Moore Middle School 2013 2014 August 2, 2013 August 7, 2013: Fill & Download for Free

Answer will be lengthy but worth it.First you need to know about US-CHINA relations.On Dec 5,2018 in Washington DC the United States and the world marks the passing of President Bush Senior.President Bush Snr. was a truly remarkable President. For those of us engaged in the business of the world—the first Gulf War, the end of the Cold War, and the reboot of the U.S.-China relationship in the early 90s after the implosions of 1989—President Bush Snr. was a truly remarkable American, and a truly remarkable American President. And we honor him this day.Over the last twelve months, much of Asia has been turned on its head through the new dynamics we have witnessed in U.S.-China relations and on North Korea. It was only 12 months ago that the U.S. and North Korea appeared to be on the verge of armed conflict as “rocket man” was threatened by President Trump with “fire and fury” over the North’s continued nuclear weapons program. Twelve months later, President Trump and President Kim appear to be the best of friends following their historic summit in Singapore, and despite the fact that there seems to have been negligible substantive progress on denuclearization, the thaw in inter-Korean relations has been unprecedented.Twelve months ago, President Trump had just returned from his state visit plus to Beijing, where it seemed Trump’s anti-Chinese rhetoric of the 2016 campaign had finally been put to bed. But 12 months later, China and the U.S. are now in the middle of a still unresolved trade war, while the Administration has declared America’s 40-year long era of strategic engagement with China is now over and a new period of strategic competition has begun.Twelve months ago, the American, European and Chinese economies and markets were roaring. Whereas 12 months later, they are beginning to slow, albeit for different reasons, causing concerns about the sustainability of long-term growth, employment and income levels.If a week is a long time in politics, in international politics and economics, a year is an eternity. And China remains a dominant driver in all three of these major unfolding changes. During the course of this year, we have all been wrestling with three big questions: how is China changing under Xi Jinping; how is America changing under Donald Trump; and to what extent have the traditional moorings of the U.S.-China relationship of the last 40 years now been severed, in which case what, if anything, can now anchor the relationship into the future?In other words, are we now as Graham Allison warns us, now “destined for war”—either cold, medium or hot? Or is a new strategic equilibrium now possible between the two, based on a new common strategic narrative for the relationship which can be shared and observed in both capitals? The truth is, these are genuinely hard questions. There force us to think clearly about one another through the fog of perception and misperception. They force us to think clearly about our values, our interests and our identity. And they force us to think through carefully what is essential, what is non-essential, where should there be compromise, and what should remain contestable.I do not intend to try to answer all these questions today because they require further thought, although I am deeply conscious of the fact that they must be analyzed and answered soon. That’s because we are now in potentially dangerous terrain - some sort of “no man’s land” between one set of strategic assumptions about each other that have stood for several decades, and a brave new world where everything may be up for grabs.Over the last twelve months, we have, however, made a start in a series of addresses aimed at analyzing core aspects of the collective challenge we are facing. In March I spoke at West Point on the question of what does Xi Jinping want, while in June at the Lee Kuan Yew School in Singapore I began to analyses the Marxist origins of Xi’s emerging worldview. In September I spoke on America’s response to Xi Jinping though a new declaratory doctrine of strategic competition and posed a series of questions for U.S. policymakers as they seek to operationalize that strategy. I’ve also spoken in Silicon Valley on what strategic competition might look like if allied to a high technology war between the two countries. And most recently in Jakarta I’ve sought to analyze what this emerging strategic cleavage between Washington and Beijing means for South East Asia which has become the new “great game” for strategic influence, as ASEAN itself continues to hedge against a rising China and what is perceived to be an indifferent, uncertain and potentially unreliable America. We need also to analyze other regions within a similar frame: including Africa, Eurasia, the Middle East, South Asia, and Latin America. There are commonalities but differences across them all which we need to understand.In my remarks today, part of the same series, I want to look at the state of the relationship at year’s end in the aftermath of the Buenos Aires Summit; the impact of the continuing trade war on China’s unfolding domestic economic policy debate and where that may lead in the future; as well as what are the prospects for the overall U.S.-China relationship for the year ahead. I’m always challenged by Henry Kissinger who enjoins us in strategic analysis to understand first and foremost what we are seeing. And to ask ourselves also what we are not seeing. All before going onto the critical question of policy of what then is to be done.The Buenos Aires SummitWhat Presidents Trump and Xi Jinping did in Buenos Aires was buy time. Three months’ worth in fact. Which is good when measured against the alternative, which was a full-blown trade and broader economic war between the two countries starting next month. Which in turn had the potential to trigger a further collapse in global market sentiment, particularly coming on the back of other negative trends emerging in both the U.S. and Chinese domestic economies. But even from those of us who have been arguing publicly that on balance a deal of some sort between the Chinese and the Americans was more probable than not: one swallow doth not a summer make. Much can still unravel. Both Trump and Xi have indeed bought valuable, though limited, time for themselves and the world. But for a number of different reasons.To begin with, there are five, complex baskets of policy disagreements to work through. First, the current annual $370 billion bilateral trade deficit needs to be reduced. Then there are the possible cuts to tariff rates themselves. The Chinese average tariff rate currently stands at about 9.8% compared with an American average tariff rate at 3.4%. Then there are those industry sectors that are most politically sensitive in each economy, led by agriculture: Republican-voting farmers in the U.S., matched by China’s historical paranoia over national grain self-sufficiency. Then there are the three hardy perennials: intellectual property protection; forced technology transfer (an American term) and the use of the full resources of the Chinese state to support China’s stated national industrial strategy (Made in China 2025) to dominate global advanced technology markets and product standards by 2030. These three are the really ugly ones. Setting a deadline of 1 March 2019 to resolve these five problems is smart. Particularly if it’s driven hard by the prospect of a further working-level summit with Trump and Xi later in March, although I note that a number of trade professionals have argued that 90 days is so ambitious that it’s unrealistic and sets both sides up for failure.This 90-day pause also serves Trump and Xi in other ways. By March, Trump will have a fuller idea of the lay of his domestic economic and political landscape. He will then know the extent of any significant softening in the economy already induced by monetary policy tightening by the Fed, and the extent to which the American economy could then sustain further tariffs should the efforts of Chinese and American officials have come to naught. On the political front, the Mueller investigation should also have reported by March. If the results of the investigation are seriously bad for Trump, then we should be alert to the possibility of Trump having a renewed interest post-Mueller in doubling down against China—if in fact he is found then to have been compromised in his dealings with Russia. That certainly would be an “X factor” that our Chinese friends are worried about.March, however, also presents Xi and his chief economic advisor Liu He with opportunities of their own. On the international front, March might enable Xi to take a bold trade message to Davos in January, should he decide to go. China has sought to mobilize global sentiment in support of its efforts to uphold the global economic and environmental order. A major Chinese announcement on trade liberalization across the board, not just on a bilateral basis with the U.S., could indeed take the world by storm. It would also send a stark signal to the world on the 40th anniversary of the Chinese economy’s “reform and opening up”. And that indeed could represent a serious new challenge to American global leadership.Furthermore, a serious commitment to trade liberalization from Beijing, accompanied by the underlying message of competitive neutrality between foreign firms and domestic firms, as well as between private firms and state-owned enterprises, would reinforce Liu’s valiant efforts in recent months to re-prosecute the full implementation of China’s stalled “phase two” economic reform program first announced in 2013. This is something that China desperately needs for its own economic interestsThis takes us to the core question of the organic relationship between any concessions that China might offer the United States' trade and economic negotiators bilaterally, and those things that Chinese economic reformers understand needs to be done in any case domestically, if indeed the economy is to be able to have strong, sustainable growth into the future.China’s Changing Domestic Economic NarrativeThose who follow the Chinese economy closely understand the significance of the economic reform blueprint first released by Xi Jinping’s administration in November of 2013. This came earlier in his period in office. After a fierce internal debate in its preparation, agreement was finally reached on its central organizing principle that: “the market play the decisive role in resource allocation.” The decision incorporated 60 different reform measures covering ten broad categories of trade, cross-border investment, state-owned enterprise reform, competition policy, financial system reform, fiscal policy, innovation policy, labor, environment, and land reform. This was a conscious effort by China’s economic leadership at the time to transform China’s historical economic growth model over the previous 35 years to what became then universally known as “the new model”.The old model, as we are all familiar, was based on two pillars: labor intensive, low-cost manufacturing for export; reinforced by high levels of public investment in national economic infrastructure. The new model was based on three pillars: high levels of domestic consumption; private sector-driven innovation following the completion of the SOE-driven infrastructure build; and third, a sustainable development revolution.Implementation began in 2014-15 but the party’s confidence in the market was dealt a body-blow by the implosion of Chinese equity markets, and broader financial markets, in August 2015. From that time on, as we at the Asia Society Policy Institute have tracked throughout our China economic dashboard, the pace of implementation of the reform program slowed drastically and in most areas ground to a complete halt. Harsh capital controls were also imposed on China’s capital account, making it much more difficult for private firms to expand their operations abroad. At the same time, because of legitimate fears about the size of China’s debt to GDP ratio, driven in large part by an out-of-control shadow banking sector, as well as ballooning local government debt, the central government began a national deleveraging campaign which over the last several years has also resulted in credit being withdrawn indiscriminately from otherwise profitable private firms. At the same time, Chinese SOEs had been given a new lease of life where the national deleveraging campaign has had less effect on SOEs than their private sector counterparts.Furthermore, there has been the rolling impact of China’s anti-corruption campaign has fundamentally slowed government decision-making processes as officials sought to protect themselves from political exposure, which meant that the private sector-driven development projects also began to slow significantly. To this was added Xi Jinping’s emphasis on the central role of the party and the primacy of ideology, resulting in an enhanced role for party secretaries operating within private firms. And on top of all the above, there has been considerable confusion as to the precise implications of China’s so called “mixed ownership model” – whether it was an invitation for private firms to absorb poorly-performing public trading enterprises; or whether in fact it was creating a fresh opportunity for SOEs to “nationalize” well-performing private firms.All these factors had been unfolding across the Chinese economy over several years prior to the beginning of the U.S.