4-H Audit Report - University Of Missouri Extension: Fill & Download for Free

Excellent question. But you could also ask why not listen to the 1000s of other scientists who do not agree with the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic CO2 global warming, including climate scientists, physicists, chemical engineers, geologists, paleoclimatologists, astrophysicists, atmospheric physicists, meteorologists, climate computer modelers, mathematicians, statisticians, marine biologists, etc.The 97% consensus is just one of the lies from CAGW alarmists, and has been debunked time and again:https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf97 Articles Refuting The "97% Consensus" | Climate Dispatch'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% WrongGlobal Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' ClaimsClimate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now SkepticsA Climate Falsehood You Can Check for YourselfAll "97% Consensus" Studies Refuted by Peer-ReviewOne of the most recent studies (performed by a division of the Dutch government) revealed less than half of climate scientists agree with the theory of CAGW. What consensus? Less than half of climate scientists agree with the IPCC “95%” certaintyIn 2009, over 100 scientists, with the courage to speak out, allowed their names to be added as signatories to newspaper advertisements, created by the libertarian Cato Institute, opposing President Obama’s claims that combating climate change was urgent and that the science was beyond dispute. Here is the content of the ad:“Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.” — PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, NOVEMBER 19, 2008With all due respect Mr.President, that is not true.We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now.(1,2) After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events.(3) The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior.(4) Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.1. Swanson, K.L., and A.A.Tsonis. Geophysical Research Letters, in press: DOI:10.1029/2008GL037022. 2. Brohan, P., et al. Journal of Geophysical Research, 2006: DOI: 10.1029/2005JD006548. Updates at Temperature data (HadCRUT4, CRUTEM4) Climatic Research Unit global temperature. 3. Pielke, R.A. Jr., et al. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 2005: DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-86-10-1481. 4. Douglass, D. H., et al. International Journal of Climatology, 2007: DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651SYUN AKASOFU, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF ALASKAARTHUR G. ANDERSON, PH.D DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH,IBM (RETIRED)CHARLES R. ANDERSON, PH.D ANDERSON MATERIALS EVALUATIONJ. SCOTT ARMSTRONG, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIAROBERT ASHWORTH CLEARSTACK LLCISMAIL BAHT, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF KASHMIRCOLIN BARTON CSIRO (RETIRED)DAVID J. BELLAMY, OBE THE BRITISH NATURAL ASSOCIATIONJOHN BLAYLOCK LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY (RETIRED)EDWARD F. BLICK, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA (EMERITUS)SONJA BOEHMER-CHRISTIANSEN, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF HULLBOB BRECK AMS BROADCASTER OF THE YEAR 2008JOHN BRIGNELL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON (EMERITUS)MARK CAMPBELL, PH.D U.S.NAVAL ACADEMYROBERT M. CARTER, PH.D JAMES COOK UNIVERSITYIAN CLARK, PH.D PROFESSOR,EARTH SCIENCES UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA, OTTAWA, CANADAROGER COHEN, PH.D FELLOW, AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETYPAUL COPPER, PH.D LAURENTIAN UNIVERSITY (EMERITUS)PIERS CORBYN, MS WEATHER ACTIONRICHARD S. COURTNEY, PH.D REVIEWER, INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGEUBERTO CRESCENTI, PH.D PAST-PRESIDENT,ITALIAN GEOLOGICAL SOCIETYSUSAN CROCKFORD, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIAJOSEPH S. D’ALEO, FELLOW, AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETYJAMES DEMEO, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS (RETIRED)DAVID DEMING, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMADIANE DOUGLAS, PH.D PALEOCLIMATOLOGISTDAVID DOUGLASS, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTERROBERT H. ESSENHIGH, E.G. BAILEY EMERITUS PROFESSOR OF ENERGY CONVERSION THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITYCHRISTOPHER ESSEX, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIOJOHN FERGUSON, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE (RETIRED)EDUARDO FERREYRA ARGENTINIAN FOUNDATION FOR A SCIENTIFIC ECOLOGYMICHAEL FOX, PH.D AMERICAN NUCLEAR SOCIETYGORDON FULKS, PH.D GORDON FULKS AND ASSOCIATESLEE GERHARD, PH.D STATE GEOLOGIST, KANSAS (RETIRED)GERHARD GERLICH, PH.D TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITAT BRAUNSCHWEIGIVAR GIAEVER, PH.D NOBEL LAUREATE,PHYSICSALBRECHT GLATZLE, PH.D SCIENTIFIC DIRECTOR, INTTAS (PARAGUAY)WAYNE GOODFELLOW, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWAJAMES GOODRIDGE CALIFORNIA STATE CLIMATOLOGIST (RETIRED)LAURENCE GOULD, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF HARTFORDVINCENT GRAY, PH.D NEW ZEALAND CLIMATE COALITIONWILLIAM M. GRAY, PH.D COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITYKENNETH E. GREEN, D. ENV. AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTEKESTEN GREEN, PH.D MONASH UNIVERSITYWILL HAPPER, PH.D PRINCETON UNIVERSITYHOWARD C. HAYDEN, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT (EMERITUS)BEN HERMAN, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA (EMERITUS)MARTIN HERTZBERG, PH.D. U.S. NAVY (RETIRED)DOUG HOFFMAN, PH.D AUTHOR,THE RESILIENT EARTHBERND HUETTNER, PH.DOLE HUMLUM, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF OSLOA. NEIL HUTTON PAST PRESIDENT, CANADIAN SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM GEOLOGISTSCRAIG D. IDSO, PH.D CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF CARBON DIOXIDE AND GLOBAL CHANGESHERWOOD B. IDSO, PH.D U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (RETIRED)KIMINORI ITOH, PH.D YOKOHAMA NATIONAL UNIVERSITYSTEVE JAPAR, PH.D REVIEWER, INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGESTEN KAIJSER, PH.D UPPSALA UNIVERSITY (EMERITUS)WIBJORN KARLEN, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF STOCKHOLM (EMERITUS)JOEL KAUFFMAN, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF THE SCIENCES, PHILADELPHIA (EMERITUS)DAVID KEAR, PH.D FORMER DIRECTOR-GENERAL, NZ DEPT. SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCHRICHARD KEEN, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF COLORADODR.KELVIN KEMM, PH.D LIFETIME ACHIEVERS AWARD, NATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FORUM, SOUTH AFRICAMADHAV KHANDEKAR, PH.D FORMER EDITOR, CLIMATE RESEARCHROBERT S. KNOX, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER (EMERITUS)JAMES P. KOERMER, PH.D PLYMOUTH STATE UNIVERSITYGERHARD KRAMM, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKSWAYNE KRAUS, PH.D KRAUS CONSULTINGOLAV M. KVALHEIM, PH.D UNIV. OF BERGENROAR LARSON, PH.D NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGYJAMES F. LEA, PH.DDOUGLAS LEAHY, PH.D METEOROLOGISTPETER R. LEAVITT CERTIFIED CONSULTING METEOROLOGISTDAVID R. LEGATES, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARERICHARD S. LINDZEN, PH.D MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGYHARRY F. LINS, PH.D. CO-CHAIR, IPCC HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES WORKING GROUPANTHONY R. LUPO, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURIHOWARD MACCABEE, PH.D, MD CLINICAL FACULTY, STANFORD MEDICAL SCHOOLHORST MALBERG, PH.D FREE UNIVERSITY OF BERLINBJORN MALMGREN, PH.D GOTEBURG UNIVERSITY (EMERITUS)JENNIFER MAROHASY, PH.D AUSTRALIAN ENVIRONMENT FOUNDATIONJAMES A. MARUSEK U.S.NAVY (RETIRED)ROSS MCKITRICK, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF GUELPHPATRICK J. MICHAELS, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIATIMMOTHY R. MINNICH, MS MINNICH AND SCOTTO, INC.ASMUNN MOENE, PH.D FORMER HEAD, FORECASTING CENTER, METEOROLOGICAL INSTITUTE, NORWAYMICHAEL MONCE, PH.D CONNECTICUT COLLEGEDICK MORGAN, PH.D EXETER UNIVERSITY (EMERITUS)NILS-AXEL MÖRNER, PH.D STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY (EMERITUS)DAVID NOWELL, D.I.C. FORMER CHAIRMAN, NATO METEOROLOGY CANADACLIFF OLLIER, UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIAGARTH