Spencer on Global Warming Elitism, Tomorrow’s Election, and The Future

by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The NASA A-Train satellite constellation symposium I attended last week in New Orleans was in some sense a celebration of the wide variety of global satellite observations we are now collecting from Earth orbit.

This really is the Golden Age in satellite data collection of the global climate system. While a few A-Train satellites are still to be launched, other older satellite assets in the A-Train are now operating well past their planned lifetimes.

There are no plans to replace many of these one-of-a-kind instruments, so much of what we will learn in the coming years will have to come from the analysis of previously collected data.

Unfortunately — at least in my opinion — the existence of this superb national resource depended upon convincing congress almost 2 decades ago that manmade global warming was a clear and present danger to the world.

Manmade Global Warming as the Justification

Since I believe the majority of what we now view as “climate change” is just part of a natural cycle in the climate system, I argued from the outset that NASA should be also selling “Mission to Planet Earth” as a way to better prepare ourselves for natural climate change — something that history tells us has indeed occurred, and we can be assured will occur again.

But behind the scenes there was a strong push for policy changes that even most of the scientists involved supported — ultimately culminating in the governmental control over how much and the kinds of energy sources humanity would be allowed to use in the future.

Cap and Trade, as well as potential regulation of carbon dioxide emissions by the EPA, are the fruits of the labor of politicians, governmental representatives, bureaucrats, the United Nations, and activist scientists who have used global warming as an excuse to accomplish policy goals that would have never been accomplished on their own merits.

Of course, most who speak out on this issue continue to point to the supposed “scientific consensus” on global warming as the justification, but those of us who knew the players also knew of these other motives.

I am often asked, “So, are you saying there is a conspiracy here?”

No, because the ultimate goals were not a secret. Just a bunch of elitists carrying out plans that the politicians supported — with continuing promises of congressional funding for research that those politicians knew would support Job #1 of government — to stay needed by the people. Many of the scientists involved are just along for a ride on the gravy train. Even I ride that train.

The elitism clearly shows through in the behavior of those who speak out publicly on the need for humanity to change its Earth-destroying ways: Al Gore, James Cameron, Harrison Ford, Julia Roberts, RFK, Jr.

These people apparently believe they are God’s gift to humanity. How else can we explain that they do not see the hypocrisy the rest of the nation sees in their behavior?

Unfortunately, I saw this attitude on a smaller scale at the New Orleans meeting. There are many new, young scientists now joining the ranks. They are being mentored by the older scientists who helped spread the alarm concerning manmade global warming. And they will be rewarded for playing the game.

Or will they?

The Times They Are A-Changin’

How is it that government agencies long ago decided to put all their eggs in the man-made global warming basket? Why have the movers and shakers around the world ignored natural climate change — even going so far as to claim it does not exist?

The only reason I can think of again goes back to their elitist beliefs and desired policy outcomes. The belief that a better-educated few should be allowed power over the less educated masses. That government knows better than the people do.

Tomorrow’s election is widely viewed as a referendum on the proper role of government in people’s lives. There is no question that the founders of our country intended there to be maximum of freedom on the part of individuals and the states, while placing strong limits on the role of the federal government.

Just read the Declaration of Independence if you want to see how pi$!ed off the settlers of the original colonies became at the King of England over his intrusion into their personal affairs.

And global warming legislation is now quite possibly the best opportunity the governments of the world have to increase the role of government in people’s lives.

The Basic Economics of Individual Freedom

Yet, many Americans believe that government can more equitably distribute the wealth generated by a country. This is a laudable goal on the face of it.

Unfortunately, history has taught us that trying to impose equality of outcomes only serves to make people equally miserable.

I like to think that I know something about basic economics. It was the subject of the 6th chapter in my first book –Climate Confusion — which received a nice blurb on the jacket from noted economist Walter Williams.

One of the reasons I am willing to stick my neck out and inform people of the uncertain nature of government-approved global warming science is because the basic economics behind any governmental (or environmental extremist) attempts to restrict personal choice in energy use will end up killing people.

In fact, it already has.

The biggest threat to humanity is poverty. Wealthier is healthier. When governments make energy more expensive, or environmental organizations pressure foreign countries to not build hydroelectric dams, poor people die.

Those already living on the edge are pushed over the edge. Energy is required for everything we do, and artificially raising the price of energy cannot help but destroy wealth generation.

If these elitists really were interested in the poor, they would be doing everything they could to help individuals take control of their own economic destinies. One billion people in the world still do not have electricity.

Worried about population growth? Then encourage the generation of wealth. It is the poor of the world that cause global population growth. The wealthy countries of the world have close to zero population growth.

Of course the main argument against this view is “sustainability”. Can the Earth sustain even more people consuming natural resources?

Interesting how those who ask the question have already gotten theirs, and now want to prevent others from doing the same.

But I would ask, can the world sustain the poverty-stricken? Poor countries have had most of their trees cut down. Imagine if global society collapsed and billions of people had to make do on their own with what they could scavenge from nature.

Now THAT would lead to a pollution problem.

What ensures sustainability is free markets. As natural resources of one type become more scarce, their price goes up, which makes alternatives more attractive. People are incentivized to develop new answers to old technological problems. This is why fossil fuels will never be used up. At some point, they simply will become too expensive to extract.

Mass production by factories and corporations should be embraced, rather than derided. It represents the most efficient way of providing goods and services. Waste is minimized because it hurts competitiveness.

But What About Equality?

Equality of outcomes is an illusion. It can never be achieved…unless we totally destroy the people’s motivation to make a better life for themselves.

A vibrant economy is what maximizes the tax revenue collected by the government. The two largest periods of growth in tax revenue collected by the government occurred after two major tax-CUTTING initiatives: JFK’s in the early 1960’s, and Reagan’s in the early 1980’s.

If you really want to help the poor, then help the country grow economically. Want to make sure the poor are taken care of? Then encourage businesses to grow, which will lead to more jobs. Economic activity is what is needed, and since the tax revenue the government receives is a “piece of the action”, more action means more money for government programs.

And whether we like it or not, the only way to ensure this growth happens is to give business owners and entrepreneurs some hope that their risk-taking and creativity will pay off for them personally in the future.

Yes, in the process, some people will get rich. A few will get obscenely rich. But this only occurs because so many consumers want the goods and services those rich few can offer them.

Call it a necessary evil, if you must. But it is, indeed, necessary. The end result will be more money for the poor, not less.

A New Fight Begins Tomorrow

The basic economics and desire to help the poor that have motivated me to speak out in the last 20 years on global warming policy will, starting tomorrow, be the subject of a national debate regarding the proper role of government in helping its people.

Tomorrow’s election is only the start. From then on, education about the practical importance of economic freedom will be central to that debate.

There is no question that our country has an unsustainable growth in our yearly budget deficits, and our total national debt is staggering. Everyone agrees this must change.

And reducing government expenditures must, of course, be part of the debate.

But increasing tax revenue to help support those programs is ALSO part of the solution. And since the only demonstrated (and sustainable)way to accomplish this is to grow the economy, it requires personal economic freedom.

So, what is the primary role of government in all this? In my opinion, it is two-fold: (1) make sure people play fair, and (2) get out of the way.

Advertisements

226 thoughts on “Spencer on Global Warming Elitism, Tomorrow’s Election, and The Future

  1. What a pity that your clever caroonist still thinks (a) that telescopes have lenses on the end, and (b) that they ever project outside the dome, as if they were naval guns in turrets!

  2. Hear, hear!
    Why is it that politicians are, in the main, so incredibly thick when it comes to such simple concepts as these?

  3. Dr. Spencer,
    I must admit, I haven’t read your books. I comment here often, but not because I’ve some unnatural obsession about global temps or CO2, but rather the implications of policy. I’ve a new, profound, appreciation for the work of which you’re engaged. The sentiments you’ve so eloquently related, have been echoed by myself and many others here and elsewhere, only, in my case, not nearly as clear and concise.
    My thanks.
    James Sexton

  4. Wow, I reckon I know what Dr Roy will be doing if he ever gets sick of climate science.
    I pretty much agree with everything said in this post. I have argued the same things here myself.
    Funny enough, Stephen Wilde pointed to a PDF to support an argument he was making on the Arctic thread. The second article in that PDF shows NASA cancelling a few proposed satellite launchings, some of which would give us really good insights into how the Earth’s climate works. They didn’t however postpone the satellite measuring CO2, the Orbiting Carbon Observatory.