-China trade dispute in the first half of 2018. The net effect of all of the above has been a growing number of anecdotal reports pointing to the significant slowing of Chinese economic growth during 2018 with private sector firms, concerned about an increasingly adverse policy environment, refraining to invest in further expansion of their enterprises, either at home or abroad. By the time the annual leadership retreat occurred at Beidaihe in August this year, reports had begun to come in from across the country that China was facing a serious domestic crisis of private sector business confidence with potentially profound implications for future growth.From Adversity Springs Opportunity: Competition Policy ReformIt was about at this time that those who have long understood the continuing imperatives of China’s market economic reform agenda saw an opportunity emerging out of adversity – namely to bring about the next wave of competition policy reform within the Chinese economy by opening China to more foreign competition, thereby lifting long term productivity growth. It will be recalled that competition policy reform had long been a key component of the original 2013 national economic blueprint, but had been allowed to slide.The need for a more effective competition policy was particularly felt within China’s poorly performing financial services sector. In any efficient market economy, the effective allocation of capital across competing corporate needs, based on the business case advanced by would-be borrowers, and the associated risk taken on by lenders, is fundamental to sustainable economic growth. By contrast, China’s financial services industry has developed inefficiently, despite the growing number of domestic private players within it, because capital allocation decisions are driven less by market considerations than by political or administrative necessity.China’s economic reformers are fully seized of the dimensions of this problem in the heart of the Chinese financial system. The reformers see the future lying not just in bringing China’s grossly indebted second-tier banks and SOEs back within reasonable borrowing limits from their previous borrowing and lending habits. They equally recognize the structural importance of introducing market disciplines for capital allocation decisions for the future. In other words, it’s not just the matter of cleaning up decisions from the past. It’s also about creating a functioning market framework for the future so that scares financial capital is allocated rationally, and corporate debt burdens do not simply blow out once again.Chinese reformers also see the greater introduction of wholly-owned foreign financial institutions into the Chinese domestic market as being a new way of grafting these market disciplines into the Chinese system. This differs qualitatively from previous Chinese approaches to allow limited foreign financial institutional participation within China – where foreign presence has largely been limited to minority stakes in second tier banks with the limited policy objective of Chinese banking officials “learning” how Westerners do these things, before eventually asking said Westerners to leave. The alternative approach is to fundamentally shake up the Chinese system from the top down, by introducing large-scale foreign competitors across the breadth of the financial services industry in order to force Chinese firms to be more efficient.This year, for example, we have seen a number of foreign investment limitations eased for entry into China’s $45 trillion financial services sector. These have included:Foreign investment limits in securities companies and mutual funds were raised to 51% in April and set on a three-year path to allow full foreign control. Indeed last Friday, UBS became the first foreign securities firm to be approved for majority ownership, with applications from JPMorgan and Nomura in process.Foreign insurance firms are now to be allowed a controlling 51% ownership of domestic insurers as of May this year. And German insurer Allianz was approved to be the first wholly-owned foreign insurance company on November 25. French firm AXA has quickly followed, purchasing the outstanding share of their previous joint venture on November 26.Foreign ownership limits on banks and other debt managers were also removed in August. Previously foreign firms were limited to 20% as a single entity, or 25% as a group. To-date, however, no foreign firms have applied to use the new regulations.Additional Support for the Private SectorFinancial services reform, driven by increased foreign participation is one thing. Wider reforms to promote China’s somewhat beleaguered private sector have also been forthcoming. On 19 November, the State Administration of Taxation issued a policy note outlining 26 concrete measures centered on reducing the tax burden for private firms. According to the State Administration of Taxation, these were not yet fully utilized. Nonetheless, in the most recent quarter, there were over 143 billion RMB (21 billion USD) in tax deductions for Chinese SMEs, a 41% increase from third quarter last year.Beyond these various reform measures, there have also been recent announcements from the central government aimed at improving credit availability to Chinese firms. The party secretary of the PBOC on 7 November outlined the new so-called “1-2-5” policy.This was a directive for at least 1/3 of new corporate loans from large banks to be extended to private firms;At least 2/3 of new loans from small and medium size banks; andOver the next three years, for at least 50% of all new corporate credit across the banking system to be extended to the private sector.First Steps Toward a New Chinese Political Economy?To repeat: the key to the success of this newly emerging political economy in China is the extent to which China’s economic reformers are able to develop a domestic political narrative within the party and the country which explains any “external concessions” to the U.S. Administration as necessary internal reforms to undergird China’s long-term economic growth prospects.This is a tough challenge given that over the last several years at least, Xi Jinping’s political center of gravity has lain elsewhere – namely his predilection for a stronger party, stronger politics, and a more nationalist posture. Nonetheless, it seems that Xi Jinping has now had a large encounter with economic reality - Chinese-style. Namely that the Chinese private sector really matters! Furthermore, if this economic policy correction continues, basically from left to right, then this may turn out to be a seminal period of reform indeed.There are grand precedents in recent Chinese history for such economic policy corrections to occur. Barely three years after Tiananmen, Deng Xiaoping undertook his famous Southern Expedition, where he told China to redouble its efforts in economic reform and opening to the world. And China did. Five years later Jiang Zemin, in the midst of the Asian financial crisis said to China’s emerging entrepreneurial class to “go out into the world”. And they did. Five years after that, Zhu Rongji in 2002 secured China’s admission into the WTO, heralding the next phase of China’s economic reform program, including China’s emergence as the global export superpower it has since become.It may well just be that we are witnessing a policy redirection of a similar order of significance with what is unfolding now. Certainly a careful reading is warranted of Xi Jinping’s speech of September 27 on the economy; Vice Premier Liu He’s of October 19 on the private sector, and perhaps most significantly of all Liu He’s comprehensive statement on China’s future economic direction outlined in his address to the Hamburg economic forum in late November on the eve of the G20 summit.Of course, many things can go wrong with all of this. Policy momentum may stall.Chinese bureaucrats may simply hedge their bets and sit on their hands. Even worse, they may simply resort to the vast array of non-tariff barriers at their disposal to undermine the letter and the spirit of reforms to China’s overall trade and investment policy environment on the ground. And beyond all that, China’s private sector, still facing significant restrictions on the capital account, may not respond positively to what the party and the government are now telling them to do, on the grounds that there is too much policy and regulatory unpredictability for them to have sufficient confidence to invest in the future.That’s why it will be critical to see China’s emerging data on private fixed capital investment to see whether Chinese firms have bought the Chinese leadership’s new policy message, thereby unlocking a further period of reform, opening, and sustainable economic growth.Prospects for 2019Against this general economic background, what then are the prospects for the U.S.-China relationship for 2019? By March, it’s probable that there will be an agreement between China and the United States on the quantum of bilateral trade deficit reduction and the import decisions that China will make to bring that about over time. As for tariff reform by March, that is possible, although the degree of technical difficulty remains significant. If it’s a tariff line by tariff line approach, given the multiplicity of tariffs which currently apply to the overall trading relationship, this may well blow out way beyond March. If however Chinese economic reformers take a more dramatic approach by committing to zero tariffs over time, and challenging the Americans to do likewise, that would be precisely the sort of measure which could be announced relatively rapidly. It would, however, run totally against the grain of half a century of training of Chinese trade bureaucrats to give away nothing if at all possible—let alone be seen to “give away everything” in one fell swoop.The reform of so-called forced technology transfer, within the contractual arrangements between Chinese and American enterprises, should be relatively straight forward. This, however, is different to how contractual arrangements may be interpreted on the ground, even in the absence of any specific technology transfer provisions. Intellectual property protection is deeply problematic. Not only are there traditional forms of commercial espionage. There is now cyber espionage as well. Previous agreements reached under the Obama Administration could be reconstituted. But the critical problem remains jurisdictional enforcement of breaches if and when discovered. One possible mechanism for building confidence is for all relevant contracts between Chinese and foreign firms to be made subject to international commercial arbitration regimes located in either Singapore or Switzerland. These could be designed in a manner to specifically deal with IP protection. The recourse to international commercial arbitration is now relatively common around the world. If China objected, it might also be possible to develop China’s own domestic international commercial arbitration system. But for foreigners to have confidence in this system would require China to appoint qualified foreigners to its panel of arbitrators. Other countries already do this. China could do the same. But in the absence of an independent Chinese legal system, even in the commercial law, this would seem logically to be the only way through this continuing thorn in the side of the relationship.On China’s use of state subsidies in support of its national plan for domestic and international high technology market domination, it is difficult to identify any readily available solution. The uncomfortable reality is that all countries use varying levels of government support for their indigenous technology industries. Even if we were to mandate a maximum proportion of state support for a given firm (either by way of state R&D support or other related tax breaks) the problem would invariably arise as to how all of this is measured. I am not therefore confident of a negotiated outcome in this area. America may simply need to outcompete “China at its own game” in terms of a radical increase in public investment in research and development across the full spectrum of information technology and biotechnology sectors. The major public universities would, I’m sure, welcome this with open arms.As indicated above, we should also not rule out the possibility in 2019 of China pitching any tariff reforms that it is prepared to implement to resolve the U.S.