W.PALTRIDGE, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIAALFRED PECKAREK, PH.D ST.CLOUD STATE UNIVERSITYDR. ROBERT A. PERKINS, P.E. UNIVERSITY OF ALASKAIAN PILMER, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE (EMERITUS)BRIAN R. PRATT, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWANJOHN REINHARD, PH.D ORE PHARMACEUTICALSPETER RIDD, PH.D JAMES COOK UNIVERSITYCURT ROSE, PH.D BISHOP’S UNIVERSITY (EMERITUS)PETER SALONIUS http://M.SC. CANADIAN FOREST SERVICEGARY SHARP, PH.D CENTER FOR CLIMATE/OCEAN RESOURCES STUDYTHOMAS P. SHEAHAN, PH.D WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES, INC.ALAN SIMMONS AUTHOR, THE RESILIENT EARTHROY W. SPENCER, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA—HUNTSVILLEARLIN SUPER, PH.D RETIRED RESEARCH METEOROLOGIST, U.S. DEPT. OF RECLAMATIONGEORGE H. TAYLOR, MS APPLIED CLIMATE SERVICESEDUARDO P. TONNI, PH.D MUSEO DE LA PLATA (ARGENTINA)RALF D. TSCHEUSCHNER, PH.DDR. ANTON URIARTE, PH.D UNIVERSIDAD DEL PAISVASCOBRIAN VALENTINE, PH.D U.S.DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYGOSTA WALIN, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG (EMERITUS)GERD-RAINER WEBER, PH.D REVIEWER, INTERGOVERNMENAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGEFORESE-CARLO WEZEL, PH.D URBINO UNIVERSITYEDWARD T. WIMBERLEY, PH.D FLORIDA GULF COAST UNIVERSITYMIKLOS ZAGONI, PH.D REVIEWER, INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGEANTONIO ZICHICHI, PH.D PRESIDENT, WORLD FEDERATION OF SCIENTISTShttp://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/climatead_chicagotrib_rev.pdfIt’s interesting to note that quite a few research scientist skeptics are retired/ emeritus. They have the most experience in their fields and can speak out against CAGW without fear of losing grants or jobs! That’s not a luxury that most currently employed climate scientists enjoy.“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” - Upton Sinclair“Only scientists who are outside the power structure can significantly criticize science. This situation alone guarantees runaway fraud in science. Any power structure that polices itself will eventually disintegrate in corruption.”- Gary Novak About Gary Novak, Independent Scientist.Nevertheless, by 2010, the number of scientists willing to speak out against the theory of CAGW had grown to over 1,000 and included many actively working scientists. The names appeared in a report to the US Senate: “More than 1,000 dissenting scientists from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and former Vice President Al Gore.” The report included many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who had turned against the organization and its agenda. It also noted that the number of dissenting scientists was more than twenty times the number of UN scientists (52) who had authored the media-hyped 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers.Here’s a comment from one of the dissenters: UN IPCC contributing author Dr. Eduardo Zorita - “CRU files: Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process. Short answer: Because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore. The scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas. 12 of the 26 scientists who wrote the relevant section of a U.N. global warming report are up to their necks in ClimateGate.” Zorita was a UN IPCC Contributing Author of the Fourth Assessment Report in 2007. Since 2003, he has headed the Department of Paleoclimate and been a senior scientist at the Institute for Coastal Research in Germany. He has published more than 70 peer-reviewed scientific studies.The International Climate Science Coalition is a non-partisan group of independent scientists, economists and energy and policy experts that works to promote better understanding of climate science and policy worldwide. ICSC aims to help create an environment in which a more rational, open discussion about climate issues emerges, thereby moving the debate away from implementation of costly and ineffectual “climate control” measures. It has a Climate Scientist Register signed by over 140 individuals, mostly PhD scientists who endorse the following statement: “We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming." Welcome to the International Climate Science Coalition Web Site CLIMATE SCIENTISTS' REGISTER ENDORSERSAs you already mentioned, a group of over 500 scientists and professionals in climate and related fields sent a letter to Secretary-General António Guterres of the United Nations on Sept. 23, 2019 declaring that “…there is no climate emergency. The general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are unfit for their purpose. Therefore, it is cruel as well as imprudent to advocate the squandering of trillions of dollars on the basis of results from such immature models.” The letter states that current climate policies undermine the economic system and put lives at risk by denying countries affordable energy. The letter’s release coincided with the U.N. climate summit in New York. Exemplifying some of the alarmism that prompted the letter, teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg told the summit that the planet is in the beginning stage of “mass extinction.” The scientists point out that the warming projected by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) show temperature increases four times higher than the warming that was actually observed. The letter also states the recent increase in global average temperature is no surprise, considering that the Little Ice Age ended in 1850s, and that global warming hasn’t led to more natural disasters. 500 Prominent Scientists Warn U.N.: 'There Is No Climate Emergency'90 leading Italian Scientists sign Petition: “Anthropogenic Origin of Global Warming is an unproven Hypothesis” publicized in June, 2019, which challenges the assertion that humans cause global warming as a theory based on models that have failed to adequately predict climate changes. “It is scientifically unrealistic to attribute to humans the responsibility for the warming observed from the past century to today. The advanced alarmist forecasts, therefore, are not credible, since they are based on models whose results contradict the experimental data. All the evidence suggests that these models overestimate the [human] contribution and underestimate the natural climatic variability, especially that induced by the sun, the moon, and ocean oscillations.” 90 leading Italian Scientists sign Petition: “Anthropogenic Origin of Global Warming is an unproven Hypothesis” … Catastrophic Predictions “Not realistic”In 2015, a weather forecaster for French state television, Philippe Verdier, was fired after publishing a book called Climate Investigation, denouncing the close ties "between scientists, politicians, economic lobbies, environmental NGOs". He also sent an open letter to French President Hollande pointing out the uselessness of the 2015 UN Paris Climate Conference, aka Conference of Parties 21 (COP21). In response to these events, a group of mathemeticians from the French Société de Calcul Mathématique SA wrote a White Paper titled: The battle against global warming: an absurd, costly and pointless crusade. Because of so many salient points by this group of skeptical mathematicians, exposing so much fraud and poor science by alarmist scientists, I have included it in its entirety here:The Battle Against Global Warming: An Absurd, Costly and Pointless Crusade September 2015 http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM...Summary- All public policies, in France, Europe and throughout the world, find their origin and inspiration in the battle against global warming. The initial credo is simple: temperatures at the surface of the planet have been rising constantly for the past thirty years, and human beings are to blame.This is leading to all sorts of discussions, conferences and regulations, which are having an enormous impact on our economy. Every area of activity is affected: transport, housing, energy – to name just a few. Why do we need to save energy? It is quite simple: we have to reduce human impact on the planet. This is the fundamental credo.The impact on the entire field of scientific research is particularly clear and especially pernicious. No project can be launched, on any subject whatsoever, unless it makes direct reference to global warming. You want to look at the geology of the Garonne Basin? It is, after all, an entirely normal and socially useful subject in every respect. Well, your