeling Earth’s Energy Flows (Springer, 2012)Towards Understanding the Climate of Venus: Applications of Terrestrial Models to Our Sister Planet (Springer, 2013)2. John R. ChristyChristy was born in Fresno, California, in 1951. He holds a PhD (1987) in atmospheric science from the University of Illinois. He is currently Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.Christy is best known for work he did with Roy W. Spencer beginning in 1979 on establishing reliable global temperature data sets derived from microwave radiation probes collected by satellites. Theirs was the first successful attempt to use such satellite data collection for the purpose of establishing long-term temperature records. Although the data they collected were initially controversial, and some corrections to the interpretation of the raw data had to be made, the work — which is coming up on its fortieth anniversary — remains uniquely valuable for its longevity, and is still ongoing. Christy has long been heavily involved in the climate change/global warming discussion, having been a Contributor or Lead Author to five Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports relating to satellite temperature records. He was a signatory of the 2003 American Geophysical Union’s (AGU) statement on climate change, although he has stated that he was “very upset” by the AGU’s more extreme 2007 statement.[15]Christy began voicing doubts about the growing climate-change consensus in the 2000s. In an interview with the BBC from 2007, he accused the IPCC process of gross politicization and scientists of succumbing to “group-think” and “herd instinct.”[16]; In 2009, he made the following statement in testimony to the House Ways and Means Committee (altogether, he has testified before Congress some 20 times):From my analysis, the actions being considered to “stop global warming” will have an imperceptible impact on whatever the climate will do, while making energy more expensive, and thus have a negative impact on the economy as a whole. We have found that climate models and popular surface temperature data sets overstate the changes in the real atmosphere and that actual changes are not alarming. And, if the Congress deems it necessary to reduce CO2 emissions, the single most effective way to do so by a small, but at least detectable, amount is through the massive implementation of a nuclear power program.[17]Christy has not been shy about publicizing his views, making many of the same points in an op-ed piece he published with a colleague in 2014 in the Wall Street Journal.[18] In an interview with the New York Times published that same year, he explains the price he has had to pay professionally for his skeptical stance toward the climate-change consensus.[19] However, Christy stands his ground, refusing to give in to ad hominem attacks or the exercise of naked political power, insisting the issues must be discussed on the scientific merits alone.Christy is the author or co-author of numerous peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters (for a selection of a few of his best-known articles, see below). In 1991, Christy was awarded the Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement bestowed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for his groundbreaking work with Spencer. A Fellow of the American Meteorological Society (AMS), since 2000 Christy has been Alabama’s official State Climatologist.Academic WebsiteSelected Publications”Variability in daily, zonal mean lower-stratospheric temperatures," Journal of Climate, 1994, 7: 106 — 120.”Precision global temperatures from satellites and urban warming effects of non-satellite data," Atmospheric Environment, 1995, 29: 1957 — 1961.”How accurate are satellite ’thermometers'?," Nature, 1997, 389: 342 — 343.“Multidecadal changes in the vertical structure of the tropical troposphere,” Science, 2000, 287: 1242 — 1245.”Assessing levels of uncertainty in recent temperature time series," Climate Dynamics, 2000, 16: 587 — 601.”Reliability of satellite data sets," Science, 2003, 301: 1046 — 1047.”Temperature changes in the bulk atmosphere: beyond the IPCC," in Patrick J. Michaels, ed., Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005.”A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions," International Journal of Climatology, 2008, 28: 1693 — 1701.”Limits on CO2 climate forcing from recent temperature data of Earth," Energy & Environment, 2009, 20: 178 — 189.”What do observational datasets say about modeled tropospheric temperature trends since 1979?," Remote Sensing, 2010, 2: 2148 — 2169.”IPCC: cherish it, tweak it or scrap it?," Nature, 2010, 463: 730 — 732.”The international surface temperature initiative global land surface databank: monthly temperature data release description and methods," Geoscience Data Journal, 2014, 1: 75 — 102.An error occurred.Try watching this video on www.youtube.com, or enable JavaScript if it is disabled in your browser.3. Judith A. CurryCurry was born in 1953. She holds a PhD (1982) in geophysical sciences from the University of Chicago. She has taught at the University of Wisconsin, Purdue University, Pennsylvania State University, the University of Colorado at Boulder, and Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech). In 2017, under a torrent of criticism from her colleagues and negative stories in the media, she was forced to take early retirement from her position as Professor in the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, a position she had held for 15 years (during 11 of those years, she had been Chair of the School). Curry is currently Professor Emerita at Georgia Tech, as well as President of Climate Forecast Applications Network, or CFAN (see below), an organization she founded in 2006.Curry is an atmospheric scientist and climatologist with broad research interests, including atmospheric modeling, the polar regions, atmosphere-ocean interactions, remote sensing, the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research, and hurricanes, especially their relationship to tornadoes. Before retiring, she was actively researching the evidence for a link between global warming and hurricane frequency and severity.Curry was drummed out of academia for expressing in public her reservations about some of the more extreme claims being made by mainstream climate scientists. For example, in 2011, she published (with a collaborator) an article stressing the uncertainties involved in climate science and urging caution on her colleagues.