-China trade war to the wider international community as well. We should not rule out the possibility, for example, that if China was to undertake something dramatic—like a commitment to zero tariffs over time—that such a commitment would not just be made on the basis of reciprocal actions by the United States, but by all WTO member states. Indeed, this would represent and almost irresistible geopolitical opportunity for China to champion global free trade and to arrest the global trend towards protectionism that currently threatens the wider global economy. Furthermore, we should not rule out the possibility that China approaches TPP 11 member states to negotiate possible accession to the TPP. This would comprehensively outflank the United States within the Asia Pacific region. It would also turn out to be supremely ironic that a TPP originally designed by the Obama Administration as part of its Pivot to Asia, ended up including China but not the U.S. itself. China, when it sees a political and market opening, can be remarkably fleet-of-foot. The technical negotiations would, of course, be formidable. But there is already evidence of a softening in traditional Japanese reservations towards possible Chinese accession as evidenced during Prime Minister Abe’s recent visit to Beijing.On the wider foreign policy and security policy front, 2019 is likely to see China increasingly pull its head in. There is already evidence of a normalization in relations with Tokyo. The Japanese Coastguard has published data already indicating a radical reduction in the frequency of Chinese incursions into the Senkaku/Diaoyudao area in the East China Sea. China is also seeking to de-escalate tensions with the ASEANs over the South China Sea through an intensification of its negotiation of a “code of conduct”. Although maritime incidents with the United States have continued to be sharp. And may well get sharper if the United States implements a more vigorous campaign of Freedom of Navigation Operations in the coming year. China has also sought to de-escalate tensions with India following the bilateral summit with Prime Minister Modi in Wuhan in April 2018. That is likely to continue through the Indian national elections due in 2019. China may also begin to moderate its posture towards Taiwan during 2019 given the remarkably poor results of the DPP in the most recent Taiwanese local government elections.This, of course, would change radically if the United States proceeds, as is likely, with a further significant arms sale to Taiwan.Across Eurasia, the Belt and Road Initiative continues to be implemented. But for those observing China closely, the BRI now attracts considerably less political fanfare within China, at least over the last several months. It’s still too early to tell. But already there is a debate underway in Beijing about revising certain BRI modalities. The Sri Lankan case looms large in the mind of the Chinese official class. So too does the long-term affordability of this multi-trillion dollar project. We may therefore be seeing less Chinese triumphalism over the BRI on 2019 than we’ve seen the last couple of years.Common to all these adjustments in the year ahead is a general tactical approach that until such time as China is able to finally bed down the fundamentals of its trade, investment, and economic relationship with the United States, it is wise for China to reduce tensions between Beijing and other countries and regions of the world.As for China’s engagement in the wider international system during the course of 2019, China is likely to continue to be the new-found champion of the WTO. It is also likely to sustain its posture on global climate change action which it agreed to under the Paris Accord. In other words, China is likely to use the period ahead to consolidate and expand its role within the existing institutions of international governance, rather than the continued construction of new institutions of international governance that lie outside the UN and the Bretton Woods system.Of course, the BRI and the AIIB will continue. But there may well be a parallel reduction in the global profile attached with China’s more recent institutional innovations. Among some of the more sober minds in the Chinese foreign policy establishment, it’s better to focus instead on the existing machinery of the global rules-based system, particularly when the United States is demonstrating systematic contempt for those very same institutions.Taken together, these are nonetheless likely to represent tactical rather than strategic shifts in China’s overall posture towards both the United States, third countries, and the wider international system. China is likely to use 2019-20 to form a deep judgment about what happens to the future of U.S. politics. Will Trump be derailed by Mueller? What will China policy be like if Trump is weakened by Mueller? Would Pence be even more hard-line than Trump on China? And would a Democratic Party candidate, if successful in 2020, adopt an equally hard-line strategy towards Beijing, and if so, how would it differ from the Republicans?On these big strategic questions, the Chinese system moves deliberately slowly. It seeks to analyze carefully the operating environment in which Chinese strategy and tactics are deployed. And while China’s leadership has already concluded that there is indeed a deep shift in American attitudes to China, they are still uncertain as to what precise shape and form this will take in the future. Tactically, therefore, China is likely to seek to buy time to reach these conclusions. And in the meantime, to de-escalate tensions wherever possible, both with Washington and other capitals, while China seeks to reach a more fundamental judgment about America’s future strategic direction and political resolve.This is consistent with China’s predilection for the long term, rather than the short. At present, China sees Trump as being a problem for the next two years for China, possibly not longer, before being replaced by another political leader with different priorities. Whereas China equally assumes that Xi Jinping will be leading China not just for another two years, but probably another ten. Or even more.ConclusionAs I said at the outset, we are dealing with profoundly complex questions. Indeed it is historically unprecedented to be in the midst of a debate about whether the world’s largest economy and oldest continuing democracy, can happily co-exist with the world’s second-largest economy and oldest continuing civilization, given that the latter has never exhibited in its history any attraction to liberal democratic norms. But grapple with the debate we must. And resolve it we must as well. One way or the other.This is despite the fact that we must do so in the midst of an increasingly polarized debate in both countries about the other. Americans believe China is stealing their future. They are angry. They have finally woken up and are fighting back. The Chinese, whether they are on the right or the left of their own debate, believe that the Americans are now deliberately containing China because Americans cannot cope with the idea of ever being number two. Particularly if number one happens to be Asian.The debate is, therefore, a highly charged one. Which is why we need to be careful about the manner in which it is conducted in both our countries. In America, as in other countries, I am concerned about the rise of “neo-McCarthyism” in a debate which conflates concerns about the actions of the Chinese party and state on the one hand, with the actions and attitudes of Chinese Americans on the other.The recent report on foreign interference in the United States and a number of other countries is a case in point. Foreign interference, from whichever country, is an entirely legitimate subject for debate. After all, that’s why democracies have laws, courts, law enforcement agencies, the intelligence services and other institutions preserving the careful set of checks and balances guarding our civil liberties as well as protecting us against internal and external threats to our security. That’s why the best solution to questions of foreign interference lies in a policy of full transparency on the part of any institutions receiving foreign funding. It’s when things are done in secret that we should be particularly concerned.But that’s also why it’s critical to constrain the terms of the debate so that the patriotism of Chinese Americans is not brought into question. I’m concerned that in the current febrile political environment this could occur. I presume that’s why the recent report on foreign interference in this country has attracted dissenting submissions from among its authors, namely Susan Shirk.Having read Susan’s dissent, I support her reflection. I have also noted Bill Bishop’s observation about the title of the report and its conflation of the Chinese Communist Party with the simple word “Chinese”, capable as Bill says of sparking anti-Chinese sentiment in general.So as we advance this hard debate on this country’s future with China, let us learn from the events of the last Cold War, Joe McCarthy and his committee on un-American activities. This debate requires full candor. Not a show trial. We are all better than that."India and China Will Catch Up with the United States."With his prognoses on international politics he has become one of the most influential authors in the United States. The British historian, Paul Kennedy, from Yale, is considered to have been one of the brains behind the Clinton era. Thoughts on India and China as future super powers, the likelihood of military conflicts, the poker-player Vladimir Putin and the unrecognised strengths of the Europeans.Kosmos: Professor Kennedy, in your bestsellers "The Rise and Fall of The Great Powers" (1988) and "Preparing for the Twenty-First Century" (1993) you voiced concern about imperial overstretch of the United States as well as about global environmental issues. Given global warming, no one would argue with you about the latter. However, your forecast about America's dark future as a superpower has not come true. What makes you think that the current US government should still be concerned about its decline?Kennedy: First of all, we are not talking about immediate collapse of the US but about a long-term process of relative decline. A great power needs a long time to decline. The Ottoman empire took 300 years. But there are signs.Kosmos: What signs?Kennedy: International opinion has swung against the US. The attractiveness of the US Dollar has gone. The competitiveness of certain key industries like automobiles has gone. Daimler selling off Chrysler is not just economic news, it's also symbolic. The US allowed a massive build-up of very large budget, borrowing and trade deficits leading to an increasing dependency upon Asian nations to bail America out each month through purchase of treasury bonds. It's hard to think that will go on forever. This means dependency, and that's the first sign of overstretch. If the two giant countries of China and India continue to grow at eight or ten percent a year for the next few decades, they will catch up with the United States which is growing at two or three percent. That will mean shift s in the power balance. India and China will be able to pay for greater influence in world affairs and also, crudely, in military establishments.Kosmos: Will industrial growth alone do the trick for China?Kennedy: The fact that so many foreign businessmen and CEOs and heads of state feel that they have to go to Delhi or especially now to Beijing is only one indicator. Another indicator for Chinese awakening is its foreign policy. China discovers Africa. Just before last Christmas, the Chinese President Hu Jintao made three long visits to African states and signed trade agreements about oil and timber. Just before that, the Chinese government invited leaders of 43 African states to an African conference in Beijing while the US were too busy in Iraq to even notice what was happening.Kosmos: What risks are there for India and China on their way up?Kennedy: I am a bit sceptical of visitors to China and India who just visit Mumbai, Shanghai or Hong Kong and then say: Wow, that's the future! In India, in particular, the levels of rural poverty and the gap between rich and poor are widening. There is a rise of ethnic and religious intolerance and murders across India which have shot up in the past five years. And the Chinese government is clearly frightened about massive unemployment in the inner provinces and also very real environmental dangers. They have colossal domestic problems. It's not just inevitable that they grow at eight or ten percent every year and everybody gets richer. When gaps open up in society and internal tensions increase it's quite tempting for the leadership to divert attention to the