research will be funded, approved and published only if it mentions the potential for geological storage of CO2. It is appalling.The crusade has invaded every area of activity and everyone‘s thinking: the battle against CO2 has become a national priority. How have we reached this point, in a country that claims to be rational?At the root lie the declarations made by the IPCC, which have been repeated over the years and taken up by the European Commission and the Member States. France, which likes to see itself as the ̳good boy of Europe‘, adds an extra layer of virtue to every crusade. When others introduce reductions, we will on principle introduce bigger reductions, without ever questioning their appropriateness: a crusade is virtuous by its very nature. And you can never be too virtuous.But mathematicians do not believe in crusades; they look at facts, figures, observations and arguments.This White Paper is divided into three parts:Part 1: The factsChapter 1: The crusade is absurd There is not a single fact, figure or observation that leads us to conclude that the world‘s climate is in any way ̳disturbed‘. It is variable, as it has always been, but rather less so now than during certain periods or geological eras. Modern methods are far from being able to accurately measure the planet‘s global temperature even today, so measurements made 50 or 100 years ago are even less reliable.Concentrations of CO2 vary, as they always have done; the figures that are being released are biased and dishonest. Rising sea levels are a normal phenomenon linked to upthrust buoyancy; they are nothing to do with so-called global warming. As for extreme weather events – they are no more frequent now than they have been in the past. We ourselves have processed the raw data on hurricanes.We are being told that ̳a temperature increase of more than 2 C by comparison with the beginning of the industrial age would have dramatic consequences, and absolutely has to be prevented‘. When they hear this, people worry: hasn‘t there already been an increase of 1.9C ? Actually, no: the figures for the period 1995-2015 show an upward trend of about 1 C every hundred years! Of course, these figures, which contradict public policies, are never brought to public attention.Chapter 2: The crusade is costly Direct aid for industries that are completely unviable (such as photovoltaics and wind turbines) but presented as ̳virtuous‘ runs into billions of euros, according to recent reports published by the Cour des Comptes (French Audit Office) in 2013. But the highest cost lies in the principle of ̳energy saving‘, which is presented as especially virtuous. Since no civilization can develop when it is saving energy, ours has stopped developing: France now has more than three million people unemployed – it is the price we have to pay for our virtue.We want to cut our CO2 emissions at any cost: it is a way of displaying our virtue for all to see. To achieve these reductions, we have significantly cut industrial activity and lost jobs. But at least we have achieved our aim of cutting CO2 emissions, haven‘t we? The answer is laughable: apparently not. Global emissions of CO2 have continued to rise, including those generated by France in designing and manufacturing its own products, as the Cour des Comptes clearly states. Quite simply, manufacturing that is held to be environmentally damaging has been relocated. So the same products are now being manufactured in countries that are far less respectful of the environment, and we have lost all the associated jobs. As Baudelaire says, ̳Nature‘s irony combines with our insanity‘.Chapter 3: The crusade is pointless Human beings cannot, in any event, change the climate. If we in France were to stop all industrial activity (let‘s not talk about our intellectual activity, which ceased long ago), if we were to eradicate all trace of animal life, the composition of the atmosphere would not alter in any measurable, perceptible way. To explain this, let us make a comparison with the rotation of the planet: it is slowing down. To address that, we might be tempted to ask the entire population of China to run in an easterly direction. But, no matter how big China and its population are, this would have no measurable impact on the Earth‘s rotation.French policy on CO2 emissions is particularly stupid, since we are one of the countries with the cleanest industrial sector.International agreements on the subject began with the Kyoto Protocol, but the number of countries signing up to this agreement and its descendants are becoming fewer and fewer, now representing just 15% of emissions of greenhouse gases.This just goes to show the truth of the matter: we are fighting for a cause (reducing CO2 emissions) that serves absolutely no purpose, in which we alone believe, and which we can do nothing about. You would probably have to go quite a long way back in human history to find such a mad obsession.Part 2: Scientific aspects Having looked at the facts and their social impact, we now look at some more or less well- established scientific knowledge.Chapter 1: The natural variability of the climate There have already been innumerable variations in the climate in the past, some of them enormous (such as glaciations). The main causes are linked to the Sun and the albedo of the cloud layer (does sunlight penetrate right to the ground, or is it reflected back by the clouds?). Human beings obviously have a role to play, but the natural causes of climate variations are never taken into account by the crusaders, who put all the blame on human activity.Chapter 2: Are human beings influencing the climate? One might wonder whether human beings are influencing the climate, with their buildings, transport networks and very civilization. The answer is that their influence is tiny, quite negligible in comparison with natural causes. Nature makes major changes, human beings make small ones, which our natural arrogance lends a significance they simply do not have.SCM SA White paper "Global Warming", 2015/094Insurance companies know what is what: the cost of natural phenomena (such as tornadoes, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions) is ten times greater than the cost of any man-made disaster.Another vital question here: do human beings have the technological ability to change the climate? The answer is no: human beings can do nothing about solar activity, the state of the oceans, the temperature of the Earth‘s magma, or the composition of the atmosphere. On the other hand, human beings are very capable of getting worked up about all sorts of things, of ̳skipping and swooning‘, as Baudelaire put it.We should like to suggest here an especially interesting and original measure, which is the greenhouse effect, only bald people should be allowed to go out on sunny days; people with a full head of hair should be allowed to go out only at night or on rainy days.Chapter 3: The consequences of so-called global warming One might wonder about the potential consequences of so-called global warming for human beings and the natural world. The answer is very simple: the natural world will adjust very well, as it has always done. Plants, in particular, would enjoy an increase in CO2 concentrations. In France, the positive effects would far outweigh the negative ones. If there were such a thing as global warming, then we should celebrate. And if it does not exist, then we shall simply have to carry on switching on the central heating nine months a year.Part 3: The IPCC We are not in a position to question the composition of the IPCC, or its legitimacy and policy decisions, and we shall not do so. However, as mathematicians, we have every right to respond to the following question: if the IPCC‘s work were to be submitted for publication in a reputable scientific journal, would it be accepted? This decision is the task of a referee, in a procedure that is common practice in the sciences.The answer is very simple: no sensible, high-quality journal would publish the IPCC‘s work. The IPCC‘s conclusions go against observed facts; the figures used are deliberately chosen to support its conclusions (with no regard for the most basic scientific honesty), and the natural variability of phenomena is passed over without comment. This is a French measure whereby a ban is imposed on city-center. traffic during periods of heavy pollution, with cars whose registration plates have even numbers and those with odd numbers being barred from the