[20] After having posted comments along these lines on other people’s blogs for several years, in 2010, she created her own climate-related blog, Climate Etc. (see below), to foster a more open and skeptical discussion of the whole gamut of issues involving climate change/global warming. She also gave testimony some half dozen times between 2006 and 2015 to Senate and House subcommittees, expressing in several of them her concerns about the politicization of the usual scientific process in the area of climate change. Writing on her blog in 2015 about her most-recent Congressional testimony, Curry summarized her position as follows:The wickedness of the climate change problem provides much scope for disagreement among reasonable and intelligent people. Effectively responding to the possible threats from a warmer climate is made very difficult by the deep uncertainties surrounding the risks both from the problem and the proposed solutions.The articulation of a preferred policy option in the early 1990’s by the United Nations has marginalized research on broader issues surrounding climate variability and change and has stifled the development of a broader range of policy options.We need to push the reset button in our deliberations about how we should respond to climate change.[21]Finding herself denounced as a “climate change denier” and under intense pressure to recant her views, in 2017 Curry instead took early retirement from her job at Georgia Tech and left academia, citing the “craziness” of the present politicization of climate science. She continues to be active in the field of climatology through her two blogs and her many public lectures.Curry is the author or co-author of more than 180 peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters, as well as the co-author or editor of three books (see below). She has received many research grants, been invited to give numerous public lectures, and participated in many workshops, discussion panels, and committees, both in the US and abroad. In 2007, Curry was elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).Academic WebsiteProfessional WebsitePersonal WebsiteSelected BooksThermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (Academic Press, 1988)Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (Academic Press, 2003)Thermodynamics, Kinetics, and Microphysics of Clouds (Cambridge University Press, 2014)An error occurred.Try watching this video on www.youtube.com, or enable JavaScript if it is disabled in your browser.4. Richard S. LindzenLindzen was born in Webster, Massachusetts, in 1940. He holds a PhD (1964) in applied mathematics from Harvard University. He is currently Professor Emeritus in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT.Already in his PhD dissertation, Lindzen made his first significant contribution to science, laying the groundwork for our understanding of the physics of the ozone layer of the atmosphere.[22] After that, he solved a problem that had been discussed for over 100 years by some of the best minds in physics, including Lord Kelvin, namely, the physics of atmospheric tides (daily variations in global air pressure).[23] Next, he discovered the quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO), a cyclical reversal in the prevailing winds in the stratosphere above the tropical zone.[24] Then, Lindzen and a colleague proposed an explanation for the “superrotation” of the highest layer of Venus’s atmosphere (some 50 times faster than the planet itself), a model that is still being debated.[25]The idea for which Lindzen is best known, though, is undoubtedly the “adaptive infrared iris” conjecture.[26] According to this model, the observed inverse correlation between surface temperature and cirrus cloud formation may operate as a negative feedback on infrared radiation (heat) build-up near the earth’s surface. According to this proposal, decreasing cirrus cloud formation when surface temperatures rise leads to increased heat radiation into space, while increasing cirrus cloud formation when surface temperatures decline leads to increased heat retention — much as the iris of the human eye adapts to ambient light by widening and narrowing. If correct, this phenomenon would be reason for optimism that global warming might be to some extent self-limiting. Lindzen’s hypothesis has been highly controversial, but it is still being discussed as a serious proposal, even by his many critics.Lindzen was a Contributor to Chapter 4 of the 1995 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Second Assessment, and to Chapter 7 of the 2001 IPCC Working Group 1 (WG1). Nevertheless, in the 1990s, Lindzen began to express his concern about the reliability of the computer models upon which official IPCC and other extreme climate projections are based. He has been especially critical of the notion that the “science is settled.” In a 2009 Wall Street Journal op-ed, he maintained that the science is far from settled and that “[c]onfident predictions of catastrophe are unwarranted.”