foreign devils.Kosmos: Could the fall of the old empire and the rise of new ones lead to military conflicts?Kennedy: I am afraid that military conflicts are more likely than unlikely. The fi rst indicator is the pretty terrible relationship the USA has got itself into vis-à-vis the Muslim world, or at least the radical parts of the Muslim world, radical parts which not only want to hurt America and Europe but want, of course, to overthrow the governments of Saudi Arabia and Egypt to attack Israel. Secondly, we have an increasing vulnerability of the West for energy supplies, now made worse by the increasing vulnerability of China and India for energy supplies, too. A struggle for energy is already beginning. It would be surprising if there were not actual physical conflicts over control of petroleum supplies. Thirdly, Europe seems to think that naval power is not important to national policy. Why is it that the Chinese, the Japanese, the Indian and even the South Korean naval budgets are going up and up? In Asia a naval race is going on. Under these circumstances, it is pretty hard to stop some clash at sea turning into deeper trouble.Kosmos: What will be the role of Europe in this scenario? As a military power it is rather toothless.Kennedy: Admittedly, Europe has no unified foreign policy and it has no unified defence forces. The best it can do are some Franco-German joint brigades or British-Netherlands naval operations. It doesn't have much influence on the military sphere. But in the economic sphere Europe has enormous influence. It negotiates through the World Trade Organisation as a single trading block. And Europe has increased its share in the field of soft power attractiveness. Th e Europeans do a lot more in terms of aid to Africa. And they are way ahead of the US in issues of global warming. Europe has terrific strengths.Kosmos: But it has difficulties in playing them out. Recently we saw a Russian President who did not seem to be impressed by the Europeans at all. Is this a sign of new Russian strength?Kennedy: For many years all that the Russian State could do was to reduce the army and the navy. You still see dozens of rusting old Soviet warships. With the rise of oil prices and with the advantage going to Mr. Putin's poker game, he is now saying that they will be putting additional money into modernising the Russian armed forces, including the rocket forces. It now looks as if Russia's strong foundation is the high price of natural gas and petroleum. If that was to come down, which is possibly unlikely, he'd be weakened. Whereas Europe has a variety of strengths - from high technology to cultural influence to strong trade balances. Russia has a single natural resource as its strength. It is also dependent upon energy even though it is an energy exporter. The future, therefore, hangs very much on the sustainability of stable government - not necessarily democratic liberal government - on the one hand and the continuation of the flow of additional moneys to the central treasury on the other - which has allowed Russia, for instance, to start modernising its railway system and its subways. You can do an awful lot when the price of oil has gone up two or three times.Kosmos: As an historian, you tend to think rather long-term. However, would you dare to make a prognosis about the state of US foreign policy and its war against terror in four years time?Kennedy: It would completely surprise me if in four years time there was still a US army troop of 165,000 soldiers on the ground in Iraq. Public opinion is against it, the junior officers in the army are resigning as fast as they can and even George W. Bush's Republican buddies are trying to get out of it. And I think that the US could actually strengthen itself by getting out of Iraq. A critic of General de Gaulle said it would be dreadful for France to withdraw from Algeria. In fact, it freed de Gaulle to play a much more prominent role in the world and in Europe. Nixon was freed by getting out of Vietnam. He could do the diplomacy which divided China and Russia. The British were freed when they got out of India and Palestine. They could make much more of a commitment to NATO. Possibly the best argument to off er those who say we have to stay in, is that by staying in, you give advantages not just to the Iranians and the Muslim enemies; but you give Mr. Putin a big advantage and you give the Chinese government a big advantage. They want you to stay in Baghdad. And that's a strong argument to get out.Kosmos: Your books and you yourself are said to have influenced the Clinton administration. How did this reputation as one of the important minds behind Clinton grow?Kennedy: That is much exaggerated. I think it was one of my publishers who got it all pretty well wrong. I met Clinton in spring of 1988 when "The Rise and Fall of Th e Great Powers" was a very controversially discussed bestseller. I was asked to address the meeting of the Council of American State Governors which Clinton attended. At that time, he was the Governor of Arkansas. Sometime in the middle of that conference I was stopped by a lot of young and shiny American students. They were all on Clinton's staff and would later go with him in the Presidential campaign. They had copies of my book and said, "Oh, Mr. Clinton has told us all to read it and that it's terribly important, so can you sign it for us." From that incident, I think, grew a sort of legend that I was a kind of eminence grise for the Democrats. It might be good if you could cut that myth.

Carlos Ray "Chuck" Norris (born March 10, 1940) is an American martial artist, actor, film producer and screenwriter. After serving in the United States Air Force, he began his rise to fame as a martial artist, and has since founded his own school, Chun Kuk Do.Norris appeared in a number of action films, such as Way of the Dragon, in which he starred alongside Bruce Lee, and was The Cannon Group's leading star in the 1980s.[3][4]He played the starring role in the television series Walker, Texas Ranger from 1993 until 2001.Norris is a devout Christian and politically conservative. He has written several books on Christianity and donated to a number of Republican candidates and causes. In 2007 and 2008, he campaigned for former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who was running for the Republican nomination for president in 2008.[5]Norris also writes a column for the conservative website WorldNetDaily.[6]Since 2005 Norris has been widely associated with an internet meme which documents fictional and often absurd feats associated with him.Contents[hide]1Early life2Martial arts career3Acting career3.1Rise to fame3.2Walker, Texas Ranger4Product endorsements5Appearances6Chun Kuk Do7Personal life7.1Family7.2Christianity7.3Martial arts and personal fitness8Activism8.1Philanthropy8.2Political views9Honors10Internet meme11Filmography12References13Further reading14External linksEarly lifeNorris was born in Ryan, Oklahoma on March 10, 1940,[7]to Wilma (née Scarberry) and Ray Norris, who was a World War II Army soldier,[8]a mechanic, bus driver, and truck driver.[9]Norris has stated that he has Irish and Cherokee roots.[3][8][10]Norris was named after Carlos Berry, his father's minister.[8]He has two younger brothers, Wieland (1943–1970; killed in Vietnam) and Aaron (a Hollywood producer). When Norris was sixteen, his parents divorced,[11]and he later relocated to Prairie Village, Kansas, and then to Torrance, California, with his mother and brothers.[3]Norris has described his childhood as downbeat. He was nonathletic, shy, and scholastically mediocre.[12]His father, Ray, worked intermittently as an automobile mechanic, and went on alcohol drinking binges that lasted for months at a time. Embarrassed by his father's behavior and the family's financial plight, Norris developed a debilitating introversion that lasted for his entire childhood.[13]He joined the United States Air Force as an Air Policeman (AP) in 1958 and was sent to Osan Air Base, South Korea. It was there that Norris acquired the nickname Chuck and began his training in Tang Soo Do (tangsudo), an interest that led to black belts in that art and the founding of the Chun Kuk Do ("Universal Way") form.[14]When he returned to the United States, he continued to serve as an AP at March Air Force Base in California.Norris was discharged in August 1962. He worked for the Northrop Corporation and opened a chain of Karate schools including a storefront school in his then-hometown of Torrance on Hawthorne Boulevard. Norris' official website lists celebrity clients at the schools; among them Steve McQueen, Chad McQueen, Bob Barker, Priscilla Presley, Donny Osmond and Marie Osmond.[15]Martial arts careerNorris in 1976Norris was defeated in his first two tournaments, dropping decisions to Joe Lewis and Allen Steen and three matches at the International Karate Championships to Tony Tulleners. By 1967 Norris had improved enough that he scored victories over the likes of Lewis, Skipper Mullins, Arnold Urquidez, Victor Moore, Ron Marchini, and Steve Sanders. Norris would be a two-time winner at S. Henry Cho's All American Championship.[16]In early 1968, Norris suffered the tenth and last loss of his career, losing an upset decision to Louis Delgado. On November 24, 1968, he avenged his defeat to Delgado and by doing so won the Professional Middleweight Karate champion title, which he held for six consecutive years.[11]In 1969, he won Karate's triple crown for the most tournament wins of the year, and the Fighter of the Year award by Black Belt magazine.Norris made history in 1990 when he was the first Westerner in the documented history of Taekwondo to be given the rank of 8th Degree Black Belt Grandmaster.[17]In 1999, Norris was inducted into the Martial Arts History Museum's Hall of Fame. On July 1, 2000, Norris was presented the Golden Lifetime Achievement Award by the World Karate Union Hall of Fame.Acting careerNorris on the set of the film The Delta Force (1986)Rise to fameIn 1969, Norris made his acting debut in the Dean Martin film The Wrecking Crew. At a martial arts demonstration in Long Beach, Norris met the martial artist Bruce Lee. In 1972, he acted as Lee's nemesis in the movie Way of the Dragon (titled Return of the Dragon in its U.S. distribution), which is widely credited with launching him toward stardom. In Asia, Norris is still known primarily for this role. In 1974, McQueen encouraged him to begin acting classes at MGM.Norris' first starring role was 1977's Breaker! Breaker!, and subsequent films such as Good Guys Wear Black (1978), The Octagon (1980), An Eye for an Eye (1981), and Lone Wolf McQuade (1983) proved his increasing box office bankability.In 1984, Norris starred in Missing in Action, the first of a series of Rambo-inspired POW rescue fantasies themed around the Vietnam War POW/MIA issue that were produced by Israeli cousins Menahem Golan and Yoram Globus and released under their Cannon Films banner. Norris later dedicated these films to his younger brother Wieland. Wieland, a private in the 101st Airborne Division, had been killed in June 1970 in Vietnam while on patrol in the defense of Firebase Ripcord.[18]The film, however, was criticized heavily as being a preemptive cash-in on the Rambo film series.[19][20]Over the next four years, Norris became Cannon's most prominent star, appearing in eight films, including Code of Silence, The Delta Force, and Firewalker, in which he co-starred with Academy Award winner Louis Gossett, Jr.. Many of the aforementioned films were produced by Norris' brother Aaron Norris, as were several episodes of Walker, Texas Ranger. In 1986, he was involved in the production of the Ruby-Spears cartoon Karate Kommandos.After an 8 year layoff, he starred in the 2012 sequel to The Expendables.In October 2014, he revealed that he would be shooting a new film, The Finisher, in March 2015.[21]Walker, Texas RangerBy the end of the 1980s, Cannon Films had faded from prominence, and Norris' star appeal seemed to go with it. He reprised his Delta Force role for MGM, which had acquired the Cannon library after the latter's Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Norris went on to make several more films before making a transition to television.[22]In 1993, he began shooting the series Walker, Texas Ranger, which lasted eight seasons on CBS and continued in syndication on other channels, notably the Hallmark Channel.On October 17, 2005, CBS premiered the Sunday Night Movie of the Week, Walker, Texas Ranger: Trial by Fire. The production was a continuation of the series, and not scripted to be a reunion movie. Norris reprised his role as Cordell Walker for the movie. He has stated that future Walker, Texas Ranger Movie of the Week projects are expected; however, this was severely impaired by CBS's 2006–2007 season decision to no longer regularly schedule Movies of the Week on Sunday night.Product endorsementsNorris has appeared with Christie Brinkley in a long-running series of cable TV infomercials promoting Total Gym home fitness equipment. Norris has also appeared in a commercial for Mountain Dew.In 2010, Norris appeared in advertisements for communications company T-Mobile in the Czech Republic.