roads on alternate days. The IPCC‘s report fails to respect the fundamental rules of scientific research and could not be published in any review with a reading panel.Conclusion: In a democracy, there is an opposition, and this opposition has a right, in principle, to express its views: this is what distinguishes democracy from dictatorship. But when it comes to the questions about global warming that we are talking about here, the opposition – people who do not believe in global warming – have been told to shut up: no public debate, no contradictory discourse, no articles in scientific journals. They have simply been told that the case is proven and it is time to take action. In law, there is a fundamental principle known as the ̳’adversarial principle‘. A case can be thrown out of court if the defense is not informed of every known element of the accusation. Even if twenty people have witnessed the abominable criminal commit his offense, if the defense has not had access to blood-sample analyses, the case will be thrown out. In the case of global warming, a number of bodies are telling us they have all the evidence, but refuse to tell us what it is. The data have been processed, but how? Time series have been altered, but why? Some phenomena have been left out of the equation, but on what grounds? We do not know, and we are simply required to keep quiet and do what we are told. No second opinion is permitted. It is on the debris of the fundamental principles of the law and of democracy that this White Paper has been written. www.scmsa.eu › archives › SCM_RC_2015_08_24_ENThe numbers of dissenting scientists cited above are just a fraction of those who are skeptical of CAGW. For instance, a total of 31,487 American scientists (as of 2019), including 9,029 with PhDs and numerous climate scientists, signed the petition run by the Global Warming Petition Project, to publicly demonstrate that the scientific community in the US rejects claims that the science around man-made global warming is either “settled”, or that a “consensus” exists.” Global Warming Petition ProjectAlthough not all of these scientists are PhD climate scientists, “All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.”If you think you qualify, please contact them and request being added to the list.As expected, alarmists (including those authoring the section about the Petition in Wikipedia) have tried to discredit the petition with false allegations, such as claiming that numerous fictitious names are included. Alarmists also state that it is irrelevant since most of the signatories are not “climate scientists”. But all who submit their names to be included are vetted and the vast majority have extensive backgrounds in science, including over 9,000 PhDs. Climate science is an amalgamation of dozens of different sciences, including geology, paleogeology, paleoclimatology, inorganc and organic chemistry, physics, astrophysics, nuclear physics, quantum mechanics, meteorology, atmospheric science, biological sciences, etc., along with statistics and advanced mathematics. Each contributes vital information to the study of climate change, including information which may contradict the theory of CAGWHere is one of hundreds of scientists who were originally supporters of the CAGW theory who changed their position after thorough study. Dr. David Evans, mathematician, engineer and computer modeler, who worked for the Australian government determining how much CO2 emission it should reduce, now believes there is no need to do so because alarmist computer models greatly exaggerated the amount of warming due to CO2. In this video he also discusses that fact that the oceans are NOT warming as shown by the very precise Argo buoy system.Two other outstanding examples of eminent dissenting scientists are Nobel laureates Freeman Dyson and Ivar Giaever. While they are not “climatologists”, both are renowned physicists quite knowledgeable about climate science, highly skeptical of CAGW and quite adroit at presenting the reasons why.Freeman Dyson is an English-born American theoretical physicist and mathematician, known for his work in quantum electrodynamics, solid-state physics, astronomy and nuclear engineering. Now retired, he spent most of his professional career as a professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, alongside such notables as Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman and Robert Oppenheimer. Although he is 91, he continues his studies as professor emeritus, and, as you will see in the video below, is as sharp as a tack.He agrees that humans affect climate but disagrees entirely with the dire predictions first made popular by Al Gore, and uses his enormous wealth of knowledge of physics, mathematics, natural sciences, quantum mechanics and the scientific method to discredit much of the global warming hysteria. He believes CAGW alarmism is more of a religion than a science."There certainly is an enormous religion in which there are lots of true believers who think that climate change is evil…"Ivar Giaever is a Norwegian-American physicist who shared the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1973 for his work on quantum tunneling in superconductors. Much like Freeman Dyson, he deplores the strong-arm tactics and intolerance of global warming alarmists. He also likens their vehement faith-based belief in anthropogenic global warming without valid scientific proof to a new religion.For more info about the constantly increasing number of scientists who are skeptical of the theory of CAGW see:Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics 2007www.scmsa.eu › archives › SCM_RC_2015_08_24_ENCountering The Fallacy Of Global WarmingMore Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims - Global ResearchList of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming - WikipediaGlobal warming: second thoughts of an environmentalistSee the names of many more skeptical and dissenting scientists at: John Walker's answer to Do we have conclusive evidence that humans are the root cause of climate change?And see even more at: James Matkin's answer to Are there any prominent and well-respected scientists who do not believe in climate change?And the number of scientific articles skeptical of CAGW continues to expand:http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html 1350 papers in 2014Crumbling ‘Consensus’: 500 Scientific Papers Published In 2016 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate AlarmSo far this year, 400 scientific papers debunk climate change alarmAlarmists like Thunberg frequently tell us to “trust the experts”. That’s excellent advice! There are 1000s to choose from as illustrated above!

"I am a conservative orphan, stranded on a deserted island, surrounded by liberal sharks." ByronThanks for the ATA Eric Fair. This must need to be a lengthy and complex answer. Fortunately I have only to copy and paste several of my existing answers that don't always get widely read. This is long but necessary because conservatism can't be explained in a 15 second sound bite. Let me introduce a few of my points with a cartoon that says volumes about the Keynesian's views and the liberal's views on conservatism. Then I will expound further on conservatism.I see this anti-conservative attitude a lot:From: Fair and balanced conservative here...Here is an attempt to fight for sensible conservative government:Tom Byron's answer to Do all conservatives on Quora eventually get banned? Is Quora itself innately liberal?We need more attitudes like I explain here: Tom Byron's answer to How would you fix the US economy?I have a list of conservative ideas/proposals in my (not too widely read blog Byron's Blog):We Are Not The Party Of NoRepublicans need to make a serious and a drastic change. This may sound easy, but it will be difficult. There will be opposition. Republicans need an image make-over, and a rebranding of a new party. A party that restores us to the policies that saw a growing economy; encouraged individual responsibility, and less, not more government. The citizens in in this country are yearning to be free of the yoke of excess power and excess taxation of a burgeoning central government. The power of an EPA (see below in a list of many government agencies), for example, that can place you in jail for building on your own property. We need to redefine how much is too much, and balance freedom and the powerful entrepreneurship that is "America", against the power