  5. That line about Reagan cutting taxes and tax revenue soaring has been disproven time and again. People who cite this claim forget population growth and inflation during his presidency. Here are the annual rates of growth of real revenue per capita over several decades:
    1973-1979: 2.7%
    1979-1990: 1.8%
    1990-2000: 3.2%
    2000-2007: ~0.0%
    These figures are compliments of Prof. Paul Krugman, 2009 Nobel prize winner in economics. As you can see, real revenue growth as a result of Reagan’s tax cuts was poor.

  6. Dr Spencer; thank you for a simpley put article full of not so common, common sense.
    I wanted to respond to this portion of your post, “I like to think that I know something about basic economics. It was the subject of the 6th chapter in my first book –Climate Confusion — which received a nice blurb on the jacket from noted economist Walter Williams.”
    Right now there is a political disconnect between the developed world and the yet to be developed in regard to CAGW which was probably the principle cause of failure at Copenhagen. The only way for the political proponents of CAGW to further their agenda is to offer additional monetary compensation to third world countries for the harm inflicted on them by the evil capitalist spewing the pollution CO2.
    I would like to see this addressed in advance by credible economist. I strongly believe the reverse is true and CO2 has been a hugely net positive for all countries through its well established beneficial effect on all plant growth. To often skeptics are placed in a defensive position trying to refute literally hundreds of poorly done studies predicting the next CO2 induced disaster. A well written and researched report on the realized and future benefits of CO2 would be a powerful ally giving ammunition to the politicians trying to resist the large scale social changes advocated by the political left advancing CAGW as the reason necessitating statism on a worldwide basis. Such a report would need the following…
    An estimate of the current worldwide food, clothing, and wood production including food for livestock with monetary value included.
    An estimate, based on the many available CO2 studies, of what these same production goods would currently be if CO2 was still 280 PPM.
    An estimate of how much it would cost to bring the lower production of an 280 PPM CO2 world to current production levels of a 390 PPM CO2 world. This would include a straight line cost analysis based on current production costs in all areas, as well as an estimated inflation cost based on additional demand for more land, more water, more fertilizer, more labor, more machinery costs etc; all at higher costs due to greater demand for said resources. This would add several percentage to the direct line cost estimates.
    A further estimate of the future, based on additional CO2 up to whatever level is reasonable, keeping in mind that any adverse warming effect decreases exponentially, while the benefits continue to rise in a more linear fashion.
    Ideally this would be broken down by country before totaled.
    And finally, some comments on the social pressures you mention that a lower CO2 world would have, potentially resulting in social revolutions and international military conflicts.
    My doing this would have no real effect, even assuming I did an excellent job. Perhaps a prod from you to a Professor McKitrick for instance could get such a project rolling. I could also see this as a potential masters thesis for some young PHD candidates also.

  7. As soon as the Chinese start to dump their US treasuries, they can afford to let the Renminbi appreciate. Not before. It is the pegging of the Renminbi to the USD that kept the USD more or less stable since mid 2008. When this pegging stops, the USD will lose value and the Krugman vision will play out; taxation through inflation.

  8. Ross Barton says:
    November 1, 2010 at 3:54 pm
    “These figures are compliments of Prof. Paul Krugman, 2009 Nobel prize winner in economics.”
    They really *do* come in cereal boxes now, right?

  9. Dirk H,
    Wouldn’t our exports increase if the dollar lost value relative to other currencies? Wouldn’t that also make imports from China more expensive, thus decreasing our trade deficit?

  10. Exactly.
    One nit-pick though; not “the King of England” was p****d off, , rather “the King of Great Britain”. England (and Scotland) disappeared as sovereign countries in 1707 when a new country called Great Britain came into being.

  11. Ross Barton says:
    November 1, 2010 at 3:54 pm
    Krugman is a crackpot. Watching his public meltdown is embarrassing and painful, even for those of us who lean conservative. Was your post meant to be sarcastic?

  12. Ross Barton says:
    November 1, 2010 at 3:54 pm
    These figures are compliments of Prof. Paul Krugman, 2009 Nobel prize winner in economics.

    Just can’t help it, can you?

  13. If only things could be boiled down to simple truisms, then who would need to vote? Unfortunately you cannot, and your simple minded expression of a truism, is well, a bit silly. Are you against a combined defense? Should we do away with the Army? Are you against gov programs? Have you been consistent and burned your Medicaid and Social Security cards and have no plans to depend on them? Should we do away with roads building and make it paygo? Should we do away with all regulation of Waal Street and your medicine? What would you have go away? Have you consistently not used gov help?
    It is simple to throw out crap truisms, it is harder to govern. I pay alot of taxes, much more than the average American as I am luccky enough to be well off, and getting better. Does that mean I need to keep it all and not pay? Does it mean I should small mindedly resent those who make less and pay less, or not at all? No, I think I get a pretty good deal for my high taxes. Great roads, a great defense, a stable society – and that is more than rich folks have most places on this planet. Your taxes are a great deal, pay them and get over your own importance and judgment.
    I wouldn’t presume to know who God hates or judge for him, I leave that to him.

  14. Malcolm Miller, those telescopes look like what I think are called Schmidt-Cassegrain, like the famous C8. They are reflectors with a central secondary mirror in a glass correcting plate at the front end. The secondary mirror sends the light back down to the eyepieces through a hole in the primary mirror. You can even see a spot that’s supposed to be the back of the secondary mirror, I think. Nothing wrong with any of that. I’ll grant you they are unlikely to project out of their respective observatories, but ok, to me that’s acceptable artistic license in a cartoon. The reader has to be able to see them, after all :).

  15. I can’t believe our president did it again, and on the day before the election…
    ….now I’m an ignorant bigot racist, clinging to my guns and religion
    ……and I’m confused and scared, all at the same time
    How in this world do I ever make it through a day?

  16. Near term future will be defined by Gridlock and Law Suits. 5 states are ready to sue California for violation of intra-state commerce if we pass AB32 into law.
    Other States are already in suits related to Constitutional violations in the HealthCare Bill and attempting to put a leash on the EPA’s latest lunacy.
    “Tomorrow’s election is widely viewed as a referendum on the proper role of government in people’s lives. There is no question that the founders of our country intended there to be maximum of freedom on the part of individuals and the states, while placing strong limits on the role of the federal government.”
    Its going to take 2 or more elections to do this but its a good start.
    Great Post!

  17. You’re correct of course, re: the “elite” point of view. But it is not a new phenomenon. “What is best for Caesar is also best for Rome.” Or words to that effect.
    In some respects our species does seem to be slow learners.

  18. “”” Malcolm Miller says:
    November 1, 2010 at 3:43 pm
    What a pity that your clever caroonist still thinks (a) that telescopes have lenses on the end, and (b) that they ever project outside the dome, as if they were naval guns in turrets! Where did you see a picture of Telescopes ? Those are rapid fire gun turrets as can be found on a lot of modern naval vessels.
    If you are trying to bring down an exocet missile that is skimming the waves coming at your ship, a typical anti-missile sytem won’t react quick enough. The best bet is to raise the abundance of Pb (lead) in the atmosphre well above EPA limits to subtract momentum from the incoming missile. Deplete Uranium would also work if you are lucky enough to have some of that.

  19. From Wiki………”Paul Robin Krugman ……….is an American economist, Professor of Economics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics, and an op-ed columnist for The New York Times.”
    Woodrow Wilson and NY times………says all I need to know. You might just as well bring up a study from Algore. He’s a Nobel laureate too.
    Further, population growth? If one is to include population growth in regard revenue, then one has to include population growth in unproductive areas, such as welfare recipients. Not in regard to the drag on expenditures, but rather in regards to the fact that they don’t work, ergo, not producing any tax revenues!