[23]In 2011, Norris appeared in advertisements for the World of Warcraft video game.[24]In 2012, Norris appeared in a series of commercials for the Polish bank BZ WBK.[25]Chuck NorrisStyleChun Kuk Do, Tang Soo Do, Taekwondo, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, JudoRank10th degree black belt Chun Kuk Do9th degree black belt Tang Soo Do8th degree black belt Taekwondo5th degree black belt in Karate3rd degree black belt in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsublack belt JudoAppearancesAt the 1994 edition of Survivor Series, he was the special outside enforcer for the casket match rematch between The Undertaker and Yokozuna. He was the enforcer to ensure that nobody interfered in the match.Chun Kuk DoMain article: Chun Kuk DoNorris created the martial art Chun Kuk Do, which is based primarily on Tang Soo Do and includes elements from every combat style he knows. Like many other martial arts, Chun Kuk Do includes a code of honor and rules to live by. These rules are from Norris' personal code. They are:[26]I will develop myself to the maximum of my potential in all ways.I will forget the mistakes of the past and press on to greater achievements.I will continually work at developing love, happiness and loyalty in my family.I will look for the good in all people and make them feel worthwhile.If I have nothing good to say about a person, I will say nothing.I will always be as enthusiastic about the success of others as I am about my own.I will maintain an attitude of open-mindedness.I will maintain respect for those in authority and demonstrate this respect at all times.I will always remain loyal to my God, my country, family and my friends.I will remain highly goal-oriented throughout my life because that positive attitude helps my family, my country and myself.Personal lifeNorris receiving the Veteran of the Year award by the U.S. Air Force in 2001Norris during a meeting with Commanding Officer Captain J.R Haley, in June 2005Norris during a promotion ceremony at Camp Taqaddum in the Al Anbar province of Iraq on November 2, 2006FamilyNorris married Dianne Holechek in 1958. In 1963 their first child, Mike, was born. His daughter Dina was born in 1964 out of an extramarital affair.[27]Later, he had a second son, Eric, with his wife in 1965. After 30 years of marriage, Norris and Holechek divorced in 1988.On November 28, 1998, he married former model Gena O'Kelley, 23 years Norris' junior. O'Kelley had two children from a previous marriage. She delivered twins on August 30, 2001: Dakota Alan Norris, a boy, and Danilee Kelly Norris, a girl.[28]On September 22, 2004, Norris told Entertainment Tonight's Mary Hart that his daughter Dina was the result of an extramarital affair. He did not meet her until she was 26, although she learned that he was her father when she was 16. She sent a letter informing him of their relationship. After meeting her, Norris said he knew she was his daughter upon seeing her.[29]In 2005, Norris reported in his autobiography that his mother gave birth to him when she was 18 years old.Norris has nine grandchildren.[30]ChristianityAn outspoken Christian,[31]Norris is the author of several Christian-themed books, such as The Justice Riders. He has also been in a few TV commercials promoting Bible study and prayer in public schools, in addition to efforts to reduce drug use. In his WorldNetDaily columns, he has expressed his belief in Biblical creationism,[32]that those who are troubled should turn to Jesus, and is quoted as saying "true patriots" do not stay clear of discussing religion and politics.[33]On April 22, 2008, Norris expressed his support for the intelligent design movement when he reviewed Ben Stein's Expelled for Conservative news, politics, opinion, breaking news analysis, political cartoons and commentary.[34]Martial arts and personal fitnessNorris has received a black belt in Brazilian jiu-jitsu from the Machado family.[35]In his February 15, 2010 WorldNetDaily column, Norris announced that, starting in the fall of 2010, he will begin a second weekly column for Creators Syndicate. This new column, "C-Force", will focus on personal fitness.[36]ActivismPhilanthropyHe is known for his contribution towards organizations such as Funds for Kids, Veteran's Administration National Salute to Hospitalized Veterans, the United Way, and the Make-A-Wish Foundation in the form of donations as well as fund-raising activities.[37]His time with the U.S. Veterans Administration as a spokesperson was inspired by his experience serving the United States Air Force in Korea. His objective has been to popularize the issues such as Pensions and Health care, that concern hospitalized war veterans. Due to his significant contributions, and continued patriotism, he received the Veteran of the Year award in 2001 at the American Veteran Awards.[37]Norris also established the United Fighting Arts Federation and Kickstart Kids in 1990. As a significant part of his philanthropic contributions, the organization was formed to develop self-esteem and focus in at-risk children as a tactic to keep them away from drug-related pressure by training them in martial arts. Norris hopes that by shifting middle school and high school children's focus towards this positive and strengthening endeavour, these children will have the opportunity to build a better future for themselves.[37][38]In 2005, Norris founded the World Combat League (WCL), a full-contact, team-based martial arts competition, of which part of the proceeds are given to his Kickstart Kids program.[37]Additionally, Norris supports the Vijay Amritraj Foundation, which aims at bringing hope, help and healing to the defenceless and innocent victims of disease, tragedy and circumstance in India. Through his donations, he has helped the foundation support Paediatric HIV/AIDS homes in Delhi, a blind school in Karnataka, and a mission that cares for HIV/AIDS infected adults, as well as mentally ill patients in Cochin.[39]Norris with former Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee in Londonderry, New HampshirePolitical viewsNorris and his wife at a political event in The Woodlands, Texas on February 15, 2016.Norris is a Republican, and has donated more than $32,000 to Republican candidates and organizations since 1988.[40]Norris supports gun rights and ownership and is against public schools celebrating the Day of Silence.[41]In 2006, Norris began penning a column for the conservative news website WorldNetDaily, sharing his "musings about faith, family, freedom, country, loyalty – maybe even kickboxing."On October 22, 2007, Norris announced his endorsement of Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee for President.[42]Norris said, "I believe the only one who has all of the characteristics to lead America forward into the future is ex-Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee."[43]After the 2008 presidential election, Norris drafted a letter to President-elect Barack Obama, stating that he should "use and cite the Constitution ... protect American life ... learn from the mistakes of your Democratic predecessors ... [and] lead more from the center".[44]On November 18, 2008, Norris became one of the first members of show business to express support for the California Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage, and he chided activists for "interfering" with the democratic process and the double standard he perceived in criticizing the LDS Church without criticizing African Americans, who had voted for the measure by a wide margin.[45]During the 2012 presidential election, Norris first recommended Ron Paul, and then later formally endorsed Newt Gingrich as the Republican presidential candidate.[46]After Gingrich suspended his campaign in May 2012, Norris endorsed Republican presumptive nominee Mitt Romney, despite Norris having previously accused Romney of flip-flopping and of trying to buy the nomination for the Republican Party candidacy for 2012.[47][48]On the eve of the election he and his wife Gina made a video warning that if evangelicals didn't show up at the polls and vote out President Obama, "...our country as we know it may be lost forever...".[49][50]Norris also produced the film Answering the Call, which featured his 2007 trip to Iraq to visit the troops.[51][52]Norris endorsed Huckabee again in the 2016 Republican Primary before he dropped out.[53]In March 2016, it was reported that Norris endorsed Republican Texas Senator Ted Cruz and that he would be attending a Cruz rally,[54][55]but two days later, Norris stated he would only endorse the GOP nominee once that nominee has been nominated by the party.[56]Norris has visited Israel and voiced support for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the 2013 and 2015 elections.[57][58][59]HonorsOn March 28, 2007, Commandant Gen. James T. Conway made Norris an honorary United States Marine during a dinner at the commandant's residence in Washington, D.C.[60]On December 2, 2010, he (along with brother Aaron) was given the title honorary Texas Ranger by Texas Governor Rick Perry.[61]Internet memeMain article: Chuck Norris factsIn late 2005, Norris became the object of an ironic internet meme known as "Chuck Norris Facts", which document fictional, often absurdly heroic feats and characteristics about Norris. Norris has written his own response to the parody on his website, stating that he does not feel offended by them and finds some of them funny,[62]claiming that his personal favorite is that they wanted to add his face to Mount Rushmore, but the granite is not hard enough for his beard.[63]On November 29, 2007, Gotham Books, the adult division of Penguin USA, released a book entitled The Truth About Chuck Norris: 400 facts about the World's Greatest Human based on the Chuck Norris Facts.[64]Norris filed suit in December against Penguin USA and author Ian Spector, claiming, "trademark infringement, unjust enrichment and privacy rights."[65]Norris dropped the suit in May of the following year.[66]FilmographyMain article: Chuck Norris filmographyReferencesJump up^ Kirell, Andrew (May 25, 2012). "Celebrities You Probably Didn't Know Are Republicans". Mediaite. New York City. Retrieved September 17, 2016.Jump up^ "Norris, Carlos Ray, A1C". TogetherWeServed. 2016. Retrieved 2016-02-25.^ Jump up to:a b c Berkow, Ira (May 12, 1993). "At Dinner with: Chuck Norris". The New York Times.Jump up^ "Cinema: And Now, a Wham-Bam Superstar: Chuck Norris". Time. May 20, 1985. Retrieved August 14, 2010.Jump up^ "Chuck Norris Endorses Newt Gingrich, Swings Crucial 'Walker, Texas Ranger' Constituency". Reuters. January 20, 2012.Jump up^ "Chuck Norris". WorldNetDaily. Retrieved October 20, 2013.Jump up^ Norris, Chuck; Hyams, Joe (1988). "1". The Secret of Inner Strength; My Story (1st ed.). Boston: Little, Brown and Co. p. 6. ISBN 0-316-61191-3.^ Jump up to:a b c Norris, Chuck; Ken Abraham (2004). Against All Odds: My Story. Broadman & Holman Publishers. ISBN 0-8054-3161-6.Jump up^ "Chuck Norris Biography (1940–)".Jump up^ "Chuck Norris : Biography". IMDb.^ Jump up to:a b "Chuck Norris – Strong, Silent, Popular". The New York Times. September 1, 1985.Jump up^ "Chuck Norris Fights to Be a Better Actor in 'Hero and the Terror' Role". The Los Angeles Times. September 2, 1988.Jump up^ "Breaking the Silence : People.com". PEOPLE.com.Jump up^ Wedlan, Candace A. (October 2, 1996). "Body Watch; Kicking Old Habits; Chuck Norris found he couldn't eat just anything after he hit his mid-30s. These days, TV's top ranger feasts on veggies, fowl and fish. And he tries to keep his distance from peanut clusters.". The Los Angeles Times.Jump up^ "Chuck Norris Blog". Archived from the original on February 8, 2010.Jump up^ "Past Sparring Grand Champions". S. Henry Cho's Karate Institute Tae Kwon Do taekwondo tae kwon do karate Karate martial arts Martial Arts Chuck Norris Bruce Lee Master Cho Steven Segal H. Retrieved 2016-03-15.Jump up^ "Questions I am asked most about martial arts". July 9, 2007.Jump up^ "PFC Wieland Clyde Norris". The Virtual Wall.Jump up^ "War Movie Mondays, Missing in Action Movie Review". The Flick Cast. Retrieved July 7, 2012.Jump up^ "Box Office Flashback, December 10, 1984". Pop Dose: Pop Culture News, Reviews and Discussion. Retrieved July 7, 2012.Jump up^ "masternorris.com". masternorris.com -&nbspThis website is for sale! -&nbspmasternorris Resources and Information.. Retrieved 2016-03-15.Jump up^ King, Susan (April 18, 1993). "Chuck Norris: Karate Champ Turned Action-film Actor Turned Series Star?". The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved August 30, 2010.Jump up^ "Chuck Norris shills for T-Mobile ads". The Prague Post. November 10, 2010. Retrieved January 13, 2011.Jump up^ "World of Warcraft TV Commercial: Chuck Norris – Hunter". YouTube. December 15, 2011. Retrieved December 15, 2011.Jump up^ "Polish bank BZ WBK commercials with Chuck Norris". January 20, 2012. Archived from the original on September 22, 2013. Retrieved December 18, 2012.Jump up^ "Welcome to the United Fighting Arts Federation (UFAF) and Chun Kuk Do!". Welcome to the United Fighting Arts Federation (UFAF). Retrieved 2016-03-15.Jump up^ "Herald Extra: Chuck Norris". Archived from the original on March 25, 2008.Jump up^ "Gena Norris Notes". Free Full Episodes, Clips, Show Info and TV Listings Guide. May 3, 2006.Jump up^ Hart, Mary (September 22, 2004). "At Home and Up-Close with Chuck Norris". Entertainment News | Celebrity News | Entertainment Tonight. Archived from the original on November 23, 2006.Jump up^ "mentorsharbor.com". Buy Domains - Find a Premium Domain & Open Your Doors, BuyDomains.com.Jump up^ See External Links Drew Marshall InterviewJump up^ Norris, Chuck (October 23, 2006). "On Chuck Norris 'mania' sweeping the net". WorldNetDaily. Retrieved February 16, 2010.Jump up^ Norris, Chuck (November 20, 2006). "America's Code of Silence". WorldNetDaily. Retrieved February 16, 2010.Jump up^ Norris, Chuck. "Win Ben Stein's Monkey". Townhall. Retrieved April 22, 2008.Jump up^ BJJ Instructors and Students. "BJJ Genius".Jump up^ Norris, Chuck (February 15, 2010). "Ready for feds in your kitchen?". WorldNetDaily. Retrieved February 16, 2010.