to over tax and over regulate. Unfettered! Increasingly this burdensome government desires to expand and operate counter to Americans who wish to make their own way.Our collective house is "on fire". We need to save our "library of knowledge" before the building we call Republicanism burns to the ground and everything is lost! Just like the ancient Library at Alexandria, Egypt was lost.http://www.ancient.eu.com/article/207/How?There are fewer things in government more important than fostering a dialogue with the public and developing a sense of confidence. The people's voices do matter! This is missing in today's Washington political scene. We can, and should, change our message, as we battle this "blaze". Calling the fire department (contact your state and federal Senators and/or Representatives) is only the first step. You need to have fire drills (community meetings) occasionally and a plan.A government that fosters dependency does so at the expense of individual choice. There are currently (as of October, 2013) more people receiving government benefits than are working full time. This trend is troublesome. It must stop.We need to heal our differences internally before we can unite the public. First we need a government that is, "of the people", not OF THE GOVERNMENT!Can we unite the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party, the moderate Republicans, the conservative Republicans? We must! We need to unite in a common voice, and agree on our common goals—The U.S. Constitution being our foundation and our common document for going forward."United we stand, divided we fall". http://amhistory.si.edu/1942/campaign/campaign24.html...EPAOur Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) needs to be overhauled. Regulations that protect the environment, at the expense of economic expansion, need to be studied for their impact on jobs and tax receipts to the federal government. Priorities need to be in place to give the final say to continuing a project only after congress has a vote on the matter. Congress is elected by the public, answerable to the public, whereas the EPA is run by unaccountable and unelected bureaucrats. Any President should not be permitted to bypass the U.S. Congress to enact laws without approval.FOREIGN POLICYA policy of asking forgiveness for our Americanism and freedom for the individual can not become an American policy. Too many have died defending this country. Too many lives have been invested spreading what people come to America for—Freedom.We need to engage in a dialogue with our foreign leaders without ceding authority to them. We need to foster trust, not by tapping their telephones, but through open face-to-face discussions.DIPLOMACYOur enemies don't fear us and our allies don't trust us, we need to reverse this trend. We must engage with our foreign leaders in a positive way. We must stand for what America stands for, human rights, freedom of the individual, peace through strength, and stability.MILITARYOur military needs to be strengthened. It is not a test-bed for political correctness.Our military men and women must be honored at home and around the globe. They must be given all the tools they need and know that no matter what happens of where the enemy arises—their lives and mission is protected with the full backing of our troops and our leaders.DEBTSomeday debt will matter. Today is that day. We can and will become dependent on the government, if we continue to permit the government to become an ever increasingly large part of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). We need to increase jobs and foster a climate that I creases jobs. Taxes should be our primary source of revenue to fund our expenditures, not debt. We currently spend more on interest payments than we do on education. That means our priorities must change.SPENDINGWhen programs grow from year to year and the relative size of the increase is reduced year-over-year, this is not a "spending cut".TAXESWe need a flat or fair tax system in this country. We need zero-based budgeting. We need honesty in spending by acknowledging that a reduction in an increase in spending is not "tax reduction". It is a reduction in an increase only. We need to time our budget discussions to tax filing time. If we pass a budget by October and taxes are paid (to the IRS) in April, is this timing on purpose? They are 6 months apart, and people forget, and politicians make promises they forgot or ignore.CRIMEOur crime in some areas of our country are widely reported and we are very aware of the daily shootings. We need to address the problems that lead to this tragic result.I have a lengthy answer here.Is poverty a root cause of gun violence in the US?EDUCATIONWe have a competitive problem with our current educational system. We are not competitive. We are too often "teaching to the test".We have teachers' unions that are too strong and out themselves ahead of students.HEALTH CARELack of tort reform and insurance portability are the main drivers of health care cost increases. Creating a massive entitlement, government-run, federally subsidized program is not what a capitalist country creates. European-style socialist systems are fine for European-style socialist governments. Not in America. We have the best doctors, hospitals, treatments, and research of most any place in the world. Government take-over of a significant portion of the U.S. economy is not going to get everyone insured, with access to doctors, hospitals and medical treatment. We already have the structure in place. Fine. The access is unaffordable to many people due to rising increases in medical procedures. This is due primarily to drug regulations (costs) and legal regulations (malpractice insurance) raising the cost of treatment and affordability. The government has never had the ability to be less expensive than the private sector because it is tax-driven and not profit-driven.How are Americans faring under Obama care thus far?TERRORISMIf we must be in the Middle East, we must work rapidly to develop our own National Energy Plan. Five years. We are only creating more hatred of America by continuing with our presence in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, Libya, and northern Africa.We must stop funding terrorism through petro-dollars. Our oil money flows to The Middle East. This must be ended.JOBSThe employment problem in this country needs to be addressed. The labor participation rate has fallen to historic lows, and the numbers of people on Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), and we are told that unemployment is only 7.2%. This is not true and is unacceptable. There are too many part time jobs being created. The 40 hour work week that we has prospered under, is going the way of dial-telephones.The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 is the main driver. This must be stopped.POLLUTIONWe need an effective plan to address pollution, but not to the extent that industries and the local economy is imperiled through sudden changes and retro-active regulations. We don't need to kill and industry to correct it. Coal regulations come to mind. If fixing the amount of carbon emissions by increasing costs on power production to confiscatory levels is not a war policy.GUN CONTROLWe need a sensible debate on this issue. It is closely associated with crime in much of America. Crime has its roots in the same conditions as guns being used to commit those crimes.Licensing, testing and back ground checks need to be reviewed and corrected at the state level.Also see "CRIME" above.FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM (FRS)The entire concept of a quasi private/federal bank run by appointed people and heavily influenced by our political leaders is a dangerous policy. The FRS creates bubbles, then corrects them and operates as both the villain and the hero. Bad policy. We need a review and an audit of the FRS as a starting point. Read "The Creature From Jekyll Island", G. Edward Griffin. For a better understanding, see my answers here:http://www.quora.com/Tom-Byron/answers/U-S-Federal-Reserve?share=1ENTITLEMENTSWe need to address extensive use of EBT cards for food, and WIC (Women, Infant and Children) programs. There are too many in this program illegally and many are abusing the system. There needs to be closer control and better auditing to reduce this waste. It also should not become a career, of dependency.CITY AND STATE PENSIONS,BAILOUT OF 2008 FINANCIAL CRISISA