  20. It was tax revenue Roy was talking about. That is the one parameter that can be looked at with confidence, as it cannot be adjusted. Even in constant dollars, more $billions came into the treasury in 1984 than last year.
    AND the kicker is that Krugman is dead wrong. He uses some nifty “assumptions” for his “models”. For example, he “adjusts” Consumer Price Indices, omitting some minor consumables like energy and food. When you take out little bitty things, like the price of gasoline in the 1970s, people were really doing great! (once they got out of the gasoline lines). Nor did buying power come into play for good old Kruggie—let’s see—how much was a calculator back in the good old 1970s?? I forget, wasn’t it a month’s worth of food, for example? Left-wing Keynesian “Economists” even today are continuing to “adjust” the data. Adjusting the past in a negative direction and the present in a positive trend. Sound familiar in this thread? Need I say more?
    I prefer the conclusions of Nobel Prize winner, the late Milton Friedman, who takes a 180 degree opposite take to the ultra-left Krugman.
    This is all moot because:
    a) The Nobel Prize, for anything but hard science, meaning physics, chemistry, biology, is bogus
    b) The Nobel Prize in economics is bogusser than most Nobel Prizes except for the Peace prize, of course, that is a joke.
    c) Alfred Lord Nobel is rolling over like a cuisinart in his grave.

  21. Curious George-
    Great point : “You’re correct of course, re: the “elite” point of view. But it is not a new phenomenon. “What is best for Caesar is also best for Rome.” Or words to that effect.”
    The problem is the Caesar here is the Koch Brothers, the folks funding Rove, and the rest of the billionaires behind the tea party and Fox News. Ever wonder why the tea party positions are exactly the ones the billionaires want? Read the agenda, follow the money – the elites are where you do not expect to find them…
    Murdoch is arguably more powerful than any president, he is Fox News…

  22. Curious George-
    Great point : “You’re correct of course, re: the “elite” point of view. But it is not a new phenomenon. “What is best for Caesar is also best for Rome.” Or words to that effect.”
    The problem is the Caesar here is the Koch Brothers, the folks funding Rove, and the rest of the billionaires behind the tea party and Fox News. Ever wonder why the tea party positions are exactly the ones the billionaires want? Read the agenda, follow the money – the elites are where you do not expect to find them…
    Murdoch is arguably more powerful than any president, he is the billionaire behind Fox News…
    [Duplicated post. Robt]

  23. Brad,
    I don’t resent those who pay less taxes than I do. I do resent people saying that because I’m successful I don’t pay my fair share.
    That being said, I think our government spends too much. I’d start by eliminating the Speaker of the House’s airplane, cutting a bunch of congressional staff and expenses and then start looking at reducing government subsidies and entitlements of all sorts.
    I don’t mind paying my fair share in taxes, I just think it’s the governments responsibility to spend the taxpayers’ Monet wisely.

  24. “And since the only demonstrated (and sustainable)way to accomplish this is to grow the economy, it requires personal economic freedom.”
    Distributed wealth is driven by CHEAP RELIABLE ENERGY.
    The US and Europe too is moving away from this economic model while China & India embrace it. Cheap Reliable Energy creates real wealth and opportunity. The Industrial Revolution to modern day was built on cheap reliable energy. Now the world wide recession is hitting deep in the US & EU as we destroy jobs & manufacturing by adding huge fake environmental financial skimming subsidies to energy costs. Our only hope is Science, thorium reactors maybe, but the idea of wind turbines and solar panels being the future is liking going back to the Stone Age.
    Cheap reliable energy. Why do politicians and scientists not get this?????????????

  25. MichaeljGardner-
    Add up the things you want to cut, I bet they dont touch the deficit. We should have a higher tax rate over 250K, and another over 1 million. We should also legalize gambling and pot and tax the crap out of them – it would make the streets safer to as it would take billions out of organized crime pockets.
    Are you really upset about paying 3% of what you make over the highest income bracket bracket? Not even 3% on the whole thing? Honestly, I probably would not notic if Bush tax cuts went away, but putting them back would do more for the deficit than any cut.
    Also, remeber that healthcare saved money on the deficit – paying healthcare for gov employees, Medicare and Medicaid is one of the highest gov costs…but if we take that away we live in a country where folks go bankrupt when they get sick, from non-preventable stuff like breast cancer…do you want to live in that country…for you saving 3% of what you make over 250K/year? You are kidding, are you really that selfish?

  26. Brad
    Ever wonder why the tea party positions are exactly the ones the billionaires want?
    ———–
    Billionaires like Soros?

  27. “”””” Ross Barton says:
    November 1, 2010 at 3:54 pm
    That line about Reagan cutting taxes and tax revenue soaring has been disproven time and again. People who cite this claim forget population growth and inflation during his presidency. Here are the annual rates of growth of real revenue per capita over several decades:
    1973-1979: 2.7%
    1979-1990: 1.8%
    1990-2000: 3.2%
    2000-2007: ~0.0%
    These figures are compliments of Prof. Paul Krugman, 2009 Nobel prize winner in economics. As you can see, real revenue growth as a result of Reagan’s tax cuts was poor. Well I think you will find the seeds of inflation were actually sowed during the Carter administration; and during the Reagan Administration, where he actually agreed to a tax increase (the 1986 tax act) the Congress promised spending cuts if he went along. He did; they didn’t.
    Housing prices in California doubled in four years following the passage of the 1986 tax act; and as a direct result of the provisions of that act. Nothing happened to the construction of a house in California, that would double its value.
    If the Congress doesn’t stop spending; other than what the Constitution authorises it to do, then that takes money away from the industrial base which alone can increase real wealth. When some people can get for nothing; what other people can get with money; then the money becomes of no value.

  28. @ brad says:
    November 1, 2010 at 4:41 pm
    RE: Koch Brothers, the folks funding Rove, and the rest of the billionaires behind the tea party and Fox News. Ever wonder why the tea party positions are exactly the ones the billionaires want? Read the agenda, follow the money – the elites are where you do not expect to find them…
    Caesar also had his coterie of hangers on and court jesters. Where there are coat tails there will be riders. And challengers, of course. The age old game of King of the Hill. Such has been the way of the world forever.

  29. brad says:
    November 1, 2010 at 4:41 pm
    Murdoch is arguably more powerful than any president, he is Fox News…

    Pick your poison…
    Rupert Murdoch or George Soros?

  30. Michaeljgardner says:
    November 1, 2010 at 4:12 pm
    “Wouldn’t our exports increase if the dollar lost value relative to other currencies? Wouldn’t that also make imports from China more expensive, thus decreasing our trade deficit?”
    The US needs huge amounts of inflation – not to make its products competitive but to bring down the real value of the debt (leaving the creditors empty-handed). Yes, in the process American products would become more competitive, and China would have to rely more on their own consumption and maybe on European and emerging markets for their products, but they absolutely need to find a way out of their dollar dependency – because at the moment, they form a de facto currency union with the US and can’t stop the US from printing money, bringing the Renminbi down together with the Dollar.
    If the inflation process can be controlled, it’s the easy way out of the public debt problem, reducing the value of dollar based assets in the process. That’s what i meant with “taxation through inflation” – your assets lose value, an effect equivalent to a tax.
    It’s one of the usual ways to get out of the public debt trap for a state. It will of course be a global power shift because of the size and importance of the US economy.