^ Jump up to:a b c d [1][dead link]Jump up^ "A Renaissance Man". Inside Kung Fu. Retrieved January 1, 2010.Jump up^ "Chuck Norris's Charity Work, Events and Causes". Celebrity Charity Work: Data, News, Events - Look to the Stars. Retrieved January 2, 2012.Jump up^ "Newsmeat: Chuck Norris's Federal Campaign Contribution Report". 2006.Jump up^ Norris, Chuck (March 23, 2008). "Guns, God and gays". WorldNetDaily.Jump up^ "Mike Huckabee". Mike Huckabee.Jump up^ Norris, Chuck (October 21, 2007). "My choice for president". WorldNetDaily.Jump up^ Norris, Chuck (10 November 2008). "Obama, now that you work for me...". World Net Daily.Jump up^ Norris, Chuck (18 November 2008). "If Democracy Doesn't Work, Try Anarchy". Townhall.Jump up^ Reilly, Mollie (January 20, 2012). "Chuck Norris Endorses Newt Gingrich For President". The HuffingtonPost.Jump up^ Norris, Chuck. "Chuck Norris Column: How Romney and Our Republic Can Win (Part 1)". News Busters.Jump up^ Poppleton, Travis. "Chuck Norris slams Romney, endorses Newt Gingrich for president". KSL.Jump up^ Bingham, Amy (2012-09-04). "Chuck Norris Warns of '1,000 years of Darkness' If Obama Re-Elected - ABC News". ABC News.Jump up^ Gunter, Booth (2012-11-04). "Six most paranoid fears for Obama's second term". Salon: in-depth news, politics, business, technology & culture.Jump up^ "Norris documentary shines light on troops overseas". Waxahachie Daily Light: Local & World News, Sports & Entertainment in Waxahachie, TX.Jump up^ "Martial arts program for kids to start". The Ellis County Press. May 21, 2009.Jump up^ "Celebrity endorsements for 2016". The Hill.Jump up^ "Chuck Norris Endorses Ted Cruz". March 8, 2016.Jump up^ Heil, Emily (March 8, 2016). "Roundhouse kick! Chuck Norris to stump for Ted Cruz". The Washington Post.Jump up^ Recio, Maria (March 10, 2016). "Chuck Norris Bows Out of Cruz Event". The Star-Telegram.Jump up^ Thornhill, Ted; Irvine, Chris (March 17, 2015). "A campaign with more muscle: Chuck Norris endorses Benjamin Netanyahu's re-election as cult action hero says he is crucial to safety of Israel". Daily Mail.Jump up^ "What is Chuck Norris doing in Israel?". Jerusalem Post. February 5, 2017.Jump up^ Becker, Gahl; Froim, Yoni (February 6, 2017). "Chuck Norris arrives in Israel, peace seems imminent". Ynetnews.Jump up^ "Conway makes Chuck Norris honorary Marine – Marine Corps News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq". Marine Corps Times. Retrieved January 2, 2012.Jump up^ Norris, Chuck (December 2, 2010). "Former TV lawman Chuck Norris to be given honorary Texas Ranger title by Gov. Rick Perry today in Garland". The Dallas Morning News. Retrieved December 12, 2010.Jump up^ "Web Archive: Chuck Norris". Archived from the original on October 19, 2006. Retrieved November 3, 2006.Jump up^ "Chuck Norris facts read by Chuck Norris". YouTube.Jump up^ Ian Spector (2007) [2007-11-29]. The Truth About Chuck Norris: 400 Facts About the World's Greatest Human. Gotham. ISBN 978-1-59240-344-8.Jump up^ Kearney, Christine (December 21, 2007). "Chuck Norris sues, says his tears no cancer cure". Reuters. Retrieved December 23, 2007.Jump up^ "Chuck Norris drops lawsuit against university student". The Hindustan Times. May 30, 2008.Further readingThe Secret Power Within: Zen Solutions to Real Problems, Zen Buddhism and martial arts. Little, Brown and Company (1996). ISBN 0-316-58350-2.Against All Odds: My Story, an autobiography. Broadman & Holman Publishers (2004). ISBN 0-8054-3161-6.The Justice Riders, Wild West novels. Broadman & Holman Publishers (2006). ISBN 0-8054-4032-1.Norris, Chuck. Black Belt Patriotism: How to Reawaken America, Regnery Publishing (2008). ISBN 978-1-59698-558-2Spector, Ian: The Truth about Chuck Norris: Gotham Books: New York: 2007: ISBN 1-59240-344-1External linksWikimedia Commons has media related to Chuck Norris.Wikiquote has quotations related to: Chuck NorrisOfficial websiteChuck Norris at the Internet Movie DatabaseChuck Norris at martialinfo.comChuck Norris at completemartialarts.comOfficial Chun Kuk Do WebsiteAppearances on C-SPAN[hide]vteChuck NorrisOrganizationsKickstart KidsUnited Fighting Arts FederationWorld Combat LeagueMartial artsChun Kuk DoVideo gamesChuck Norris: Bring on the PainChuck Norris SuperkicksBroforceTelevision programsKarate KommandosRelatedChuck Norris factsFilmographyAuthority controlWorldCat IdentitiesVIAF: 84036229LCCN: n82239657ISNI: 0000 0001 0920 1210GND: 119291037SELIBR: 351091SUDOC: 081946996BNF: cb12050984t (data)MusicBrainz: 58315bfe-2418-474a-821b-b2761147fff8NLA: 40862755NDL: 001154222NKC: jn20000701326BNE: XX1111227Categories:1940 birthsLiving people20th-century American male actors20th-century Christians21st-century American male actors21st-century ChristiansAmerican Christian writersAmerican chun kuk do practitionersAmerican evangelicalsAmerican gun rights advocatesAmerican male karatekaAmerican male film actorsAmerican male television actorsAmerican male writersAmerican martial arts writersAmerican motivational writersAmerican people of Cherokee descentAmerican people of English descentAmerican political punditsAmerican political writersAmerican practitioners of Brazilian jiu-jitsuAmerican male taekwondo practitionersAmerican tang soo do practitionersCalifornia RepublicansChristian creationistsConservatism in the United StatesIntelligent design advocatesInternet memesMale actors from OklahomaMartial arts school foundersPeople awarded a black belt in Brazilian jiu-jitsuPeople from Jefferson County, OklahomaPeople from Tarzana, Los AngelesTexas RepublicansUnited States Air Force airmenWriters from Los AngelesWriters from OklahomaActivists from CaliforniaNavigation menuNot logged inTalkContributionsCreate accountLog inArticleTalkReadView sourceView historySearchMain pageContentsFeatured contentCurrent eventsRandom articleDonate to WikipediaWikipedia storeInteractionHelpAbout WikipediaCommunity portalRecent changesContact pageToolsWhat links hereRelated changesUpload fileSpecial pagesPermanent linkPage informationWikidata itemCite this pagePrint/exportCreate a bookDownload as PDFPrintable versionIn other projectsWikimedia CommonsWikiquoteLanguagesالعربيةAragonésAsturianuAzərbaycancaবাংলাBân-lâm-gúБеларускаяБеларуская (тарашкевіца)‎BislamaБългарскиBoarischBrezhonegCatalàЧӑвашлаČeštinaDanskDeutschEestiΕλληνικάEspañolEsperantoEuskaraفارسیFøroysktFrançaisGalego한국어ՀայերենHrvatskiIdoBahasa IndonesiaÍslenskaItalianoעבריתಕನ್ನಡქართულიҚазақшаLatinaLatviešuLietuviųMagyarМакедонскиമലയാളംმარგალურიمصرىNederlands日本語Norsk bokmålOccitanPolskiPortuguêsRomânăРусскийScotsShqipSicilianuSimple EnglishSlovenčinaSlovenščinaکوردیی ناوەندیСрпски / srpskiSrpskohrvatski / српскохрватскиBasa SundaSuomiSvenskaதமிழ்ไทยTürkçeУкраїнськаVènetoTiếng ViệtŽemaitėška中文Edit linksThis page was last modified on 25 April 2017, at 22:20.Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree

No there is no such consensus as thousands of leading scientists debunk the theory.The work of the UN IPCC admitted openly is less focused on the environment and real climate science , rather it is more a project in economics and wealth distribution with the fear of global warming the cat’s paw to gain supporters.The Working Group #1 of the UN IPCC failed in 1995 with their first major report to find evidence of anthropogenic climate change that could be discerned apart from natural variability. This is critical to seen that the radical view of human caused warming is not settled science. The full story well documented in Bernie Lewin’s recent book.Why this history of the IPCC machinations is so important. E. Calvin BeisnerCompelling historyReviewed in the United States on January 18, 2020Anyone who thinks the science behind global warming alarmism it's simple, objective, empirically sound science in action needs to read this book. The political and financial forces driving toward alarmist conclusions about climate change have been powerful for generations, and that have resulted in scientific claims that go far beyond the evidence. Those in turn have led to government policies that go far beyond not only the science but also the economics, and threaten to undermine the prospects uplifting the world's remaining poor out of their poverty and suffering.The UN are guilty of a swindle about human made climate change as they doctored the key scientific working group report in 1995. The sordid story is presented objectively by Bernie Lewin in his book SEARCHING FOR THE CATASTROPHE SIGNAL.The UN climate science working group of 2000 experts said this when they made their report in 1995. They said we do not have scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change.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 reducedThe IPCC Working group presented details of the uncertainty about human caused climate that focused mostly on the fact the Co2 thesis is overwhelmed by natural variation and climate history. Here are details in their report where evidence is uncertain.Environment blogClimate changeFriday, December 19, 201497 Articles Refuting The "97% Consensus"The 97% "consensus" study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook's study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,"The '97% consensus' article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it."- Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook's (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% "consensus" study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook's study is an embarrassment to science.Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts [brief summaries] of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 64 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (humans are the primary cause). A later analysis by Legates et al. (2013) found there to be only 41 papers (0.3%) that supported this definition. Cook et al.'s methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing the 97% consensus, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. The second part of Cook et al. (2013), the author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with the abstract ratings.Methodology: The data (11,944 abstracts) used in Cook et al. (2013) came from searching the Web of Science database for results containing the key phrases "global warming" or "global climate change" regardless of what type of publication they appeared in or the context those phrases were used. Only a small minority of these were actually published in climate science journals, instead the publications included ones like the International Journal Of Vehicle Design, Livestock Science and Waste Management. The results were not even analyzed by scientists but rather amateur environmental activists with credentials such as "zoo volunteer" (co-author Bärbel Winkler) and "scuba diving" (co-author Rob Painting) who were chosen by the lead author John Cook (a cartoonist) because they all comment on his deceptively named, partisan alarmist blog 'Skeptical Science' and could be counted on to push his manufactured talking point.Peer-review: Cook et al. (2013) was published in the journal Environmental Research Letters (ERL) which conveniently has multiple outspoken alarmist scientists on its editorial board (e.g. Peter Gleick and Stefan Rahmstorf) where the paper likely received substandard "pal-review" instead of the more rigorous peer-review.Update: The paper has since been refuted five times in the scholarly literature by Legates et al. (2013), Tol (2014a), Tol (2014b), Dean (2015) and Tol (2016).