The Magazine Of The Institute Of Conservation May 2009 Issue 22: 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.

Maybe they could have Trump debate himself:“I have no intention of running for president.” (Time, September 14, 1987)“I am officially running for president.” (New York, June 16, 2015)“I don’t want it for myself. I don’t need it for myself.” (ABC News, November 20, 2015)“I wanted to do this for myself. … I had to do it for myself.” (Time, August 18, 2015)“I’m not a politician.” (CNN, August 11, 2015)“I’m no different than a politician running for office.” (New York Times, July 28, 2015)“If I ever ran for office, I’d do better as a Democrat than as a Republican—and that’s not because I’d be more liberal, because I’m conservative.” (Playboy, March 1990)“I’m a registered Republican. I’m a pretty conservative guy. I’m somewhat liberal on social issues, especially health care.” (CNN, October 8, 1999)“You’d be shocked if I said that in many cases I probably identify more as a Democrat.” (CNN, March 21, 2004)“Look, I’m a Republican. I’m a very conservative guy in many respects—I guess in most respects.” (The Hugh Hewitt Show, February 25, 2015)“I’m totally pro-choice.” (Fox News, October 31, 1999)“I’m pro-life.” (CPAC, February 10, 2011)“Look, I’m very pro-choice. I hate the concept of abortion. I hate it. I hate everything it stands for. I cringe when I listen to people debating the subject, but you still—I just believe in choice. … I am strongly for choice, and yet I hate the concept of abortion. … I am pro-choice in every respect … but I just hate it.” (NBC News, October 24, 1999)“I am very, very proud to say that I’m pro-life.” (Cleveland, Ohio, August 6, 2015)“I think the institution of marriage should be between a man and a woman.” (The Advocate, February 15, 2000)“If two people dig each other, they dig each other.” (Trump University “Trump Blog,” December 22, 2005)“It’s always good to do things nice and complicated so that nobody can figure it out.” (The New Yorker, May 19, 1997)“The simplest approach is often the most effective.” (Trump: The Art of the Deal, 1987)“My attention span is short.” (Trump: Surviving at the Top, 1990)“I have an attention span that’s as long as it has to be.” (Time, August 18, 2015)“I prefer to come to work each day and just see what develops.” (Trump: The Art of the Deal, 1987)“You can’t just sit around waiting for deals, opportunities, or a lucky break.” (Trump: Think Big, 2007)“I look at things for the art sake and the beauty sake and for the deal sake.” (New York magazine, July 11, 1988)“I’m just a fucking businessman.” (Fortune, April 19, 2004)“I do listen to people. I hire experts. I hire top, top people. And I do listen.” (Greenville, South Carolina, February 13, 2016)“I’m speaking with myself, No. 1, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things. … My primary consultant is myself.” (MSNBC, March 16, 2016)“Don’t think you’re so smart that you can go it alone.” (Trump: Surviving at the Top, 1990)“You must plan and execute your plan alone.” (Trump: Think Like a Billionaire, 2004)“I couldn’t be a one-man show …” (Trump: Surviving at the Top, 1990)“Think of yourself as a one-man army.” (Trump: Think Like a Billionaire, 2004)“I like (and dislike) all sorts of people—winners, losers, and those in the middle!” (Trump: Think Like a Billionaire, 2004)“You’ll find that when you become very successful, the people that you will like best are the people that are less successful than you, because when you go to a table you can tell them all of these wonderful stories, and they’ll sit back and listen. Does that make sense to you? Always be around unsuccessful people because everybody will respect you.” (De Pere, Wisconsin, March 30, 2016)“I surround myself with good people, and then I give myself the luxury of trusting them.” (Trump: Surviving at the Top, 1990)“My motto is ‘Hire the best people, and don’t trust them.’” (Trump: Think Big, 2007)“Surround yourself with people you can trust.” (Trump: How to Get Rich, 2004)“People are too trusting. I’m a very untrusting guy.” (Playboy, March 1990)“Expect the best from people.” (Trump: Think Big, 2007)“The world is a vicious and brutal place. We think we’re civilized. In truth, it’s a cruel world and people are ruthless. They act nice to your face, but underneath they’re out to kill you. … Even your friends are out to get you: they want your job, they want your house, they want your money, they want your wife, and they even want your dog. Those are your friends; your enemies are even worse!” (Trump: Think Big, 2007)“Small talk can be one of the best ways to educate yourself.” (Trump: Think Like a Billionaire, 2004)“I can’t stand small talk.” (Trump: The Art of the Deal, 1987)“Stay as close to home as possible. Travel is time-consuming and, in my opinion, boring—especially compared with the fun I have doing deals in my office. I can never understand people who say that if they had a lot of money they would spend their time traveling. It’s just not my thing.” (Trump: Surviving at the Top, 1990)“There’s no excuse for staying home; the world’s too fantastic to miss out on it. I wish I could travel more.” (Trump: Think Like a Billionaire, 2004)“Well, I read a lot … and over my life, I’ve read so much.” (The Hugh Hewitt Show, February 25, 2015)“I don’t read much. Mostly I read contracts, but usually my