  31. Soros on the left (who sat out this election, BTW) vs the Koch Brothers, Target, Fox News, Halliburton, big oil, Murdoch, the coal industry, big polluters, and Wall Street.
    Who is on your side little guy, pick…

  32. That line about Reagan cutting taxes and tax revenue soaring has been disproven time and again.
    If you include inflation, revenue was up 28%. If you include population increase (including many poor immigrants), then it is still 18% per capita. Huge economic growth. And if that immigration had occurred without a tax cut, I hate to imagine how bad things would have been.
    That’s after a marginal rate cut from 70% to 28%. Those are the facts.
    Also, try running the federal revenue numbers under Bush — year by year — and matching them with the tax cuts (marginal rate and capital gains, indexed for inflation), then try and tell me how tax cuts caused the deficit.
    This is not a “liberal vs. conservative thing”. It’s a “what is, IS” thing. Politics has (read “ought to have”) nothing to do with it.
    Show me any extended period in human history when the gap between rich and poor widened and I’ll show you good times for the poor (The Rise of Egypt. The Glory that was Greece. The Grandeur that was Rome. The Han Dynasty. The Renaissance. The Enlightenment. The Industrial Revolution. The information Age.)
    Contrast this with any extended period when the gap between rich and poor narrowed and I’ll show you catastrophic times for the poor. (The fall of the Middle Kingdom. The sack of Rome. The Dark Ages. The 100-Years’ War. The Mongol Hordes. The 30-Years’ War. The Panic of 1837 (1891, 1897, etc.). World War I. The Great Depression.)
    P.S., not just for the poor. For everybody.
    Why is it that today’s neoliberals insist (very loudly and pejoratively) on policies that are HORRIBLE for the poor? (The answers scare me.)
    When are my brother liberals going to take a sanity pill and come back to me?

  33. Brad,
    do you want to live in that country…for you saving 3% of what you make over 250K/year? You are kidding, are you really that selfish?
    I only stated that whatever taxes I paid should be spent wisely, and that people shouldn’t be told to resent me because I didn’t pay more. I’m not sure where you coming up with me being selfish.
    I will take your suggestion and add up the spending cuts that I would make and see where that gets me. Can I also add revenue to the government for oil drilled domestically?
    Sorry, have to sign off now. Thanks for replying.

  34. @ brad.
    PS: I could also list a few on the “other side”. Shall we start with George Soros? Or perhaps Bill Gates?

  35. brad says:
    November 1, 2010 at 4:34 pm
    latitude-
    What are talking about? [snip]
    ==================================
    Calling people, that disagree with him, names, brad.
    and our stupid president did it again right before another election

  36. Dr Spencer writes:

    Al Gore, James Cameron, Harrison Ford, Julia Roberts, RFK, Jr. These people apparently believe they are God’s gift to humanity. How else can we explain that they do not see the hypocrisy the rest of the nation sees in their behavior?

    Reminded me of this at COP-15: click

  37. “”””” Here are the annual rates of growth of real revenue per capita over several decades:
    1973-1979: 2.7%
    1979-1990: 1.8%
    1990-2000: 3.2%
    2000-2007: ~0.0% “””””
    So why did you stop the most recent decade way back in 2007; this is nearly the end of 2010; so where’s the current data.
    Everybody agrees that Reagan spent massive amounts of money rebuilding the US military from basically a junkyard; to where it finally had some credibility; and that turns out to be the very first task assigned tot he US Government (National Defense; actually the providing for).
    Did uber economic genius Krugman factor out the economic drag on the US economy caused by the new age of terrorism ushered in by 9-11-2001, and the economic consequences of dealing with that; and I’m not even including the two wars that the Congress declared; just the new pains endured by industry; like the travel inductry for example.
    By the way; since we are concerned more about climate than weather, What would your expert economists say is the average (real) long term growth rate of the economy since say 1900 ?
    Just asking; a number that comes to mind; well a number I heard from a Stanford Economist circa 1975 for that long term annual growth rate was 2.5%.

  38. Now they are not going to post my argument winning thoughts – way to go! Who needs truth or argument on a science site? I guess you are proving once again this isn’t about science, but true belief…
    [Reply: Five minutes elapsed between your last comment and this one, and your last comment was posted before you posted this one. What is your complaint? ~dbs, mod.]

  39. Sorry mod, noted several comments with later time stamps – maybe I am feeling a bit attacked on the site, but, I asked for it…

  40. Just as along as your not pinning all the US economic woes on global warming policy. In reality the problem is deeper than a would be carbon tax (a tax that I strongly oppose).
    The problem with our “free market” is that it is not a fair market by any stretch of the imagination. China is undercutting our manufacturing industries because they pay people $15 a week. So in a globalized free market Americans are unlikely to compete with slave labor. The net result of all those cheap electronics we are buying is to destroy the true costs of production and ultimately our economies (and lifestyles) go down the drain.
    Unless you advocate huge tariffs on imported goods (so they reflect our economic well-being), I have no sympathy with your free market mechanisms, since they are now working against us…..

  41. Ross Barton complains that Reagan’s tax cuts failed to spur growth from 1979 through 1982 when they took effect. I suppose the economy should have known the tax cuts were coming and expanded under Carter?

  42. CuriousGeorge-
    When has Bill Gates been into politics? Most of his money goes for childhood vaccinations and mosquito nets…

  43. Michael-
    Sure, add domestically drilled oil, but be careful as oil sands may soon become truly viable and then even more oil will come from Canada and not the Middle East.

  44. Soros on the left (who sat out this election, BTW) vs the Koch Brothers, Target, Fox News, Halliburton, big oil, Murdoch, the coal industry, big polluters, and Wall Street.
    Who is on your side…

  45. It is not just public debt that is our enemy. Total credit market debt now stands at 350% of GDP (about 90% public and 260% private). This is a historically high level and cannot be sustained, for comparison, the total debt as a percent of GDP was only about 250% prior to the great depression. It then exploded during the great depression as GDP collapsed. Whether we like it or not the bank bail out saved us from another great depression…….if Hoover had it to do over again I think he would have done the same thing.
    We still have to climb down off this ledge (cliff?) we are standing on. Fall off in one direction and we suffer runaway inflation and a worthless dollar as others become unwilling to finance our rapidly growing public debt. Fall off in the other direction and we suffer another great depression and massive defaults on private debt as the money supply collapses. Both situations would cause a reversion to the mean of the debt/GDP ratio, but both would also be very painful to us as a society.
    There remains a lot to do and we need real leaders. So far I have seen few on either side of the aisle.

  46. evanmjones says:
    November 1, 2010 at 4:59 pm
    That’s after a marginal rate cut from 70% to 28%. Those are the facts.

    Let’s randomly pick 3 of the wealthiest Americans who’s rise to riches began in the ’80s- and also benefited from the cut in the top marginal rate-
    Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Warren Buffett.
    Two techies and a capitalist.
    Is it possible to quantify how many millions of jobs they have created? Can we even fathom how much our quality of life has improved due to technology created by Gates and Jobs, and the efficient use of capital by Buffet?
    Government needs to get out of the way and let the Gates’s, Jobs’s, and Buffetts do their thing.

  47. brad,
    I don’t believe your house price link is accurate. True, there was a recession around ’90 – ’91 that affected prices. But not that much. Your link has a disclaimer:
    “The above chart estimates the market value…”
    Reality trumps estimates. I was a real estate broker in California during that time [now retired]. Things were not nearly as bad as that chart shows. But then, it’s just someone’s estimate…

  48. Tomorrow, November 2, 2001, will be a referendum on TV/Cable mainstream media news, and its power to sway an election the way they were cheer leading for.
    If little old FOX didn’t have all the alternative media tugging on the rope with them, to create a cosmic shift in the political circles of astronomical proportions, with a massive win for the pseudo-republican party, the rest of the MSM that is massive in influence other than FOX, knows, knows, the emperor has no clothes. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, yes all these emperors. Cheering for their chief Emperor BO since 2007. These are the ones cheering for that socialist global agenda. And now they and everyone know, knows 70% don’t like the way they were trying to steer us so we rejected them and their vision.
    We had a lot of help. The Tea Party movement Astroturfed the GOP. Something the MSM tried to ignore since the Ron Paul Movement started it December 16, 2007 with the theme for their presidential fund raiser, The Boston Tea Party. They set an Internet record of $6 million raised for Ron Paul in a one day using only the internet.
    The most interesting thing about the Tea Party is they do not have a leader. They are more like the internet blogs doing what they do by crowdsourcing. The model came from the Ron Paul Movement. We raised $4 million on November 5th and $6 million on December 16th. We had no leader of the grassroots movement. It just sprung up and grew. They had a message.

  49. DirkH says:
    November 1, 2010 at 4:58 pm
    “If the inflation process can be controlled,[…]”
    I’d like to add that i see it as inevitable – my personal interest is finding out when it will start, what its effects will be, and whether it will stay in control.