program that allows cities and states to depend on open or "back door bailouts" in the form of block grants and assistance to states and municipalities should be closely examined. My discussion here on a notable headline is more specific.Has the Obama administration finally got it right, that the 2008 financial crisis was caused by government?What are the implications of Detroit filing for bankruptcy?IMMIGRATIONA cohesive plan for immigration must begin with a streamlined citizenship program. Waiting 10 years in line or even 3 years in line, will not work.FOOD STAMPSWe have to reform this growing entitlement. People need to perform some community service to continue to remain eligible. We need to eliminate fraud and make it impossible to sell food stamps to others not qualified to receive them. More people than ever are receiving this entitlement and costs have sky rocketed. Yet, poverty rates in this country remain constant. Why? The answer seems to be that there is a disincentive to work. This must change. Helping the poor is a noble endeavor, but allowing the government to create a dynamic where it is more profitable to accept assistance than work is even worse.DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICEThis agency must be accountable to the American people. Policies like dealing with foreign governments and running guns to track criminals must not ever happen again. Fast and Furious was an example of a government that is too large and not accountable. We need an Attorney General who upholds the rule of law and is not above the rule of law.Our Transportation Security Agency (TSA) and our Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) are our first line of defense in national security. We must have full faith and trust in them. Post the Boston Marathon Bombing, and Fast and Furious, our comfort in knowing these agencies can protect us has been shaken.My Conservative Plan for 2014 & 2016Are the Republicans"The party of No!"?Are the Democrats the party of "It's Bush's fault."? Let's examine that and where that answer takes us.PROLOGUEThere is a Presidential election in 2016, and it is not too early to start thinking about what is happening today. A full throated debate that will begin early in 2014. The Congressional mid-terms occur 04 Nov 2014. Republicans need to prepare. America needs to decide. Maintain course or make an adjustment. Both sides of this debate have their reasons for staying the course or making a hard turn.This map shows the Senate by party and by state. PPACA was passed under some chicanery by the Senate Democrats, with no Republicans voting in the affirmative. More on that in a moment. This type of legislation has been pushed by Republicans in some form, notably Rommey Care in Massachusetts, and in more dynamic forms by Democrats, for over the last 75 years. Since the New Deal under FDR.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••The bill sent to the Senate, by the House, had the original House language in the bill gutted. The Senate had the language replaced and sent back to the House. All spending must originate in the House, and this bill fundamentally violates the Constitution."A challenge filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation contends that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional because the bill originated in the Senate, not the House. Under the Origination Clause of the Constitution, all bills raising revenue must begin in the House.The Supreme Court upheld most provisions of the act in June, but Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. took pains in the majority opinion to define Obamacare as a federal tax, not a mandate. That was when the Sacramento, Calif.-based foundation’s attorneys had their “aha” moment.“The court there quite explicitly says, ‘This is not a law passed under the Commerce Clause; this is just a tax,’” foundation attorney Timothy Sandefur said at a Cato Institute forum on legal challenges to the health care act. “Well, then the Origination Clause ought to apply. The courts should not be out there carving in new exceptions to the Origination Clause.” http://www.freerepublic.com/focu...http://cookpolitical.com/file/20...••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••Here is some Senate math on the seats as the 2014 mid-term elections approach.House seats in play:http://www.centerforpolitics.org...Senate seats in playhttp://rothenbergpoliticalreport...••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••15 Democrat Senate seats (*) are competitive, and 2 Republican(**) seats are competitive.(*) Oregon,(*) Alaska,(*) Hawaii,(*) Montana,(*) Colorado,(*) Minnesota,(*) South Dakota,(*) Iowa,(*) Missouri,(*) Louisiana,(*) Michigan,(*) West Virginia,(**) Kentucky(**) Georgia(*) North Carolina,(*) New Hampshire,(*) Massachusetts,http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...CHAPTER ONEThe debate on who should be elected, and how to secure a dominate party to ease this country away from the Progressive movement that has been underway since 20 Jan 2009, needs to begin yesterday!Will the Republican's blame Obama, since the Democrats can't blame Bush anymore in 2014? Will the Democrats be blamed for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, since "the bloom was off this rose" before it was jammed down our throats? The Republicans will be blamed for not helping fix something they vehemently disagreed with, never voted for, and tried to compromise on or defeat, but were rebuffed at every opportunity. It was going to be the Progressive's moment, finally, after scores of years. Generations of effort. Now was the chance, with a "Manchurian Candidate" to have a true "Mission Accomplished" moment!What will be the key issues after all the finger pointing is dismissed by both parties, and the media ignores the entire story as Republican obstruction?It should be the economy. It should be jobs. It should be energy; finally—no more "put on a sweater (Jimmy Carter) turn down the thermostat policy", for energy independence. We have the energy, we just have too many modern day "Luddites" who are afraid their "save the planet" jobs and the Earth will be destroyed. We will only be able to "save the planet" when we restore science and remove politics from the debate. Until then, the hateful ads that depict Santa as being melted out of the North Pole, and thus no more Christmas for the kids, is deplorable. This does nothing to advance the Environmentalist's cause.There should be a debate on privacy and the 4th Amendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."It should be about the separation of powers, the "take care clause" in Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 7"Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.""There has been an erosion of the separation of powers under the current administration, and were outline in a Dec.4, 2013 House Judiciary hearing. See below for additional statements from that hearing.Statement of Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob GoodlatteFull Committee Hearing “The President’s Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws”Chairman Goodlatte: Today’s hearing is about the President’s role in our constitutional system.Our system of government is a tripartite one, with each branch having certain defined functions delegated to it by the Constitution. The President is charged with executing the laws; the Congress with writing the laws; and the Judiciary with interpreting them.The Obama Administration, however, has ignored the Constitution’s carefully balanced separation of powers and unilaterally granted itself the extra-constitutional authority to amend the laws and to waive or suspend their enforcement.This raw assertion of authority goes well beyond the “executive power” granted to the President and specifically violates the Constitution’s command that the President is to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”The President’s encroachment into Congress’s sphere of power is not a transgression that should be taken lightly. As English historian Edward Gibbon famously observed regarding the fall of the Roman Empire, “the principles of a free constitution are irrevocably lost, when the legislative power is dominated by the executive.” Although the President’s actions may not yet amount to the executive’s powers overtaking the legislative power, they are certainly undermining the rule of law that is at the center of our constitutional design.From Obamacare