lawyers do most of the work. There are too many pages.” (Veja, February 2014)“I don’t have a lot of time for listening to television.” (New York Times, July 28, 2015)“I actually love watching television.” (The Hugh Hewitt Show, February 25, 2015)“I’m a thinker, and I have been a thinker. … I’m a very deep thinker.” (Palm Beach, Florida, March 11, 2016)“The day I realized it can be smart to be shallow was, for me, a deep experience.” (Trump: Think Like a Billionaire, 2004)“I really value my reputation and I don’t hesitate to sue.” (The Village Voice, January 15, 1979)“I don’t mind being criticized. I’ll never, ever complain.” (CNN, September 24, 2015)“If you can avoid an altercation, do so.” (Trump: Think Like a Billionaire, 2004)“If someone attacks you, do not hesitate. Go for the jugular.” (Trump: Think Big, 2007)“I don’t want to be provocative, and in many cases I try not to be provocative.” (Time to Get Tough: Making America #1 Again, 2011)“I do love provoking people. There is truth to that.” (BuzzFeed, February 13, 2014)“Sometimes, part of making a deal is denigrating your competition.” (Trump: The Art of the Deal, 1987)“If striving for wholeness means diminishing your competition, then your competition wasn’t much to begin with.” (Trump: Think Like a Champion, 2009)“You’ve gotta be nice.” (The New Yorker, May 19, 1997)“I do believe in hate when it’s appropriate.” (Trump: Surviving at the Top, 1990)“People who know me like me.” (New York, June 16, 2015)“Being on the other side of a relationship with someone like me must be difficult.” (People, May 19, 1997)“But there is nothing better than having a great marriage, in my opinion. There is nothing more beautiful, and there is nothing more important.” (CNN, March 21, 2004)“You marry for love, but your signature on the marriage certificate is all about rights, duties, and property. It’s a legally binding contract that knows nothing of love.” (Trump: Think Big, 2007)“I’m not the world’s happiest person.” (New York magazine, March 5, 1990)“I’m a very happy man.” (Forbes, October 1, 2009)Actually, it would be very entertaining to watch!

Q. Which presidents were not elected to serve a second term and why? What party were they affiliated with?George HW Bush: What makes a one-term president?The 10 One Term Presidents of the United States6 Little Words Helped Make George H.W. Bush (A 1-Term) PresidentThe most successful one-term presidentWhy George H. W. Bush Is America’s Greatest One-Term PresidentGeorge HW Bush: What makes a one-term president?Image copyright AFP/GETTYSince 1933, only three men have failed to secure a second term as presidentThe late George HW Bush was the last US president to lose a re-election campaign. What sets single-term presidents apart?George Herbert Walker Bush was a war hero, a congressman, an ambassador, the head of the CIA, Ronald Reagan's number two and, between 1989 and 1993, the most powerful man in the world.He also enjoyed a more dubious distinction - membership of the small group of sitting presidents who have stood for re-election and lost.Since 1933, only Bush, Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford have been beaten in a general election while occupying the White House.Image copyright Getty IMAGESIn modern US politics, incumbent presidents tend to win re-electionEvery other incumbent president - including Bush's son, George Walker Bush, who served from 2001 to 2009 - has been endorsed by the public when they have stood on their party's ticket.It is a quirk of no small significance in a nation where eras are defined in the popular imagination by their presidents - from the thwarted promise of John F Kennedy's early 1960s to the cynicism and paranoia of the Nixon years and the thrusting optimism of Ronald Reagan's 1980s.For voters and historians alike, the question of whether the head of state serves just four or the maximum eight years has huge symbolic value.Donald Trump will be under pressure to run again and retain power come to the 2020 election.In a 2010 ranking of all 44 presidents by 238 eminent scholars for Siena College Research Institute, there were no single-term presidents in the top 10.The highest-rated incumbent to have been defeated in a re-election campaign was John Adams in 17th place. Kennedy, in 11th place, was assassinated a year before he could return to the polls and James K Polk, in 12th, did not seek a second term.Why do presidents serve two terms?Image copyright Getty IMAGESBush served "four more years" under Ronald ReaganSince World War Two, eight sitting US presidents have been re-elected to serve a second term, while only three have failed in a general election.The presidency offers an unrivaled platform to attract airtime, raise campaign funds and set the policy agenda.Sitting presidents, too, tend to escape bruising battles for their party's nomination - although not George HW Bush, who faced a grueling primary challenge for his place on the Republican ticket from Pat Buchanan.In addition, they have the rare ability to make a compelling claim - that they know what it is like to take decisions from inside the Oval Office."People feel some comfort knowing who is going to be in charge, even if they don't love that person," says Julian E Zelizer, professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University.This carries added contemporary significance after Barack Obama's two terms.Obama's own historical legacy appeared to be as important an election issue as any other, to both the president and his opponents alike, ahead of the 2012 ballot.Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell famously declared in 2010 that his "number-one priority" was to make Obama, a Democrat, a "one-term president".In the same year, Obama himself told Diane Sawyer of ABC News: "I'd rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president."Defenders of Bush, the 41st president, put him in the former category.His time in office coincided with the fall of the Berlin Wall and his popularity soared in the wake of the first Gulf War.However, a protracted economic recession on his watch saw him break a pledge not to raise taxes, provoking fierce hostility from within his own Republican party. With Ross Perot, a third-party candidate, splitting the vote in the 1992 election, Bush's attempts to win re-election were thwarted by the charismatic Bill Clinton.Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, believes Bush was a victim both of timing and the US's system of fixed-term presidencies."Margaret Thatcher could call an election to capitalize on the Falklands War, but George HW Bush couldn't do that to capitalize on the first Persian Gulf War," Sabato says."If he could have done that, he would have won."Image copyright GETTY IMAGESGeorge and Barbara Bush in the 1960sGeorge HW Bush: a political life1966: Wins seat in House of Representatives1971: Nixon installs him as UN ambassador1974: Heads newly established mission in Beijing1976: Ford makes him CIA director1981-1989: Ronald Reagan's vice-president1989-1993: President of the US; leads the US into first Gulf War; copes with the collapse of communism in Eastern BlocFor Sabato, recent one-term presidents have been the victim more of adverse circumstances than of their own weaknesses.Carter was unfortunate enough to take office at a time when the global economy was in turmoil while Ford - who assumed office after Nixon's impeachment - only had two and a half years to make an impact, Sabato insists."Events put them in a bad position at the wrong time," he says.It's a perspective that is flatly rejected by Robert W Merry, author of Where They Stand: The American Presidents in the Eyes of Voters and Historians.In a democracy the customer - that is, the voter - is usually right, Merry argues.He notes that with only a handful of exceptions - Grover Cleveland, John Quincy Adams - defeated presidents are rarely judged more favorably by historians than by the electorate which rejected them."The American people are very unsentimental in their judgments," he says. "If you look back at one-term presidents, it's pretty hard to miss the reality that their performance was not quite there."Presidents get the blame and they get the credit. I'm uncomfortable with the idea that they are innocent bystanders."As a result, he has little time for any suggestion that Bush was under-appreciated by the American public."I think he was a fine man, but he was an in-basket president," Merry says. "He responded to stimuli that came to him. He didn't have an agenda to change America in any particular way."Certainly, Franklin D Roosevelt, Reagan, and Obama all inherited economies in dire straits and all won re-election.What is not in doubt is that, in an average year, an incumbent enjoys significant advantages over a challenger in a US election, thanks to the visibility and prestige of their office.But that raises the question of what difference a second term actually makes, in practice, to a president's legacy.Image copyright THE WHITE HOUSEOne-term father, two-term sonRe-elected presidents are, of course, freed from the requirement to face the voters again, which may offer them some leeway. The very fact they have been endorsed twice at the polls can enhance their authority.But they face the same institutional barriers and separation of powers as in their first four years - the mid-term elections, the need to win Congress's support for legislation."The president has some more leeway to make decisions in a second term, but they begin to lose their starch," says Zelizer."You find fewer people who are willing to take a job in their administration for a two-year tenure. It's harder to maintain forward momentum."As a result, he says, the defining policies of most presidents tend to occur in their first term.In Sabato's view, George HW Bush should not be regarded as a one-term president but as the president who spearheaded a three-term dynasty."He had a son who served two terms and served them only eight years after his own," he says."I don't think there's any question they viewed it as a personal vindication of the 1992 defeat."And given the unpopularity of George W Bush when he left office, it would appear that many people may believe Bush Senior's one term made him a better president than his two-term son.The 10 One Term Presidents of the United Statesby Tom Murse Updated June 04, 2018There have been nearly a dozen one-term presidents who ran for second terms but were denied by voters, but only three one-term presidents since World War II. The most recent one-term president who lost his re-election bid was George H.W. Bush, a Republican who lost to Democrat Bill Clinton in 1992.Is four years enough time for new presidents to prove themselves