  50. This from a fellow user at http://www.freerepublic.com; see also:
    http://soquelbythecreek.blogspot.com/2010/08/socialists-in-united-states-congress.html

    “The following members of Congress are Marxists and terrorist coddlers who have rebranded themselves as “Progressives” in an attempt to hide their agenda
    Nancy Pelosi was one of the original members of the “Congressional Progressive Caucus” and only left when she was named Minority Leader.
    She is now Speaker of the House and 2 heartbeats away from President of the United States.
    The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) was established in 1991 by five members of the United States House of Representatives: Representatives Ron Dellums (D-CA), Lane Evans (D-IL), Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Maxine Waters (D-CA), and Bernie Sanders (I-VT).
    Then-Representative Bernie Sanders was the convener and first. The founding members were concerned about the economic hardship imposed by the deepening recession, the growing inequality brought about by the timidity of the Democratic Party response at the time.
    Additional House representatives joined soon, including Major Owens (D-NY), Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), David Bonior (D-MI), Bob Filner (D-CA), Barney Frank (D-MA), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Jim McDermott (D-WA), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Patsy Mink (D-HI), George Miller (D-CA), Pete Stark (D-CA), John Olver (D-MA), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).
    All members are members of the Democratic Party or caucus with the Democratic Party. There are currently 82 total declared Progressives including 79 voting Representatives, 2 non-voting Delegates, and 1 Senator.
    Using information from the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org), I separated the members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus into four groups, based on a subjective review of his or her major contributors. Where appropriate, there is a link to an associated video highlight of the Congressman’s/women’s sheer brilliance.
    [YES] = Most top campaign contributors are public-employee or labor unions
    [MOSTLY] = Many top campaign contributors are public-employee or labor unions
    [MIXED] = Some top campaign contributors are public-employee or labor unions, but some are not
    [NO] = Few top campaign contributors are public-employee or labor unions
    Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (as of 2-JUN-2010)
    Co-Chairs
    Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07) [YES]
    Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06) [YES]
    Vice Chairs
    Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33) [YES]
    Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05) [YES]
    Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18) [YES]
    * (VIDEO HIGHLIGHT: “Was it the Korean War or the Vietnam War? I get confused”)
    Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02) [MIXED]
    Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10) [YES]
    Hon. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04) [MIXED]
    Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08) [YES]
    Senate Members
    Hon. Roland Burris (IL) [NO]
    Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT) [YES]
    Hon. Tom Udall (NM) [YES]
    House Members
    Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02) [MOSTLY]
    Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31) [YES]
    Hon. Earl Blumenauer (OR-03) [YES]
    Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01) [YES]
    Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03) [MOSTLY]
    * (VIDEO HIGHLIGHTS: “Rank has its privledges”)
    Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08) [MIXED]
    Hon. André Carson (IN-07) [MOSTLY]
    Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL) [NO]
    Hon. Judy Chu (CA-32) [MOSTLY]
    Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11) [YES]
    Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-01) [YES]
    Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05) [MIXED]
    Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09) [MIXED]
    Hon. John Conyers (MI-14) [YES]
    * (VIDEO HIGHLIGHT: “Read the bill”)
    Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07) [YES]
    Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07) [YES]
    Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04) [YES]
    Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03) [MOSTLY]
    Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17) [YES]
    Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02) [YES]
    Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51) [YES]
    * (VIDEO HIGHLIGHT: “I’m a Congressman. I demand special treatment.”)
    Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04) [MIXED] Lots of financial institutions
    * (VIDEO HIGHLIGHT: “Statements on Fannie and Freddie just before the collapse”)
    Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11) [MIXED]
    Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04) [YES]
    Hon. John Hall (NY-19) [MIXED]
    Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17) [YES]
    * (VIDEO HIGHLIGHT: “I don’t care about the Constitution”)
    Hon. Alcee Hastings (FL-23) [MOSTLY]
    Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22) [YES]
    Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15) [YES]
    Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02) [MIXED]
    Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30) [MOSTLY]
    Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04) [YES]
    * (VIDEO HIGHLIGHT: “Guam might tip over and capsize”)
    Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09) [YES]
    Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13) [MIXED]
    Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09) [YES]
    Hon. John Lewis (GA-05) [YES]
    Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02) [YES]
    Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3) [MIXED]
    Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14) [MIXED]
    Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07) [NO]
    Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07) [MIXED]
    Hon. James McGovern (MA-03) [YES]
    Hon. George Miller (CA-07) [YES]
    Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04) [YES]
    Hon. Jim Moran (VA-08) [NO]
    Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08) [MOSTLY]
    Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-All) [YES]
    Hon. John Olver (MA-01) [YES]
    Hon. Frank Pallone (NJ-06) [YES]
    Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04) [YES]
    Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10) [YES]
    Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01) [MIXED]
    Hon. Jared Polis (CO-02) [NO]
    Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15) [MIXED]
    Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37) [YES]
    Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34) [YES]
    Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01) [YES]
    Hon. Linda Sánchez (CA-39) [YES]
    Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09) [YES]
    Hon. José Serrano (NY-16) [YES]
    Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28) [YES]
    Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13) [MOSTLY]
    * (VIDEO HIGHLIGHT: “On the national debt, which is a sign of wealth(?)”)
    * (VIDEO HIGHLIGHT: “Demonstrating his inate charm with a voter”)
    * (VIDEO HIGHLIGHT: “On the limits of federal power – at 2:50”)
    Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02) [YES]
    Hon. John Tierney (MA-06) [YES]
    Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12) [YES]
    Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35) [YES]
    * (VIDEO HIGHLIGHTS: “Socializing, Nationalizing — so what’s the difference?”)
    * (VIDEO HIGHLIGHTS: “On Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac”)
    Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12) [MIXED]
    Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30) [MOSTLY]
    * (VIDEO HIGHLIGHT: “Demonstrating his renowned understanding of the issues”
    Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL) [MIXED]
    Posted by Soquel by the Creek at 4:54 PM
    Labels: campaign financing, Congressional Progressive Caucus, CPC, Democratic Socialists of America, DSA
    0 comments:
    [edit] Former members
    * Sherrod Brown (OH-13) – Elected to Senate
    * Julia Carson (IN-07) – Died in December 2007
    * Lane Evans (IL-17) – Retired from Congress
    * Cynthia McKinney (GA-4) – Lost Congressional seat to current caucus member Hank Johnson
    * Major Owens (NY-11) – Retired from Congress
    * Nancy Pelosi (CA-8) – Left Caucus when Elected House Minority Leader
    * Hilda Solis (CA-32) – Became Secretary of Labor in 2009
    * Stephanie Tubbs Jones (OH-11) – Died in 2008
    * Tom Udall (NM Senate)
    * Paul Wellstone (MN Senate) – Died in plane crash in 2002”


    As you see, these "progressives/communists/socialists" get their money from the national labor unions who get their power and money and funding and members from the national, state, and local governments. A nice feedback cycle – if you can get on it by bribing the unions. The "people" have no say and no control – it is the national labor unions (government employees – who are the largest donors to their democrat employees (er, democrat ONLY! – Representatives and Senators) .
    And in fact, contrary to you complaining about the ONE TV cable news program that does not bow to your socialist themes, the rest of the entire ABBCNNBCBS news media in the country DOES vote democrat, marry democrats, live democrat and go to work as democrats when they leave their TV and media jobs.
    Soros IS socialism personified. Evil, rich, selfish, self-centered, and bent on destroying the world as we (used to) know it. He has destroyed country's' monetary systems before (Asia, Europe, UK, etc.) and is hard at work repeating that "success" in the US – under your themes and with your assistance.
    So, my question to you, is: Why? Why do you want failure for your fellow humans, death to many millions more, and more riches for those liberals and socialists who enslave you?

  51. Brad
    Does your doing what you consider to be the “morally” corrrect thing do do depend on other people doing the same? I ask, but do not need your answer. If you write a check to the goverment each year based on what you think should be paid, then my hat is off to you, if not your answer to my question is in the affirmitive.
    BTW, you have already called one feloow poster selfish when you know nothing about him.