[27] For his trouble, Lindzen has suffered the usual brutal, ad hominem attacks from the climate-change establishment.Lindzen is author or co-author of nearly 250 peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters, as well as author, co-author, or editor of several books, pamphlets, and technical reports (see below). He is a Member of the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters, and a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Geophysical Union (AGU), and the American Meteorological Society (AMS).Academic WebsiteSelected BooksAtmospheric Tides (D. Reidel, 1970)Semidiurnal Hough Mode Extensions in the Thermosphere and Their Application (Naval Research Lab, 1977)The Atmosphere — a Challenge: The Science of Jule Gregory Charney (American Meteorological Society, 1990)Dynamics in Atmospheric Physics (Cambridge University Press, 1990)5. Nir J. ShavivShaviv was born in Ithaca, New York, in 1972, but was raised in Israel. He holds a doctorate (1996) in physics from the Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa. He spent a year as an IBM Einstein Fellow at the highly prestigious Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey (2014 — 2015). He is currently Professor and Chair of the Racah Institute of Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Shaviv first made a name for himself (see his 1998 and 2001 papers, below) with his research on the relationship between inhomogeneities in stellar atmospheres and the Eddington limit (the equilibrium point at which the centrifugal force of stellar radiation production equals the centripetal force of gravitation). This theoretical work led to a concrete prediction that was later confirmed telescopically (see the 2013 Nature paper listed below).Of more direct relevance to the climate-change debate was a series of papers Shaviv wrote, beginning in 2002 (see below), detailing a bold theory linking earth’s ice ages with successive passages of the planet through the various spiral arms of the Milky Way galaxy, and with cosmic radiation more generally. He has also expressed his conviction that variations in solar radiation have played an equal, if not greater, role in the observed rise in mean global temperature over the course of the twentieth century than has human activity (see his 2012 paper, below). He maintains, not only that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have played a smaller role in global warming than is usually believed, but also that the earth’s climate system is not nearly so sensitive as is usually assumed.In recent years, Shaviv has become an active critic of the results and predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other organizations supporting the consensus view. In particular, he rejects the often-heard claim that “97% of climate scientists” agree that anthropogenic climate change is certain and highly dangerous. Shaviv emphasizes (see the video clip, below) that “science is not a democracy” and all that matters is the evidence for these claims — which he finds deficient.Shaviv is the author or co-author of more than 100 peer-reviewed journal articles or book chapters, of which some of the most important are listed below.Academic WebsiteSelected Publications”Dynamics of fronts in thermally bi-stable fluids," Astrophysical Journal, 1992, 392: 106 — 117.”Origin of the high energy extragalactic diffuse gamma ray background," Physical Review Letters, 1995, 75: 3052 — 3055.”The Eddington luminosity limit for multiphased media," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 1998, 494: L193 — L197.”The theory of steady-state super-Eddington winds and its application to novae," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 2001, 326: 126 — 146.”The spiral structure of the Milky Way, cosmic rays, and ice age epochs on Earth," New Astronomy, 2002, 8: 39 — 77.”Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?," GSA Today, July 2003, 13(7): 4 — 10.”Climate Change and the Cosmic Ray Connection," in Richard C. Ragaini, ed., International Seminar on Nuclear War and Planetary Emergencies: 30th Session: Erice, Italy, 18 — 26 August 2003. Singapore: World Scientific, 2004.”On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget," Journal of Geophysical Research, 2005, 110: A08105.”On the link between cosmic rays and terrestrial climate”, International Journal of Modern Physics A, 2005, 20: 6662 — 6665.”Interstellar-terrestrial relations: variable cosmic environments, the dynamic heliosphere, and their imprints on terrestrial archives and climate," Space Science Reviews, 2006, 127: 327 — 465.”The maximal runaway temperature of Earth-like planets”, Icarus, 2011, 216: 403 — 414.”Quantifying the role of solar radiative forcing over the 20th century," Advances in Space Research, 2012, 50: 762 — 776.”The sensitivity of the greenhouse effect to changes in the concentration of gases in

Short answer: it would be a logistical nightmare. A direct democracy would mean every eligible voter can directly participate in debate and decision-making on every issue that might come before the nation, ranging from trivial matters like naming airports to substantive concerns like rules regarding social media to major decisions regarding establishing and administering the federal budget to going to war.In a direct democracy, there would be no point in having a Congress, at least in its present form, since we, the people, would conduct the business they have always handled on our behalf. While we may, at the moment, think that would be wonderful (given their current makeup and unpopularity), their absence would mean there would be no “checks and balances” on the executive and judicial branches. This structure that would be absolutely repugnant to the founders, who would consider such a government dangerous and woefully inadequate to the liberty they had in mind when they painstakingly designed their - and our - constitution.Dominant Population CentersA longer answer:A far worse impact is highlighted by a single ominous statistic. The Center for Sustainable Systems at the University of Michigan reported in a 2020 report that “It is estimated that 83% of the U.S. population lives in urban areas,” a figure that is projected to increase to 89% by 2050. (Center for Sustainable Systems, University of Michigan. 