to be Commanders in Chief worthy of being elected to a second term? Considering the complexity of the congressional legislative process, it can be hard for a president to enact real, visible changes or programs in only four years. As a result, it is easy for challengers, like Clinton, in defeating incumbent George H. W. Bush, to ask Americans, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?”Who are the other one-term presidents in the history of the United States? Who are the other modern one-term presidents? Why did voters turn their backs on them? Here's a look at America's one term presidents - those who ran for, but lost, re-election - through history.George H.W. BushHulton Archive / Getty ImagesRepublican George H.W. Bush was the 41st president of the United States, serving from 1989 to 1993. He lost a campaign for re-election in 1992 to Democrat William Jefferson Clinton, who went on to serve two full terms.Bush's official White House biography describes his re-election loss this way: Despite unprecedented popularity from this military and diplomatic triumph, Bush was unable to withstand discontent at home from a faltering economy, rising violence in inner cities, and continued high deficit spending. "In 1992 he lost his bid for reelection to Democrat William Clinton."Jimmy CarterBettmann / Contributor / Getty ImagesDemocrat Jimmy Carter was the 39th president of the United States, serving from 1977 to 1981. He lost a campaign for re-election in 1980 to Republican Ronald Reagan, who went on to serve two full terms.Carter's White House biography blames several factors for his defeat, not the least of which was the hostage-taking of U. S. embassy staff in Iran, which dominated the news during the last 14 months of Carter's administration. "The consequences of Iran's holding Americans captive, together with continuing inflation at home, contributed to Carter's defeat in 1980. Even then, he continued the difficult negotiations over the hostages."Iran released the 52 Americans the same day Carter left office.Gerald FordDavid Hume Kennerly / Hulton ArchiveRepublican Gerald R. Ford was the 38th president of the United States, serving from 1974 to 1977. He lost a campaign for re-election in 1976 to Democrat Jimmy Carter, who went on to serve one term."Ford was confronted with almost insuperable tasks," his White House biography states. "There were the challenges of mastering inflation, reviving a depressed economy, solving chronic energy shortages, and trying to ensure world peace." In the end, he could not overcome those challenges.In reality, Gerald Ford never even wanted to be president. When President Richard Nixon’s vice president Spiro Agnew resigned in 1973, Ford was appointed vice president by Congress. When President Nixon later resigned rather than face impeachment for his involvement in the Watergate scandal, Ford—who had never run for the office—ended up serving as president for the remainder of Nixon’s term. “I am acutely aware that you have not elected me as your president by your ballots, and so I ask you to confirm me as your president with your prayers,” Ford found himself having to ask the American people.Herbert HooverStock Montage / Getty ImagesRepublican Herbert Hoover was the 31st president of the United States, serving from 1929 to 1933. He lost a campaign for re-election in 1932 to Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt, who went on to serve three full terms.The stock market crashed within months of Hoover's first election in 1928, and the United States plunged into The Great Depression. Hoover became the scapegoat four years later."At the same time he reiterated his view that while people must not suffer from hunger and cold, caring for them must be primarily a local and voluntary responsibility," his biography reads. "His opponents in Congress, who he felt were sabotaging his program for their own political gain, unfairly painted him as a callous and cruel President."William Howard TaftStock Montage / Getty ImagesRepublican William Howard Taft was the 27th president of the United States, serving from 1909 to 1913. He lost a campaign for re-election in 1912 to Democrat Woodrow Wilson, who went on to serve two full terms."Taft alienated many liberal Republicans who later formed the Progressive Party, by defending the Payne-Aldrich Act which unexpectedly continued high tariff rates," Taft's White House biography reads. "He further antagonized progressives by upholding his secretary of the interior, accused of failing to carry out [former President Theodore] Roosevelt's conservation policies."When the Republicans nominated Taft for a second term, Roosevelt left the GOP and lead the Progressives, guaranteeing the election of Woodrow Wilson.Benjamin HarrisonStock Montage / Getty ImagesRepublican Benjamin Harrison was the 23rd president of the United States, serving from 1889 to 1893. He lost a campaign for re-election in 1892 to Democrat Grover Cleveland, who went on to serve two full terms, though not consecutively.Harrison's administration suffered politically after a substantial Treasury surplus evaporated, and prosperity seemed about to disappear as well. The 1890 congressional elections swept in Democrats, and Republican leaders decided to abandon Harrison even though he had cooperated with Congress on party legislation, according to his White