  52. A major statement from an ‘insider’ who personally knows many of the scientists who are the main advocates of AGWH.
    A strong political element to his comments which, of course, is the essence of the current obsession with CO2.
    IMVHO I think the division between Left and Right politics is unhelpful.
    Governments should spend no more than they raise in taxation; equality of opportunity is an essential aim but equality of achievement is impossible given the inevitable Gaussian distribution of intelligence and motivation.
    Population control can only be obtained by emancipating women from the control of male dominated religions – Spain and Italy are excellent examples of falling birthrates – and raising their standard of living and opportunity.
    The success of AGWH is partly the result of educational systems that fail to instil numeracy and the fundamental principals of the scientific method. Many of those failed pupils become politicians and thus are unable to understand the difficulties with AGW and the ignorant energy policies which they follow.
    Hopefully, serious US investigations will follow the coming elections.
    Ultimately, the honesty and integrity of Anthony, Steve and so many other contributors will prevail, best before too much economic damage is done.

  53. Brilliant piece of text, Mr Spencer!
    I hope you will be both the economic AND science-advisor of the next US President.

  54. Sorry, I meant November 2, 2010 in the first line.
    PS
    That video I posted was made by internet people.

  55. Tax rate cuts and the Laffer curve.
    “President Kennedy proposed massive tax-rate reductions, which were passed by Congress and became law after he was assassinated. The 1964 tax cut reduced the top marginal personal income tax rate from 91 percent to 70 percent by 1965. The cut reduced lower-bracket rates as well. In the four years prior to the 1965 tax-rate cuts, federal government income tax revenue–adjusted for inflation–increased at an average annual rate of 2.1 percent, while total government income tax revenue (federal plus state and local) increased by 2.6 percent per year (See Table 4). In the four years following the tax cut, federal government income tax revenue increased by 8.6 percent annually and total government income tax revenue increased by 9.0 percent annually. Government income tax revenue not only increased in the years following the tax cut, it increased at a much faster rate.”
    “Prior to the tax cut, the economy was choking on high inflation, high Interest rates, and high unemployment. All three of these economic bellwethers dropped sharply after the tax cuts. The unemployment rate, which peaked at 9.7 percent in 1982, began a steady decline, reaching 7.0 percent by 1986 and 5.3 percent when Reagan left office in January 1989.
    Inflation-adjusted revenue growth dramatically improved. Over the four years prior to 1983, federal income tax revenue declined at an average rate of 2.8 percent per year, and total government income tax revenue declined at an annual rate of 2.6 percent. Between 1983 and 1986, federal income tax revenue increased by 2.7 percent annually, and total government income tax revenue increased by 3.5 percent annually.”
    http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/06/the-laffer-curve-past-present-and-future

  56. BTW Brad, for a long time now Wall Syreet had given more money, by far, to democrats, three of the largest recipients were #1 Barack Obama, number two Chriss Dodd ((head of the Senate Finance committe) and of course Barney.

  57. “”””” brad says:
    November 1, 2010 at 4:41 pm
    Curious George-
    Great point : “You’re correct of course, re: the “elite” point of view. But it is not a new phenomenon. “What is best for Caesar is also best for Rome.” Or words to that effect.”
    The problem is the Caesar here is the Koch Brothers, the folks funding Rove, and the rest of the billionaires behind the tea party and Fox News. Ever wonder why the tea party positions are exactly the ones the billionaires want? “””””
    Well Brad, there’s a word for your position as outlined here:-
    Total ignorance. You’ve obviously NEVER been to any TEA party rally or event; as in “Taxed Enough Already” party.
    I have no idea who the hell the Koch brothers are; and I do know who Carl Rove is; and none of them have anything to do with the TEA party; in fact Rove has publicly repudiated it.
    I HAVE been to two such events; both public gatherings open to anyone and everyone who wanted to go. The First one was on April 15 2009, as a tax day gathering (in San Jose CA) and the other was I believe July 4th same year same place.
    There were no billionaires in attendance; just ordinary folks like me; I had no signs just a silent presence to observe since I’m a legal premanent resident alien; so I can’t vote on anything; so I tend to keep my mouth shut and listen to what the Citizens have to say.
    And they were of every ethnic perusasion, every economic stratum, every age from teeners to 90 year olds; workers and retired or college students; just plain ordinary folks; and basically nobody but a couple of mom and pop folks organized those gatherings; and the organisation amounted to nothing more than public notice of time and place.
    The thing that infuriates the ordinary obsolete media; like news papers and TV networks and you political Socialists, is that you have completely lost control of the news available to the public; and you no longer can bamboozle folks with massaged “news”; you have become totally irrelevent; even Carl Rove has become totally irrelevent; for he was just a political machinist anyway.
    The TEA party, is neither Democrat nor Republican, nor Green nor Libertarian; it is pretty much ordinary folks who would just like to have a government that follows the model that the framers wrote down in the Constitution; and they wrote it in plain ordinary English (of the day) so the people could understand EXACTLY what it means; and it doesn’t need any lawyers or Courts to “Interpret” which basically means put into other words. Well “other words” convey other meaning; and the framers chose to not use “other words” they chose their own words which were written down for all to see and understand.
    And as the TEA movement has gathered steam; the deadbeats from the Republican party and the Democrat party have been trying their damndest to figure out how to climb on the train; and to no avail.
    The grass roots PEOPLE are not going to be hoodwinked.
    CBS, that paragon of good journalism as portrayed by Walter Cronkite; “The most trusted man in America”, and his disciples has been caught with their open mike hand in the cookie jar joking to each other about how they are going to find a child molester among the supporters of a candidate in the Alaska senate race; and also try to get a fist fight going as happened already in one other race. This is the “public’s right to kow media in action; no wonder they are being relegated to the scrap heap of history; well this is more like a dungheap.

  58. Doc Spencer writes:

    There are many new, young scientists now joining the ranks. They are being mentored by the older scientists who helped spread the alarm concerning manmade global warming. And they will be rewarded for playing the game.

    Maybe these many new young scientists will have fresh viewpoints that will better utilize the data from the wonderful satellites that you describe. It sure would have been interesting to give a questionnaire to all of those young scientists at the meeting to find out what they know and believe about manmade global warming. I would have been very interested in the answer to this question:
    “Do you think that the viewpoint of Dr. Roy Spencer: that the majority of what we now view as “climate change” is just part of a natural cycle in the climate system — is supported by the data which is being collected by NASA’s A-Train satellites?”
    I sure would like to see where the numbers fell on that one.

  59. brad says:
    November 1, 2010 at 4:58 pm (Edit)

    Soros on the left (who sat out this election, BTW) vs the Koch Brothers, Target, Fox News, Halliburton, big oil, Murdoch, the coal industry, big polluters, and Wall Street.

    You lie. Sorry to be blunt, but you lie. Soros (when he is not making hundreds of billions in oil exploration off the coast of Brazil using US government-guaranteed loans (saving tens of billions more!) while his candidate (Obama) shut down US off-shore production over the same time frame) DID spend almost 150 million in this election through front groups and false NGO agencies. Yet Soros is outspent by the national unions of government “workers” and government employees and government contractors by about 30%. These government unions were largest money raisers this year: and their money went to democrat/socialist/big government spenders. NO union money went to conservative republicans. NONE went to Tea Party candidates.
    Wall Street money? It went to democrats Barney Frank (House, MA) and Chuck Schumer (NY) and Chris Dodd (CT) the democrat national committees. Before that? To Hillary Clinton (D, NY) and to her husband’s ever-running campaigns. You did know that White House visitors to Clinton were required to donate 100,000.00 to the Clinton’s library just to get a meeting, didn’t you? Even the Indian tribes had to “donate” to see their own representative in the Interior Dept.) Wall Street money did NOT go to republicans – because “big government Wall Street” knows it can control and influence/bribe any democrat it wants to, but Wall Street cannot control conservative republicans. The biggest donor to Obama? Wall Street’s Goldman-Sachs. George Soros. Soros’ front organizations. The unions. Overseas money, laundered by anonymous credit card donors that Obama deliberately refused to record, so he did not have to tell anyone where his 2008-2009-2010 money came from.
    Obama’s other money? Big oil money and energy money – Like from BP, Exxon-Mobil, Entergy, Duke Power, Exelon, etc. Simply put, dear sir, you are mindlessly repeating the lies you have been told. And these lies are ever the more fruitful because they feed on your own inner lies that began by feeding on your prejudices and your hatreds.
    Those companies above, by the way, co-wrote your cap-and-tax bill so THEY could pass alone any rates increases to their customers – all the while ensuring that the bill was voted on AND NEVER READ by the democrats sponsoring it. Why? Because your democrat writers knew they could not withstand scrutiny and the light of day. And, by the way, your vaunted cap-and-tax bill REMOVES taxes and carbon penalties from power plants in democrat districts. It ADDS those carbon taxes and emission restrictions on refineries and power plants and coal mines in republican districts.
    Very clever those democrats.