to immigration, the current administration is picking and choosing which laws to enforce. But the Constitution does not confer upon the President the “executive authority” to disregard the separation of powers by unilaterally waiving, suspending, or revising the laws. It is a bedrock principle of constitutional law that the President must “faithfully execute” Acts of Congress. The President cannot refuse to enforce a law simply because he dislikes it.Certainly, presidents have from time to time made broad claims of executive power. However, assertions of executive authority have traditionally been limited to the area in which presidential powers are at their strongest—foreign affairs.The Obama Administration though has been equally assertive in the realm of domestic policy, routinely making end runs around Congress through broad claims of prosecutorial discretion and regulatory actions that push executive power beyond all limits. Indeed, President Obama is the first President since Richard Nixon to ignore a duly-enacted law simply because he disagrees with it.In place of the checks and balances established by the Constitution, President Obama has proclaimed that “I refuse to take ‘no’ for an answer” and that “where [Congress] won’t act, I will.” Throughout the Obama presidency we have seen a pattern: President Obama circumvents Congress when he doesn’t get his way.For instance, while Congress is currently debating how to reform our immigration laws, the President effectively enacted the DREAM Act himself by ordering immigration officials to stop enforcing the immigration laws against certain unlawful immigrants. When he couldn’t get his preferred changes to the No Child Left Behind education law, he unilaterally waived its testing accountability provisions. When he objected to the work requirements in the bipartisan welfare reform law, he granted waivers that are specifically forbidden by the statutory text. Instead of working with Congress to amend federal drug enforcement policy, he’s instructed prosecutors to stop enforcing certain drug laws in certain states and mandatory minimum sentences for certain offenses.And, most notably, the President has—without statutory authorization—waived, suspended, and amended several major provisions of his health care law. These unlawful modifications to Obamacare include: delaying for one year Obamacare’s employer mandate; instructing States that they are free to ignore the law’s clear language regarding which existing health care plans may be grandfathered; and promulgating an IRS rule that allows for the distribution of billions of dollars in Obamacare subsidies that Congress never authorized.The House has acted to validate retroactively some of the President’s illegal Obamacare modifications. However, rather than embrace these legislative fixes, the President’s response has been to threaten to veto the House passed measures.The President’s far-reaching claims of executive power, if left unchecked, will vest the President with broad domestic policy authority that the Constitution does not grant him.Those in the President’s political party have been largely silent in the face of this dangerous expansion of executive power. But what would they say if a president effectively repealed the environmental laws by refusing to sue polluters or the labor laws by refusing to fine violators?What if a president wanted tax cuts that Congress would not enact? Could he instruct the IRS to decline to enforce the income tax laws? President George H. W. Bush proposed, unsuccessfully, a reduction in the capital gains rate. Should he have instead simply instructed the IRS not to tax capital gains at a rate greater than 10 percent?The point is not what you think of any of President Obama’s individual policy decisions. The point is that the President may not—consistent with the command that he faithfully execute the laws—unilaterally amend, waive, or suspend the law.We must resist the President’s deliberate pattern of circumventing the legislative branch in favor of administrative decision making.We cannot allow the separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution to be abandoned in favor of an undue concentration of power in the executive branch. As James Madison warned centuries ago in Federalist 47, “the accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”http://judiciary.house.gov/heari...Written Statement Jonathan Turley,Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law George Washington University"The President's Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws" Committee on the Judiciary United States House of Representatives 2141 Rayburn House Office Building December 3, 2013 http://judiciary.house.gov/heari...Two recent rulings from a District Judge lay a heavy emphasis on these complaints above. They go directly to the encroachment of a President on the separation of powers, and diminish our freedoms.Judges rulings against OBAMAJudge orders Obama foreign aid order releasedRejecting one of the Obama White House's most aggressive attempts to preserve executive branch secrecy, a federal judge Tuesday ordered the disclosure of a government-wide foreign-aid directive President Barack Obama signed in 2010 but refused to make public.The Justice Department asserted that the Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development was covered by executive privilege, even though it is unclassified and reflected standing guidance to agencies rather than advice given to the president.Acting on a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by the Center for Effective Government, U.S. District Court Judge Ellen Huvelle concluded that the presidential order is not properly within the bounds of the so-called "presidential communications privilege." The judge went further, calling "troubling" the sweeping nature of the government's argument's in the case."This is not a case involving 'a quintessential and nondelegable Presidential power' — such as appointment and removal of Executive Branch officials...where separation of powers concerns are at their highest. Instead, the development and enactment of foreign development policy can be and is “exercised or performed without the President’s direct involvement," Huvelle wrote in her opinion.Huvelle noted that she ordered the document delivered to her under seal last month and said she disagreed with the government's contention that the order is "'revelatory of the President's deliberations' such that its public disclosure would undermine future decision-making." She also found that "'the President's ability to communicate his [final] decisions privately' ... is not implicated, since the [order] was distributed far beyond the President’s close advisers and its substance was widely discussed by the President in the media.""Here there is no evidence that the [directive] was intended to be, or has been treated as, a confidential presidential communication," wrote Huvelle, a Clinton appointee.The Obama Administration argued that the distribution of the document was restricted to those with a "need to know," but the judge dismissed that contention as "amorphous.""The government has not, even after plaintiff raised the issue...defined what 'need to know' means," Huvelle wrote.The judge also suggested the administration had lost sight of the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act and transparency itself."The government appears to adopt the cavalier attitude that the President should be permitted to convey orders throughout the Executive Branch without public oversight ... to engage in what is in effect governance by 'secret law,'" Huvelle said.The White House referred a request for comment on the ruling to the Justice Department, which did not immediately respond to a query about the case.http://www.politico.com/blogs/un...••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••Judge: NSA phone program likely unconstitutionalThe ruling is the first significant legal setback for the NSA’s surveillance program.A federal judge ruled Monday that the National Security Agency program which collects information on nearly all telephone calls made to, from or within the United States is likely unconstitutional.U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon found that the program appears to violate the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures. He also said the Justice Department had failed to demonstrate that collecting the information had helped to head off terrorist attacks.Acting on a lawsuit brought by conservative legal activist Larry Klayman, Leon issued a preliminary injunction barring the NSA from collecting so-called metadata pertaining to the Verizon accounts of Klayman and one of his clients. However, the judge stayed the order to allow for an appeal.