House biography. His party renominated him in 1892, but he was defeated by Cleveland.Grover ClevelandStock Montage / Getty Images*Democrat Grover Cleveland was the 22nd and 24th president of the United States, having served from 1885 to 1889, and 1893 to 1897. So he doesn't technically qualify as a one term president. But because Cleveland is the only president to serve two non-consecutive four-year terms, he holds an important place in U.S. history, having lost his initial bid for re-election in 1888 to Republican Benjamin Harrison."In December 1887 he called on Congress to reduce high protective tariffs," his bio reads. "Told that he had given Republicans an effective issue for the campaign of 1888, he retorted, 'What is the use of being elected or re-elected unless you stand for something?'"Martin Van BurenStock Montage / Getty ImagesDemocrat Martin Van Buren served as the eighth president of the United States, serving from 1837 to 1841. He lost a campaign for re-election in 1840 to Whig William Henry Harrison, who died shortly after taking office."Van Buren devoted his inaugural address to a discourse upon the American experiment as an example to the rest of the world. The country was prosperous, but less than three months later the panic of 1837 punctured the prosperity," his White House biography reads."Declaring that the panic was due to recklessness in business and overexpansion of credit, Van Buren devoted himself to maintaining the solvency of the national Government." Still, he lost re-election.John Quincy AdamsStock Montage / Getty ImagesJohn Quincy Adams was the sixth president of the United States, serving from 1825 to 1829. He lost a campaign for re-election in 1828 to Andrew Jackson after his Jacksonian opponents accused him of corruption and public plunder - "an ordeal," according to his White House biography, "Adams did not easily bear."John AdamsStock Montage / Getty ImagesFederalist John Adams, one of America's Founding Fathers, was the second president of the United States, having served from 1797 to 1801. "In the campaign of 1800 the Republicans were united and effective, the Federalists badly divided," Adams' White House biography reads. Adams lost his re-election campaign in 1800 to Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson.Don’t feel too sorry for one-term presidents. They get the same nice presidential retirement package as two-term presidents including a yearly pension, a staffed office, and several other allowances and benefits.In 2016, Congress passed a bill that would have cut the pensions and allowances given to former presidents. However, President Barak Obama, soon to be a former president himself, vetoed the bill.And Perhaps Lyndon Johnson?President Lyndon B. Johnson Signs the Voting Rights Act. Bettmann / Getty ImagesWhile President Lyndon B. Johnson served for six years, from 1963 to 1969, he could actually be considered a one-term president. Elected as President John F. Kennedy’s vice president in 1960, Johnson became president through succession after Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963.Elected to his own first term in 1964, Johnson succeeded in convincing Congress to pass many of his Great Society proposals for sweeping social domestic programs. However, under growing criticism for his handling of the Vietnam War, Johnson stunned the nation with two surprise announcements on March 31, 1968: he would cease all U.S. bombing of North Vietnam and seek a negotiated end to the war, and he would not run for reelection to a second term.Updated by Robert Longley6 Little Words Helped Make George H.W. Bush (A 1-Term) PresidentRON ELVINGVice President George H.W. Bush accepts the Republican nomination for president in 1988. In that speech, he laid out a promise that he would later break, hurting his chance at re-election and changing his party.Rarely have six words meant so much, and so many different things, to so many.They rang out in the Superdome in New Orleans in August 1988 as the vice president of the United States, George H.W. Bush, accepted the Republican nomination for president:"Read my lips: no new taxes."And the crowd, as they say, went wild. A roar had been building, even in that vast and airy stadium, as Bush built up to his payoff line:"My opponent won't rule out raising taxes. But I will. And the Congress will push me to raise taxes, and I'll say no. And they'll push, and I'll say no, and they'll push again, and I'll say, to them, 'Read my lips: no new taxes.' "There were other memorable moments in that address, drafted by a speechwriter for President Ronald Reagan named Peggy Noonan. The soon-to-be-famous "thousand points of light" were mentioned, along with a reference to a "kinder and gentler nation." Both would follow George H.W. Bush for the rest of his life.POLITICSWhat We All Forget (If We Ever Knew) About The Political Career of Bush 41But it was the "read my lips" quip that ignited the convention and caught the attention of the media. Tough-guy talk was not Bush's usual métier. It was far more associated with Reagan, the movie actor, who, as a politician, borrowed from film scripts from time to time. A few years earlier, Reagan had delighted his fans by quoting from a Clint Eastwood movie, where a cop with a very large gun taunted a criminal crawling toward a weapon nearby:"Go ahead," said Dirty Harry. "Make