  60. A most excellent article Dr Spencer. Direct, to the point, utterly logical, and only by citing controversial half truths as have already been showing up in this thread can an argument be made against what you have said.
    I note also that the elitists paint their opposition as bible thumping bigots forcing their belief system on everyone else, while carefully explaining in short sentences using simple words that anyone who doesn’t understand their point of view lacks the intellect to do so, and must be protected from themselves. I note that there are believers and nonbelievers on both sides of the political divide, but consider for a moment if the broad brush stereotype was true. Those bible thumping right wingers are taught responsibility for one’s actions as well as self reliance, while it is the supposedly atheistic eltists who are certain of their superior intellect and out of responsibility for humanity, seek to impose their belief system on everyone else. Odd that they believe themselves immune from history’s lessons while those they seek to control in the best interests of humanity are under no such illusion. Believers in a deity or not, the right knows that history and climate are cyclical. We’re hostage to the climate’s cycles, but also potentially hostage to those who ignore history’s lessons and seek to repeat them while dragging the rest of humanity along for the ride. We can’t do that much about the climate, but on the rest of it, all we need do is speak up, be clear as Dr Spencer has, and vote.

  61. Government needs to get out of the way and let the Gates’s, Jobs’s, and Buffetts do their thing.
    I completely agree.
    (There is a technical term that describes trickle-down economics. That technical term is “Economics”. A/k/a “Remedial Economics .001”. I never earned a penny that wasn’t trickled down from someone richer than me.)
    I think you may possibly have misunderstood the gist of my last post!

  62. During the Reagan administration, the American economy went from a GDP growth of -0.3% in 1980 to 4.1% in 1988 (in constant 2005 dollars),[10] which reduced the unemployment rate by 1.6pp, from 7.1% in 1980 to 5.5% in 1988…The inflation rate, 13.5% in 1980, fell to 4.1% in 1988,…During the Reagan Administration, federal receipts grew at an average rate of 8.2% (2.5% attributed to higher Social Security receipts), and federal outlays grew at an annual rate of 7.1%.[28][29] Most of that revenue growth occurred after the tax reductions. On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.
    Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
    Now Brad if you subtract the very expensive military programs from these numbers, then from a purely economic perspective freeing people to produce unencumbered was very positive and large tax cuts were very successful. You stated that Dr Spencer’s post was simple and not nuanced. Actually your post about the Reagan years was very misleading and not nuanced.
    Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.

  63. That line about Reagan cutting taxes and tax revenue soaring has been disproven time and again. People who cite this claim forget population growth and inflation during his presidency. Here are the annual rates of growth of real revenue per capita over several decades:
    1973-1979: 2.7%
    1979-1990: 1.8%
    1990-2000: 3.2%
    2000-2007: ~0.0%
    Wow, talk about cherry picking dates. Reagan was in office from 1980-1988. The first couple of years were a severe recession to which his response were tax cuts. These did indeed result in significant increases in government revenue. Other recent government revenue occurred in the 1990’s (from the contract with America?) and during the 2000’s (after the Bush tax cuts). See this chart here to draw your own conclusions, and don’t rely on the distorted statistics summarized by someone else.
    http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/federal-government-revenues

  64. Ross Barton says:
    November 1, 2010 at 3:54 pm
    “These figures are compliments of Prof. Paul Krugman, 2009 Nobel prize winner in economics.”
    There is no Nobel prize in economics. It’s a myth. Google and see.

  65. Dr. Spencer,
    Have you had the opportunity to create a power generating turbine 18 times more efficient?
    I have and believe me, no one is interested. Companies make more money off of 18 turbines compared to one. No matter how many engineers or hydro companies have look at it and are interested.
    [You’ll need numbers and some independent verification of that claim, plus test and reliability data, and systems data (fluid, design data, test data, turbine sizes, material, energy exchange data, thermodynamics input/output, speeds, weights, etc.) . Remember, you are facing a skeptical audience…. Robt]

  66. “”””” brad says:
    November 1, 2010 at 5:14 pm
    CuriousGeorge-
    When has Bill Gates been into politics? Most of his money goes for childhood vaccinations and mosquito nets… Well even quite recently. Bill Gates put up $700,000 to help defeat California’s Prop 23; which would do nothing but delay the implementation of California’s punitive carbon taxing scheme on EVERONE in the State which goes into effect in 2012; and will simply drive bsusinesses out of California to more enlightened States.
    Gates along with Kleiner Perkins aka Al Gore stand to reap billions in tax payer funds for their corporate welfare parasite operations in the “green” energy field. The green is in their pockets if prop 23 fails tomorrow. If that “Green” energy creates ANY jobs; they will be in communist red China, and India/Pakistan/Bangladesh; the one place they won’t be, will be in California.
    Personally, I don’t begrudge Gates/Jobs/Ellison a brass razoo of their huge fortunes; more power to them; they have provided jobs for tens of millions of people world wide. That doesn’t mean they are all altruistic.
    There are more filthy rich Liberals by far than there are filthy rich Conservatives; or any other kind of filthy rich; and the filth tends to stick to people who hang around them; much more than does the rich.
    Once helped found a Si Valley startup; 8 of us plus our wives. We had a business plan that called for $780,000 funding (1970). Venture capitalists wanted a piece of us, in the worst possible way; but wanted to give us $1meg in exchange for 80% of the company; with us keeping 20%.
    We said thanks, but no thanks; so we cut the plan in half and dug the $390 k out of our pockets and a handful of friends. Started manufacturing on the President’s wife’s Kitchen table. Opened Apr 1st. Shipped first product in July ($10 I hand carried shipment to customer). Did $80k total for year. $1.4 meg first full year, $14meg second full year, $26meg third full year.
    When we eventually let the VCs in it was on our terms; not theirs. Became the largest company in that business in the world at one point; twice as big as the second guy. Reached a $50meg per year shipping rate before basic misteaks that our expensive outside Board Directors failed to prevent us from making; and ended up selling it off in a CH-11 situation.
    That industry is now in the multi billions. Maybe we got in too early; the money bags were no great help; we grew mostly from bank loans. Never raised any public financing related somewhat to a CA government operator making sure we didn’t end around his political friends. It was a blast; yes a few people got hurt in the foldup; but most escaped with not too much damage.
    The skeletal remains still exist as part of a large successful multinational well run company.
    I didn’t make a dime; but didn’t lose either. If you get the chance DO it !

  67. Anyone notice when democrats win elections…
    …voters are intelligent and informed
    When democrats lose elections..
    ..those same voters are ignorant bigot racists
    “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it” Pelosi

  68. Isn’t it clear that the folks running things know very well that tax cuts stimulate the economy, increase employment, grow businesses and increase exports? They’re not stupid.
    The problem is, they know it but they don’t care. They are intent on looting the rest of us. And for every Koch [had to look that one up] there are multiple Soros NGOs, and the Tides foundation, the Ford foundation, the Heinz foundation, etc., etc.
    Why are the big money folks almost all leftists? Status. They’ve already got theirs, they can buy governments, and they do not want a less exclusive big bucks club.