* All the other "97% consensus" studies: e.g. Doran & Zimmerman (2009), Anderegg et al. (2010) and Oreskes (2004) have been refuted by peer-review.Popular Technology.netThe claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand upConsensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrongRichard Tol: 'There is disagreement on the extent to which humans contributed to the observed warming. This is part and parcel of a healthy scientific debate.' Photograph: Frank Augstein/AP Photograph: Frank Augstein/APRichard TolFri 6 Jun 2014 15.59 BST971The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up | Richard TolDana Nuccitelli writes that I “accidentally confirm the results of last year’s 97% global warming consensus study”. Nothing could be further from the truth.I show that the 97% consensus claim does not stand up.Cook and co selected some 12,000 papers from the scientific literature to test whether these papers support the hypothesis that humans played a substantial role in the observed warming of the Earth. 12,000 is a strange number. The climate literature is much larger. The number of papers on the detection and attribution of climate change is much, much smaller.Cook’s sample is not representative. Any conclusion they draw is not about “the literature” but rather about the papers they happened to find.Most of the papers they studied are not about climate change and its causes, but many were taken as evidence nonetheless. Papers on carbon taxes naturally assume that carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming – but assumptions are not conclusions. Cook’s claim of an increasing consensus over time is entirely due to an increase of the number of irrelevant papers that Cook and co mistook for evidence.The abstracts of the 12,000 papers were rated, twice, by 24 volunteers. Twelve rapidly dropped out, leaving an enormous task for the rest. This shows. There are patterns in the data that suggest that raters may have fallen asleep with their nose on the keyboard. In July 2013, Mr Cook claimed to have data that showed this is not the case. In May 2014, he claimed that data never existed.The data is also ridden with error. By Cook’s own calculations, 7% of the ratings are wrong. Spot checks suggest a much larger number of errors, up to one-third.Cook tried to validate the results by having authors rate their own papers. In almost two out of three cases, the author disagreed with Cook’s team about the message of the paper in question.Attempts to obtain Cook’s data for independent verification have been in vain. Cook sometimes claims that the raters are interviewees who are entitled to privacy – but the raters were never asked any personal detail. At other times, Cook claims that the raters are not interviewees but interviewers.The 97% consensus paper rests on yet another claim: the raters are incidental, it is the rated papers that matter. If you measure temperature, you make sure that your thermometers are all properly and consistently calibrated. Unfortunately, although he does have the data, Cook does not test whether the raters judge the same paper in the same way.Consensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong. Cook’s consensus is also irrelevant in policy. They try to show that climate change is real and human-made. It is does not follow whether and by how much greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced.The debate on climate policy is polarised, often using discussions about climate science as a proxy. People who want to argue that climate researchers are secretive and incompetent only have to point to the 97% consensus paper.On 29 May, the Committee on Science, Space and Technology of the US House of Representatives examined the procedures of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.Having been active in the IPCC since 1994, serving in various roles in all its three working groups, most recently as a convening lead author for the fifth assessment report of working group II, my testimony to the committee briefly reiterated some of the mistakes made in the fifth assessment report but focused on the structural faults in the IPCC, notably the selection of authors and staff, the weaknesses in the review process, and the competition for attention between chapters. I highlighted that the IPCC is a natural monopoly that is largely unregulated. I recommended that its assessment reports be replaced by an assessment journal.In an article on 2 June, Nuccitelli ignores the subject matter of the hearing, focusing instead on a brief interaction about the 97% consensus paper co-authored by… Nuccitelli. He unfortunately missed the gist of my criticism of his work.Successive literature reviews, including the ones by the IPCC, have time and again established that there has been substantial climate change over the last one and a half centuries and that humans caused a large share of that climate change.There is disagreement, of course, particularly on the extent to which humans contributed to the observed warming. This is part and parcel of a healthy scientific debate. There is widespread agreement, though, that climate change is real and human-made.I believe Nuccitelli and colleagues are wrong about a number of issues. Mistakenly thinking that agreement on the basic facts of climate change would induce agreement on climate policy, Nuccitelli and colleagues tried to quantify the consensus, and failed.In his defence, Nuccitelli argues that I do not dispute their main result. Nuccitelli fundamentally misunderstands research. Science is not a set of results. Science is a method. If the method is wrong, the results are worthless.Nuccitelli’s pieces are two of a series of articles published in the Guardian impugning my character and my work. Nuccitelli falsely accuses me of journal shopping, a despicable practice.The theologist Michael Rosenberger has described climate protection as a new religion, based on a fear for the apocalypse, with dogmas, heretics and inquisitors like Nuccitelli. I prefer my politics secular and my science sound.Richard Tol is a professor of economics at the University of SussexCO2 is too minute, too variable and not correlated with temperature because it lags not precedes temperature rise. CO2 has no climate effect and is essential to plant life through photosynthesis. We need more CO2 for greening the earth not less.Science unlike politics and religion is based on doubt and skepticism therefore the very idea of finding consensus in evaluating a new and controversial theory like AGW is a false and antiscientific. Therefore, when alarmists talk consensus this is a tip off they are covering up disputed and shoddy science by the laughable claim “the science is settled. “Here in Nakamura, we have a highly qualified and experienced climate modeler with impeccable credentials rejecting the unscientific bases of the climate crisis claims. But he’s up against it — activists are winning at the moment, and they’re fronted by scared, crying children; an unstoppable combination, one that’s tricky to discredit without looking like a heartless bastard (I’ve tried).I published an answer to a similar question recently. See - James Matkin's answer to Is there really scientific consensus that man-made climate change is actually happening?Leading scientists around the world are petitioning governments that there is no climate crisis for them to address. 500 scientists signed this European Climate Declaration as one example. 90 well known Italian scientists added their further petition.Science is not in the consensus business like politics and religion. Doubt is the engine of science. This means just one brilliant skeptic can undo poor research and conventional wisdom.Here is an example of a cogent attack that debunks anthropogenic climate change.ANOTHER CLIMATE SCIENTIST WITH IMPECCABLE CREDENTIALS BREAKS RANKS: “OUR MODELS ARE MICKEY-MOUSE MOCKERIES OF THE REAL WORLD”kikoukagakushanokokuhaku chikyuuonndannkahamikennshounokasetsu: Confessions of a climate scientist The global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis (Japanese Edition) Kindle EditionbyNakamura Mototaka(Author)ArticlesGSMANOTHER CLIMATE SCIENTIST WITH IMPECCABLE CREDENTIALS BREAKS RANKS: “OUR MODELS ARE MICKEY-MOUSE MOCKERIES OF THE REAL WORLD”SEPTEMBER 26, 2019CAP ALLONDr. Mototaka Nakamura received a Doctorate of Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and for nearly 25 years specialized in abnormal weather and climate change at prestigious institutions that included MIT, Georgia Institute of Technology, NASA, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, JAMSTEC and Duke University.In his bookThe Global Warming Hypothesis is an Unproven Hypothesis, Dr. Nakamura explains why the data foundation underpinning global warming science is “untrustworthy” and cannot be relied on:“Global mean temperatures before 1980 are based on untrustworthy data,” writes Nakamura. “Before full planet surface observation by satellite began in 1980, only a small part of the Earth had been observed for temperatures with only a certain amount of accuracy and frequency. Across the globe, only North America and Western Europe have trustworthy temperature data dating back to the 19th century.”From 1990 to 2014, Nakamura worked on cloud dynamics and forces mixing atmospheric and ocean flows on medium to planetary scales. His bases were MIT (for a Doctor of Science in meteorology), Georgia Institute of Technology, Goddard Space Flight Center, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Duke and Hawaii Universities and the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology.He’s published 20+ climate papers on fluid dynamics.There is no questioning his credibility or knowledge.Today’s ‘global warming science’ is akin to an upside down pyramid which is built on the work of a few climate modelers. These AGW pioneers claim to have demonstrated human-derived CO2 emissions as the cause of recently rising temperatures and have then simply projected that warming forward. Every climate researcher thereafter has taken the results of these original models as a given, and we’re even at the stage now where merely testing their validity is regarded as heresy.Here in Nakamura, we have a highly qualified and experienced climate modeler with impeccable credentials rejecting the unscientific bases of the climate crisis claims. But he’s up against it — activists are winning at the moment, and they’re fronted by scared, crying children; an unstoppable combination, one that’s tricky to discredit without looking like a heartless bastard (I’ve tried).Climate scientist Dr. Mototaka Nakamura’s recent book blasts global warming data as “untrustworthy” and “falsified”.DATA FALSIFICATIONWhen arguing against global warming, the hardest thing I find is convincing people of data falsification, namely temperature fudging. If you don’t pick your words carefully, forget some of the facts, or get your tone wrong then it’s very easy to sound like a conspiracy crank (I’ve been there, too).But now we have Nakamura.The good doctor has accused the orthodox scientists of “data falsification” in the form adjusting historical temperature data down to inflate today’s subtle warming trend — something Tony Heller has been proving for years on his websiterealclimatescience.com.Nakamura writes: “The global surface mean temperature-change data no longer have any scientific value and are nothing except a propaganda tool to the public.”The climate models are useful tools for academic studies, he admits. However: “The models just become useless pieces of junk or worse (as they can produce gravely misleading output) when they are used for climate forecasting.”Climate forecasting is simply not possible, Nakamura concludes, and the impacts of human-caused CO2 can’t be judged with the knowledge and technology we currently possess.The models grossly simplify the way the climate works.As well as ignoring the sun, they also drastically simplify large and small-scale ocean dynamics, aerosol changes that generate clouds (cloud cover is one of the key factors determining whether we have global warming or global cooling), the drivers of ice-albedo: “Without a reasonably accurate representation, it is impossible to make any meaningful predictions of climate variations and changes in the middle and high latitudes and thus the entire planet,” and water vapor.The climate forecasts also suffer from arbitrary “tunings” of key parameters that are simply not understood.NAKAMURA ON CO2He writes:“The real or realistically-simulated climate system is far more complex than an absurdly simple system simulated by the toys that have been used for climate predictions to date, and will be insurmountably difficult for those naive climate researchers who have zero or very limited understanding of geophysical fluid dynamics. The dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans are absolutely critical facets of the climate system if one hopes to ever make any meaningful prediction of climate variation.”Solar input is modeled as a “never changing quantity,” which is absurd.