“I cannot imagine a more ‘indiscriminate’ and ‘arbitrary invasion’ than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of querying it and analyzing it without judicial approval,” wrote Leon, an appointee of President George W. Bush.The preliminary injunction Leon granted Monday does not require him to make a definitive ruling on the constitutional questions in the case, but does take account of which side he believes is more likely to prevail.Leon’s 68-page opinion is the first significant legal setback for the NSA’s surveillance program since it was disclosed in June in news stories based on leaks from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. For seven years, the metadata program has been approved repeatedly by numerous judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and found constitutional by at least one judge sitting in a criminal case.The Justice Department persuaded those courts that the collection of information on the time and length of calls, as well as the numbers called, did not amount to a search under the Fourth Amendment because that information is routinely available to telephone companies for billing purposes and is shared with those firms voluntarily.Government lawyers and the judges who found the NSA program legal pointed to a 1979 Supreme Court ruling, Smith v. Maryland, which found no search warrant was needed by police to install a device which recorded the numbers dialed on a particular phone line.But Leon said the three-decade-old precedent was not applicable to a program like the NSA’s because of its sophistication and because telephone use has become far more intense in recent years.“The ubiquity of phones has dramatically altered the quantity of information that is now available and, more importantly, what that information can tell the Government about people’s lives,” the judge wrote. “I cannot possibly navigate these uncharted Fourth Amendment waters using as my North Star a case that predates the rise of cell phones.”The judge went on to conclude that the searches involved in the NSA metadata program were likely not permissible under the Fourth Amendment in part because there was little evidence the program has actually prevented terrorism.“I have significant doubts about the efficacy of the metadata collection program as a means of conducting time-sensitive investigations in cases involving imminent threats of terrorism,” Leon wrote. “The government does not cite a single instance in which analysis of the NSA’s bulk metadata collection actually stopped an imminent attack, or otherwise aided the Government in achieving any objective that was time-sensitive in nature.”Edward Snowden himself praised the decision.“I acted on my belief that the NSA’s mass surveillance programs would not withstand a constitutional challenge, and that the American public deserved a chance to see these issues determined by open courts. Today, a secret program authorized by a secret court was, when exposed to the light of day, found to violate Americans’ rights. It is the first of many.”The judge’s ruling was issued just before White House press secretary Jay Carney took the podium for the daily press briefing. Carney said he was unaware of the decision and he referred inquiries to the Justice Department.“We are reviewing the court’s decision,” DOJ spokesman Andrew Ames said.Similar lawsuits challenging the program are pending in at least three other federal courts around the country. In addition, criminal defendants are beginning to challenge the program after the Justice Department disclosed it had played a role in investigating their cases.Critics of the NSA program leapt on Leon’s decision as evidence that the legal foundation of the surveillance effort is deeply flawed.“The ruling underscores what I have argued for years: The bulk collection of Americans’ phone records conflicts with Americans’ privacy rights under the U.S. Constitution and has failed to make us safer,” Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) said in a statement urging passage of legislation ending the so-called bulk collection program. “We can protect our national security without trampling our constitutional liberties,” he added.At a hearing last month, Leon said he knew that his decision would be far from the last word on the issue, which is almost certain to wind up at the Supreme Court.However, he added some flair to his opinion Monday, referring at one point to the Beatles and at another to Federalist Papers author James Madison, who later became president.“Surely, such a program infringes on ‘that degree of privacy’ that the Founders enshrined in the Fourth Amendment. Indeed, I have little doubt that the author of our Constitution, James Madison, who cautioned us to beware ‘the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power’ would be aghast,” the judge wrote.http://www.politico.com/story/20...There is little doubt that the public's appetite for this level of overreach will help the Democrats position in the next two election cycles ('14 and '16), and this is central to this discussion here.CHAPTER TWOVarious other "phony scandals" according to President Obama that the American public is not buying.(1) Obama, without Congressional approval or consideration, unilaterally chose to specifically violate the oath of office (see quoted above) and by deferring the implementation of the ACA for the employer mandate did extend it by one year. This is a clear violation of the constitution.(2) The President did not seek Congressional approval to invade and subsequently overthrow the President of Libya.(3) CENSUS.gov Mess in 2012 where election was influencedByron's Blog: Which are the phony Obama scandals, and how do we know which is which? by Tom Byron on Tom Byron's Blog(4) IRS.gov Mess in 2014 where TEA Party was blocked from approvals.Malik Obama: The IRS and Health Care by Tom Byron on Tom Byron's BlogLois Lerner: Tom Byron's answer to The White House: What are examples of US administration officials having been rewarded in spite of their incompetence?(5) Healthcare.gov Mess since 2010Mandate or pay fine? NoKeep your doctor? NoKeep your insurance? NoKeep your hospital? NoKeep you drug plan? NoHigh deductibles? YesHigh policy premiums? YesCHAPTER THREERepublican alternatives that aren't anywhere nearly as many pages, nor as complex or intrusive as ACA:http://rsc.scalise.house.gov/upl...And also we have over 100 members of Congress now (Nov. 2013) that have co-sponsored it. And we had medical doctors who serve in Congress, like Dr. Phil Roe, help write this bill. This is a bill based on putting patients back in charge of their health care and lowering the cost and getting government out of health care decisions.http://m.cnsnews.com/news/articl...John Podesta will help Obama extend the President's executive power. Congress will become even more irrelevant.Why didn't Obama know about various issues? Podesta will help clear this problem by advising the Chief of Staff for Obama. No more secrets will be kept from the President!KEILAR: Obama was unable to. And with the window closing on his chance for second term achievements, Democratic sources tell CNN Podesta's expertise is much needed.As President Clinton's disciplined chief of staff, Podesta guided that White House through a sex scandal, impeachment and a war in Kosovo. He was known for cracking the whip, one former Clinton colleague telling CNN his co-workers made him a name plate. On one side, "John D. Podesta." http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANS...CHAPTER FOURBlacks used to be Republicans, but in the years since FDR, they have, sadly, become a group of voters the Democrats have exploited. If you are a Conservative Black in America, you get the full wrath of of the left. You get audited if you speak out (Dr. Ben Carson). http://touch.baltimoresun.com/#s...Additional reading on this topic.http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu...Compare the rhetoric of these politically active individuals and how the media treats them:Alan West v. Al SharptonJC Watts v. Jessie JacksonCondie Rice v. Sheila Jackson LeeREPUBLICANS NEED ANOTHER MARGARET THATCHER OR MAYBE ANOTHER RONALD REAGAN.