my day."So when Reagan was confronting Democrats and other "tax increasers" in Congress, he lifted that line to dramatize his veto threat.YouTubeWhere the phrase came from"Read my lips" sounded like a movie, but it wasn't from one of Clint's. William Safire researched the phrase for his column for the New York Times Sunday Magazine. Safire was a lexicographer as well as a political columnist and former speechwriter for President Richard Nixon.He found the first widely public use of the phrase in a song title in 1957 (by Joe Greene) and later in a 1978 album title (by singer Tim Curry) and several song titles in the 1980s. It then migrated into the world of sports and sports clichés, from which it was a short leap to political speech.A Reagan aide used it in 1981 about the release of American hostages held by Iran, and even by Sen. Al Gore of Tennessee used it in congressional questioning.Safire concluded, the phrase simply meant "Listen closely" or "Get this straight."What was important, though, was that it sounded tough. Bush, all too often, did not. In fact, his campaign had suffered from a perception problem regarding his virility.Newsweek had pictured the former World War II fighter pilot and college baseball player on a boat on its cover with the headline, "Fighting the 'Wimp Factor.' " That's something the editor of that article now says he was wrong about, but in the 1988 campaign, it was a narrative that stuck — and Bush's principal task of his New Orleans convention speech was to dispel that image tout suite.George Bush wades through a crowd in Houston after his victory speech in the 1988 presidential election.Mike Spague/AFP/Getty ImagesIt helped ... then probably hurt"Read my lips" succeeded, probably beyond their fondest dreams. Polls showed that after the convention, Bush had a lead over Democrat Michael Dukakis. But if it improved Bush's chances of being elected that year, it may also have ruined his chances of being re-elected in 1992.That was because less than two years after making the no-tax pledge, Bush found himself in circumstances in which he no longer felt he could keep it. Locked in budget negotiations with the majority Democrats in the House and Senate, Bush felt he had to allow higher rates on some existing taxes or the Gramm-Rudman deficit-reduction bill would shut down important services of the government.So he signed off on a compromise involving revenues as well as spending restraints. Democrats exulted at having forced him to renege. Conservatives seethed. A young Newt Gingrich, elevated to the No. 2 spot in the House Republican leadership the previous year, made no secret of his displeasure. He insisted any option was preferable to any new revenue.That position helped inspire a major Republican challenger to Bush's renomination in 1992. He was Patrick Buchanan, a former communications director for Reagan and a familiar commentator on TV. He announced his campaign for president in December 1991, saying he was running "because, we Republicans, can no longer say it is all the liberals' fault. It was not some liberal Democrat who said, 'Read my lips: no new taxes,' then broke his word to cut a seedy backroom budget deal with the big spenders on Capitol Hill."Reagan and Bush had won two landslides on a platform that was anti-communist, anti-abortion and anti-tax. Global events had greatly diminished the communist threat by 1990, and Bush devoted little of his time and energy to the abortion issue. That left taxes, and for Bush to abandon that citadel as well was an outrage to many on the right. Buchanan gave Bush enough heartburn in the early primaries that the president actually apologized for his tax shift in several interviews in the spring of 1992.But whether he would have done differently in retrospect is another question. In July 1990, the federal government was taking on a new obligation to bail out those harmed in the collapse of the savings and loan industry. The annual budget deficit was already $200 billion a year, and the cumulative national debt had grown from $1 trillion in 1980 (when Reagan and Bush were first elected) to $2.7 trillion.NPR POLITICS PODCASTIn that same month, the economy was slipping into a recession that was sure to reduce revenues. And Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was about to invade neighboring Kuwait, which would trigger the first Persian Gulf War.Bush knew the time had come to get the nation's fiscal house in order, or something like it. His 1990 compromise began a decade of relatively responsible budgeting that, combined with moves made by the Clinton administration in 1993, enabled the federal government to harvest considerable revenue from the personal computer boom of that decade.As the year 2000 approached, the stock market was booming and the annual budget deficit was nearing zero. Nonetheless, the risk Bush knowingly took with the budget deal turned out to be worse than he realized. He fought off the Gingrich critique and the Buchanan challenge and was renominated in 1992. But he received less than 38 percent of the popular vote in November.The winner was Clinton, who profited from depressed GOP turnout with nearly one-fifth of the popular vote going to a third-party candidate, businessman H. Ross Perot, who ran against the budget deficit and the national debt.The most successful one-term presidentGeorge