“It has only been several decades since we acquired an ability to accurately monitor the incoming solar energy. In these several decades only, it has varied by one to two watts per square meter. Is it reasonable to assume that it will not vary any more than that in the next hundred years or longer for forecasting purposes? I would say, No.”Read Mototaka Nakamura’s book for free onKindleSUPERB Demolition Of The ‘97% Consensus’ MythPosted: June 10, 2020 | Author: Jamie Spry |It’s time for us all to recognize the 97% con game | CFACT“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendationson the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”– Prof. Chris Folland,Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research“The models are convenient fictionsthat provide something very useful.”– Dr David Frame,Climate modeller, Oxford University***A must watch demolition of the “97% Consensus” myth. Ping this to anyone claiming that there is a scientific consensus on CO₂ as the primary driver of earth’s climate.Via Clear Energy Alliance :97 Percent of scientists believe in catastrophic human caused climate change? Of course not! But far too many believe this ridiculous statement that defies basic logic and observation. (Can you think of any highly-political issue where you could get even 65% agreement?) The 97% Myth has succeeded in fooling many people because the phony number is repeated over and over again by those who have a financial and/or ideological stake in the outcome. By the way, what any scientist “believes’ doesn’t matter anyway. Science is what happens during rigorous and repeated experimentation.VISIT Clear Energy Alliance https://clearenergyalliance.com/***SALIENT reminders about “consensus” from science legend, Michael Crichton :“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”― Michael Crichton“I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”― Michael Crichton“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”― Michael CrichtonMUST READ CRICHTON :Fear, Complexity and Environmental Management in the 21st Century (Michael Crichton) | ClimatismNew lists are published that debunks the notion of any overwhelming scientific consensus and human made global warming.Articles“THE LIST” — SCIENTISTS WHO PUBLICLY DISAGREE WITH THE CURRENT CONSENSUS ON CLIMATE CHANGEDECEMBER 20, 2018 CAP ALLONFor those still blindly banging the 97% drum, here’s an in-no-way-comprehensive list of the SCIENTISTS who publicly disagree with the current consensus on climate change.There are currently 85 names on the list, though it is embryonic and dynamic. Suggestions for omissions and/or additions can be added to the comment section below and, if validated, will –eventually– serve to update the list.SCIENTISTS ARGUING THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS PRIMARILY CAUSED BY NATURAL PROCESSES— scientists that have called the observed warming attributable to natural causes, i.e. the high solar activity witnessed over the last few decades.Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.[81][82]Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[83][84][85]Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg.[86][87][88]Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.[89][90]Vincent Courtillot, geophysicist, member of the French Academy of Sciences.[91]Doug Edmeades, PhD., soil scientist, officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit.[92]David Dilley, B.S. and M.S. in meteorology, CEO Global Weather Oscillations Inc. [198][199]David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester.[93][94]Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University.[95][96]William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University.[39][97]Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, Theoretical Physicist and Researcher, Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.[98]Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo.[99][100]Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[101][102]William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology.[103][104]David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware.[105][106]Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri.[107][108]Jennifer Marohasy, an Australian biologist, former director of the Australian Environment Foundation.[109][110]Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.[111][112]Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[113][114]Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.[115][116]Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego.[117][118]Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado.[119][120]Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University.[121][122][123]Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo.[124][125]Nedialko (Ned) T. Nikolov, PhD in Ecological Modelling, physical scientist for the U.S. Forest Service [200]Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.[126][127]Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.[128][129][130][131]Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[132][133]Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville.[134][135]Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center.[136][137]George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University.[138][139]Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa.[140][141]SCIENTISTS PUBLICLY QUESTIONING THE ACCURACY OF IPCC CLIMATE MODELSDr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, former Greenpeace member. [203][204]David Bellamy, botanist.[19][20][21][22]Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.[23][24]Piers Corbyn, owner of the business WeatherAction which makes weather forecasts.[25][26]Susan Crockford, Zoologist, adjunct professor in Anthropology at the University of Victoria. [27][28][29]Judith Curry, professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[30][31][32][33]Joseph D’Aleo, past Chairman American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, former Professor of Meteorology, Lyndon State College.[34][35][36][37]Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.[38][39]Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics (1973).[40]Dr. Kiminori Itoh, Ph.D., Industrial Chemistry, University of Tokyo [202]Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.[41][42]Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.[39][43][44][45]Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[46][47][48][49][50][51][52]Sebastian Lüning, geologist, famed for his book The Cold Sun. [201]Ross McKitrick, professor of economics and CBE chair in sustainable commerce, University of Guelph.[53][54]Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.[55][56][57]Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[58][59]Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.[60][61]Roger A. Pielke, Jr., professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder.[62][63]Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science.[64][65][66][67]Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 astronaut, former US senator.[68][69]Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[70][71]Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.[72][73]Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.[74][75]Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.[76][77]Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.[78][79]Valentina Zharkova, professor in mathematics at Northumbria University. BSc/MSc in applied mathematics and astronomy, a Ph.D. in astrophysics.SCIENTISTS ARGUING THAT THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING IS UNKNOWNSyun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[142][143]Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[144][145]Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[146][147]Pål Brekke, solar astrophycisist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.[148][149]John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[150][151][152]Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[153][154]David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[155][156]Stanley B. Goldenberg a meteorologist with NOAA/AOML’s Hurricane Research Division.[157][158]Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes.[159][160]Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.[161][162]Kary Mullis, 1993 Nobel laureate in chemistry, inventor of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method.[163][164][165]Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[166][167]SCIENTISTS ARGUING THAT GLOBAL WARMING WILL HAVE FEW NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCESIndur M. Goklany, electrical engineer, science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior.[168][169][170]Craig D. Idso, geographer, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.[171][172]Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University.[173][174]Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia.[175][176]DECEASED SCIENTISTS— who published material indicating their opposition to the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming prior to their deaths.August H. “Augie” Auer Jr. (1940–2007), retired New Zealand MetService meteorologist and past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming.[177][178]Reid Bryson (1920–2008), emeritus professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison.[179][180]Robert M. Carter (1942–2016), former head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University.[181][182]Chris de Freitas (1948–2017), associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland.[183][184]William M. Gray (1929–2016), professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University.[185][186]Yuri Izrael (1930–2014), former chairman, Committee for Hydrometeorology (USSR); former firector, Institute of Global Climate and Ecology (Russian Academy of Science); vice-chairman of IPCC, 2001-2007.[187][188][189]Robert Jastrow (1925–2008), American astronomer, physicist, cosmologist and leading NASA scientist who, together with Fred Seitz and William Nierenberg, established the George C. Marshall Institute.[190][191][192]Harold (“Hal”) Warren Lewis (1923–2011), emeritus professor of physics and former department chairman at the University of California, Santa Barbara.[193][194]Frederick Seitz (1911–2008), solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences and co-founder of the George C. Marshall Institute in 1984.[195][196][197]Joanne Simpson (1923-2010), first woman in the United States to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, [201]SPEAKING OUTA system is in place that makes it incredibly difficult, almost impossible, for scientists to take a public stance against AGW — their funding and opportunities are shutoff, their credibility and character smeared, and their safety sometimes compromised.Example: In 2014, Lennart Bengtsson and his colleagues submitted a paper to Environmental Research Letters which was rejected for publication for what Bengtsson believed to be “activist” reasons.Bengtsson’s paper disputed the uncertainties surrounding climate sensitivity to increased greenhouse gas concentrations contained in the IPCC’s Fourth and Fifth Assessment Reports.Here is a passage from Bengtsson’s resignation letter from soon after: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 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 anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.Lennart BengtssonAny person or body that holds a dissenting view or presents contradictory evidence is immediately labelled a denier — the classic ad-hominem attack designed to smear and silence those who don’t comply with the preferred wisdom of the day.If you still believe in the 97% consensus then by all means find the list of 2,748 scientist that have zero doubts regarding the IPCC’s catastrophic conclusions on Climate Change (given I’ve found 85 names effectively refuting the claims, that’s the minimum number required to reach the 97% consensus).Or go write your own list — it shouldn’t be that hard to do, if the scientists are out there.Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.Michael CrichtonAnother name I have yet to add to the list:Earth’s natural & minor warming trend (the modern Grand Solar Maximum) appears to have runs its course. The COLD TIMES are returning, the lower-latitudes are REFREEZING, in line with historically low solar activity, cloud-nucleating Cosmic Rays, and a meridional jet stream flow.Even NASA appear to agree, if you read between the lines, with their forecast for this upcoming solar cycle (25) seeing it as “the weakest of the past 200 years,” with the agency correlating previous solar shutdowns to prolonged periods of global cooling here."The List" - Scientists who Publicly Disagree with the Current Consensus on Climate Change - Electroverse