2020. “U.S. Cities Factsheet.” Pub. No. CSS09-06. September, 2020.)This forecast means that in a direct democracy (i.e., a popular vote on all matters, not just the presidency) the most populous regions — large, urban metro areas — would essentially have an unbreakable and, thus, permanent lock on the nation’s affairs, including its choices for leadership, national direction, laws, budgeting, military administration, foreign affairs and diplomacy, trade negotiations and regulation, etc.So, what would it look like if a direct democracy form of government were adopted in the United States?Consider the following:Issues and policy concerns that drive urban voters are, in general, very different from those that drive the smaller cities, towns and rural communities that make up the rest of the nation.Urban focus is, and must be, on matters like violent crime, drugs, gangs, rampant poverty, minority community and policing issues (including retention), unemployment and vagrancy, workforce composition and compensation, competing agency demands and internal politics, downtown and/or campus crowding, large-scale housing, traffic, pollution, public education, etc. In the past year, rising homeless populations (and resulting health, safety and sanitation concerns), an increase in destruction, arson and defacing of valuable commercial property in downtown and minority neighborhoods, disruption of commerce, organized and/or spontaneous social violence and legitimate fears over the loss of property values have exacerbated urban flight, diminishing the tax base and, thus, lessening the availability and quality of city-sponsored social services (which can’t generate tax revenues to subsidize themselves).These new realities amplify many of the above worries and underscore the above list of priorities for urban voters. It is, therefore, both logical and suitable for metro residents to vote based on such concerns and to rally around politicians who claim both the capacity and commitment to solving them (whether or not their respective track records support those claims).An Alternative FocusThough some of these same concerns are naturally shared by people in smaller communities and rural areas, many are not. But since the typical psychological profile and tenor of smaller communities tends to view them from a different perspective, the gap between the 83% and the rest of the nation widens.Conversely, the list of issues that concern smaller town and rural citizens include the means and methods to attract qualified teachers, healthcare workers, law enforcement and other essential professionals, an ability to offer competitive salary and benefits packages to compete with mire urbane communities, workforce training, sufficient mass employment opportunities, the exit of local youth to urban colleges and career options, access to retail options and media typical of larger areas, agricultural and rural infrastructure subsidies, etc.These are the matters that weigh heavily on the minds and hearts of non-urban voters but are of little or no concern to metro residents.David v. GoliathThe above realities depict a sort of 21st-century David v. Goliath scenario. But this David (the 17% of non-urban Americans) has neither God nor a well-aimed stone to rescue him.An often overlooked reality is the fact that it is logistically more difficult to mount a coherent and cohesive broad-based coalition of smaller community voters to effectively challenge patrons of the 83%. Regional issues and traditions, “favorite sons (and daughters),” varying demographics, etc., all work against any single, diverse coalition building and maintaining enough traction to compete against a better-financed and coalesced opponent with access to larger numbers of supporters. Even social media, which depends on voluminous followers and “likes,” typically draws from the more sophisticated, young and techno-savvy crowd found in metro communities and, thus, favors the top urban markets. And we all know (or can imagine) how social media can easily castigate a minority perspective to the point of crowding it out of existence.A Political LockoutA final but important, concern with a direct democracy is that larger population centers would receive virtually all of the political attention, focus and investment. Naturally, campaigns - whether for election to an office or passage of a bill or policy initiative - will ignore the least populous and least influential areas in favor of those where significant numbers of votes are most densely congregated. This only makes sense: Why bother to spend time, resources and energy in a community that can have little impact on the results, compared to those where the competition will surely concentrate its efforts? That would not only be a waste of valuable resources but an affront to contributors — whose continued support would soon dry up.Thus, a direct democracy would allow American city dwellers — the dominant 83% of Americans — to legally and permanently rule the politics — and, thus, the direction — of the entire United States, rendering the rest of us without a voice, forever.The Founders’ PreferenceThe above are only a few of many modern examples that can explain why our founders opted for a representative, rather than a direct, democracy. They were, virtually to a man, adamant regarding the innovative principle of the separation of powers, the crux of our system that is often taken for granted in this discussion. This crucial constitutional piece, when combined with a bicameral legislature to simultaneously represent all states equally (Senate) AND all unique communities (districts) proportionally (House) is, arguably, all that protects one branch of government from legally trampling the others.A direct democracy would, at the very least, hinder if not eliminate that protection.Removing our representatives, despite their perceived incompetence or occasional examples of individual corruption, would undermine the very core of our constitutional system of government — a system that has long been copied, even envied, across the globe. It’s a system that has stood the test of time and, IMHO, one that is worth preserving, essentially as-is.