H. W. Bush “gave the nation its most successful one-term presidency.” He “was the best one-term president the country has ever had, and one of the most underrated presidents of all time.”So said two not impartial sources — the late president’s vice president, Dan Quayle, and his Houston friend and secretary of state, who was with him at the end, James Baker. But their assessments are entirely defensible.The toughest one-term competitor to Bush has to be James K. Polk, who achieved all four of his goals — gaining the Oregon Territory and the Pacific Coast, establishing an independent Treasury, and lowering tariffs. But Polk’s acquisitions left the country with a problem — slavery in the territories — that it wasn’t able to solve without civil war. He left his successors a nation and world headed toward broad sunlit uplands.Ryan Zinke leaves Trump administration amid Justice Department investigationPolk was the original “dark horse” presidential candidate, and when George H.W. Bush started running for president in the 1980 cycle, he was, too — a successful oilman who had lost two Senate races and in between served two terms in the House.His brief campaign autobiography minimized, perhaps with his characteristic modesty, the value of his experience in appointive office. As ambassador to the U.N., he was not clued in on Richard Nixon’s opening to China; he was unaware of the Cultural Revolution while serving 13 months in Beijing; he was CIA director for just 11 months. But his network of friends and cousins — all those notes dashed off on stationery! — propelled him to victories in the Iowa caucuses, Northeastern primaries, and second place on Ronald Reagan’s ticket.Bush probably, as he said at Reagan’s funeral, learned more about issues and certainly about world leaders as vice president than he had ever known before. The result was his masterful navigation as president of choppy currents and sudden storms: uniting Germany but not humiliating Mikhail Gorbachev after the Berlin Wall fell; assembling an international coalition and winning the Gulf War.This despite his pushing against disassembling existing structures — the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia. They unraveled anyway, but mostly peacefully. It’s useful to have a steady balance wheel in a time of revolutionary upheaval.On domestic policy, he was more of an innovator than people think. The teenager who signed up to be a Navy pilot and the young husband who left leafy Greenwich for the desert wastes of West Texas oilfields pushed successfully for policies others hadn’t considered.Such as the Americans with Disabilities Act. This wasn’t a handout but, like the G.I. Bill which paid his tuition at Yale, opened opportunities for people to help themselves.The 1990 Clean Air Act was perhaps the last authentically bipartisan environment initiative. The FIRREA law mopping up the savings and loan mess was costly, producing one-third of the budget deficit, but also necessary and self-liquidating.Liberal journalists who have been praising Bush this week ridiculed him as a clueless preppie whose success was handed down to him — absurd given the risks he took in the Pacific and Texas. They’re still attacking him as a racist for his 1988 campaign ads that accurately attacked his opponent for defending for nine years the policy of granting weekend furloughs for prisoners sentenced to life without parole — a policy for which there is no rational argument.So why was this mostly successful president defeated resoundingly for a second term? One reason is that he broke his “read my lips” promise and agreed with Democrats to raise taxes. The tax increase fueled enthusiasm for Pat Buchanan’s insurgent primary campaign. And the NAFTA trade deal with Mexico — another original Bush initiative — helped Ross Perot make a different conservative case against him.But one other factor, I suspected then and believe now, was decisive: I think Bush was ready to retire. He had accomplished most of his goals, including some that had seemed impossible. He had enlisted in the Navy exactly 50 years before and spent more than 20 of the intervening years in public service.He had been elected president at age 64, older with one exception than all but three other past presidents when first elected (Harrison, Buchanan, Taylor) and two when re-elected (Jackson, Eisenhower). But the exception was conspicuous: Ronald Reagan, who had just carried 44 and 49 states at ages 69 and 73.In politics, success can be as fatal as a failure. Achieve some original bipartisan goals and neither party may want you anymore. Demonstrate mastery of foreign policy and voters may conclude they don’t need it anymore. Gracefully retire and Americans may gratefully if belatedly give thanks, as they have this past week.Why George H. W. Bush Is America’s Greatest One-Term PresidentBy David MarcusDECEMBER 6, 2018As we reflect upon the life and presidency of George H. W. Bush, it is only natural to wonder where he falls in the pantheon of our 45 presidents. These kinds of rankings are subjective and capricious, but nonetheless enjoyable and perhaps useful in helping us think about what we want from a president.As we look back over Bush’s four years in office, the decades have shined up the diamond. At his funeral yesterday, the speakers spoke of his myriad successes and accomplishments. After this most recent examination of his term, there appears to be a strong argument that H. W. Bush was the most successful one-term president in American history.Twenty-two of our 45 presidents have served only one term. For my purposes, I am only considering those who were not assassinated and who lost re-election after serving their first term. No Harry Truman, no John F. Kennedy, and no Lyndon Baines Johnson. That still leaves a few contenders.The ContendersTruly great men have been one-term presidents. John Adams, without whom we might still have kings and queens on our money, was a one-term president. But his was a presidency mired in political strife and controversy and, frankly, some illiberal tactics that make Trump calling the press the enemy of the people look like one of those CNN apples and banana ads. A great man is not always a great president.When I posited last night on Twitter that a strong argument could be made for Bush being the greatest one-term president I discovered an unfound corner of the Internet. Apparently, James Polk Twitter is a real thing, and these folks aren’t kidding. Almost every response I received was from a conservative claiming Polk is the greatest one-term president. I barely remembered that he’d been a president.Yes, Polk presided over the vast expansion of the United States from sea to shining sea. We may owe America the beautiful in some way to Polk, but surely we also owe him in no small part the Civil War. Polk created a tinderbox without thinking to provide water buckets. Ten years after H. W. Bush’s presidency, the United States was the global hegemonic superpower. Ten years after Polk’s, it was mired in a bloody battle it was lucky to survive.Another contender is William Howard Taft. He did, after all, fill six — count them, six — Supreme Court vacancies. He continued Teddy Roosevelt’s anti-corporate crusades. He had a fairly successful presidency that probably should have earned him a second term. But not unlike Bush, he faced a third-party candidacy, from that same Teddy Roosevelt and his new Progressive Party. Eighty years later, Ross Perot and the Reform Party would derail Bush in much the same way.The Case For BushFew presidents have ever been inaugurated into a world as dangerously in flux as Bush was. Certainly Abraham Lincoln. But the closer analogy is Truman. Truman took power as the United States was successfully completing World War II. In accomplishing that, he became the only man to ever launch a nuclear strike. Afterward, he had to help create a new Europe, one divided, in which a wall bifurcated Germany.H.W. Bush was president when that wall fell. Today we look back and think, Hey, we won the Cold War, great job, everybody. But we forget that suddenly thousands of nuclear weapons were under the control of a post-Soviet government about as well-organized as a Marx Brothers routine. Meanwhile, who knows what the future of Germany was to be? Was that really a gang we wanted to get back together? He healed the world with his kind and gentle soul. And we take that for granted far too much.H. W. Bush, the former head of the CIA and former ambassador to the United Nations, was the right man at the right time. As former Canadian prime minister Brian Mulroney made clear in his eulogy yesterday, Bush was absolutely essential in creating a new world order. Whatever you think of that, it has not plunged the world back into global war.In domestic policy, Bush ushered through the Americans with Disabilities Act, creating improved access to services and facilities for millions of Americans. This legislation sent the message that America is for everyone, that doors will not be closed. It was a piece of legislation that is still improving the lives of many Americans and making us a better country.Why He LostIf he was so good, why did he lose? Two and a half words: H. Ross Perot. Whether Perot cost Bush the 1992 election is a political science question for the ages. Well, I’m here to tell you, Perot cost Bush the election. Perot is without question the most overlooked and ignored political figure of the late 20th century. He and his Reform Party tapped into a constituency that never went away.Both parties ignored this faction, who were skeptical of globalism, immigration, and foreign adventures. Neoliberalism was the tonic that crafted the hairdos of both parties. But the Reformists lingered. They were enough to knock Bush out of office in ’92, but they weren’t enough to win until Donald Trump grafted the Reform agenda onto the GOP and defeated his son.Whether the Reform Party coup over the Republican Party is a good thing is an argument for another day. Maybe Bush and his sons are the last Republicans of their ilk. I doubt it. Time will tell.One thing seems clear: No one-term president had as smooth, successful, and meaningful a presidency as did George Herbert Walker Bush. It may be a dubious honor, but maybe not. Bush did what he thought was right, even when it meant going back on his sacred word about taxes. He did what he thought was right, and usually, it was. For Bush, one term should be enough to list him among the great presidents. We would be lucky to see his like again.David Marcus is the Federalist's New York Correspondent and the Artistic Director of Blue Box World, a Brooklyn based theater project. Follow him on Twitter, @BlueBoxDave.