  69. My relatives in Norway live under a government that is far closer to socialism than the USA has ever been. Ditto for Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Finland, etc. These countries are ahead of the US in fundamental quality of life – free medical care for all and excellent medical care by the way, free education, generous leaves for childbirth, etc. The average lifespan reflects the good healthcare and education. All of these countries tax gasoline and energy heavily and drive energy efficient cars (not American guzzlers). Denmark is on its way to being oil independent. Germany has beat America every year in this decade in the amount of exports to the rest of the world. European socialism simply means providing for your people, insuring health, education, and a decent life. The ultrasocialist Scandanavian countries annually are ranked as the top countries in the world for quality of life.
    Mr. racookpe1978 seems to be obsessed with his pathological fear of socialism. I would suggest he spend some time in Norway and talk perhaps to my relatives: teacher, engineer, physician, and a farmer’s wife – all robust, healthy, and happy. Travel is a great cure for bucholic parochialism and festering ideology.

  70. Smokey, good point
    But you missed the overall
    Big money Leftists like big government because they can control people.
    Controlling conservatives is like herding cats.
    TEA party, a perfect example of that.
    People that say the TEA party is ‘controlled’ or ‘influenced’ have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

  71. Smokey;
    I think the short version explanation you are looking for reads like this:
    The lord helps those who help themselves. The government helps those that don’t, first by helping themselves to the bank accounts of those who help themselves, and then by paying themselves handsomely with the money they have helped themselves to in order to help those that don’t, provided that any money is left at that point. Lord help us. Let us vote.

  72. Damn it!!!! Got into a few protracted phone conversations and all the butt hurt has already been dealt! So, just for fun, let’s recap!
    Dr. Spencer is speaking from knowledge and truth. (To power!)
    George Soros didn’t really sit this one out.
    The Koch brothers are conservative.
    Krugman is a dolt not worth mentioning.
    The Nobel prize is nothing but a “hate on western civilization” prize.
    We all figured that out when they handed Arafat the Nobel PEACE prize but some dolts were slow and couldn’t figure that out until Gore won his.
    Housing prices were and are overinflated. It sucks if you spent $1/2 mil on a house that the materials and labor didn’t cost $100,000, but its overinflated. Take a bath and learn from your mistake!
    And finally, being educated doesn’t exempt you from idiocy.
    Oh, and I almost forgot! Most importantly!
    Rich people add to, rather than take away from our economy! In American society, class envy is nothing more than an excuse for laziness and self defeatism. Engaging in such a venture sickens me. I don’t have much, nor do I require much in as far as tangible wealth. What I do require, is that I be allowed to retain my earned wealth. And if, by God’s grace, I have an ability to earn great wealth, I’d like to think I’d be able to keep some of it without someone thinking I shouldn’t posses it. For if that’s the case, why try to get ahead at all? Why innovate? Why manage? Why be frugal? Why attempt to accumulate? It would all be for naught if some would have their way.
    REPLY – Yes. Class envy is the worst poison prevalent in American society. Almost all social ills and stupidity derive from it. Horribly self-destructive, mindbendingly stupid. (And, for that matter, sinful.) ~ Evan

  73. Other recent government revenue occurred in the 1990′s (from the contract with America?)
    That and the capital gains tax cut (one of the best policy moves during the Clinton presidency).

  74. Owen says:
    November 1, 2010 at 6:13 pm
    ===============================
    Owen, didn’t you guys start out with kings and monarchs?
    I can see how socialism could be a step up for you guys.
    Our country was started out differently.
    We started out with people trying to escape from all that,
    and our country was founded on individual freedoms.
    Socialism would be a step down for us.

  75. “”””” brad says:
    November 1, 2010 at 5:01 pm
    George E. Smith-
    Ca house prices went up in the late 80′s, and then they crashed and dropped for about a decade. Kinda like the lack of regulation under Bush nationally…who needs that?
    http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeqrguz/housingbubble/los_angeles.html “””””
    Well I said the “prices” went up; I said nothing about any increase in value; just the price. And the 1986 tax act directly drove the prices up because of two specific provisions; which were put in by the Democrat Congress. Your the expert; so you can figure all that out for yourself.
    And if I take your time line of up in late 80s the carsh for decade (90s) that all happened before George W. Bush was even elected let alone in Office. And Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd set up the enabling legislation for that crash to happen; that was on the Democrats; including community organiser Barack Obama; and his ambulance chaser lawyers who insisted that anyone should be able to buy a house no matter whether they could pay for it or not.
    And if you can’t pay for it anyway; you micght as well not pay for a very big one, as a small one; and if you have lots of people who can’t pay for houses bidding up the prices to buy in a seller’s market; plus creating an unreal incentive for builders to build even bigger and more expensive houses that too many people couldn’t afford; then you have the ingrediants of a classic bubble.
    And since Frank/Dodd/Obama insisted that the banks should make all those bad loans, and that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should buy them; so the banks were off the hook; then the Taxpayers were on the hook to pay the mortgages of people who couldn’t afford the houses that even the taxpayers can’t afford.
    House prices HAVE NOT come down; just money has diminished in value. The house price crash has yet to come; stick around till next year to watch it happen. If you think a 15% rollback in asking prices is a price decline; wait till the prices start declining by factors of two or more.
    And the commercial real estate crash is waiting in the wings to get going, once people see what emerges from tomorrow’s reality show.

  76. My relatives in Norway live under a government that is far closer to socialism than the USA has ever been. Ditto for Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Finland, etc. These countries are ahead of the US in fundamental quality of life – free medical care for all and excellent medical care by the way, free education, generous leaves for childbirth, etc. The average lifespan reflects the good healthcare and education.
    Western Europe in general and Scandinavia in particular is far better educated than the US. (Public-sector education has failed us miserably.)
    If the better-educated (far more homogeneous) Western Europe reduced taxes to American levels, they would blow America into the dust. They would do so much better than they are doing now, it would be unrecognizable.
    If poorly educated America adopted Scandinavian-style socialism, we’d crash and burn.

  77. evanmjones says:
    November 1, 2010 at 6:36 pm
    “If the better-educated (far more homogeneous) Western Europe reduced taxes to American levels, they would blow America into the dust.”
    Perhaps they aren’t interested in maintaining a superheated economy and working day and night.

  78. In line with the gist of the post, read The Road To Serfdom. It was written in the ’40s by Friedrich von Hayek, a peer of Milton Friedman and member of the Austrian School of Economics. He lays bear the National Socialism Party in Germany at the time and dissects how socialism leads to the loss of individual liberty, total central control, and sometimes even to dictatorship. It’s a great book and very relevant in today’s world.
    See the Reviews of The Road To Serfdom at Amazon

  79. They got one last punch in. They managed to take my Four Locos away here in SW Florida. I can’t find my favorite nector on any of the store shelves right now. Goddamn nanny state.

  80. Come on, Brad, your list of big, bad Capitalists isn’t very impressive and it’s wrong too. You should look a little further into “Wall Street” and you would find that just about all the big players are big supporters of democrats. Why? They know Obama and company are lying when they bash “Wall Street greed”. Every financial move Obama has made has benefited Wall St., including so-called “financial reform”. It’s called Crony Capitalism, Brad, and you need to get beyond simplistic and outdated thinking about good guys and bad guys to understand it.

  81. Owen says:
    November 1, 2010 at 6:13 pm
    “My relatives in Norway live under a government that is far closer to socialism than the USA has ever been. Ditto for Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Finland, etc. These countries are ahead of the US in fundamental quality of life – free medical care for all and excellent medical care by the way, free education, generous leaves for childbirth, etc. ……”
    Yes, well, sis, it all depends on how one defines “quality of life”. If it is defined as you say, it seems to me you define it as mandated mediocrity. Thanks, you can keep that. I define “quality of life” as to the ability to determine ones destiny. I find it interesting that you bring up Norway first. Let us compare how each nation was able to react to equivalents. Arnold and Quisling. One nation survived and drew strength from the act, another succumbed. Oh, wait, now I’m talking about more nations than just Norway! Sis, take your quality of compliance and put it where northern Norway is in the winter. Who else wants to play the “I’ll be as successful as my country European Union allows me to be? That’s quality?

  82. “I have no idea who the hell the Koch brothers are; and I do know who Carl Rove is; and none of them have anything to do with the TEA party; in fact Rove has publicly repudiated it.”
    No one does except people that watch MSNBC. Olberman and friends rant about the Koch brothers all the time from what I gather. However, I’ve never heard the name anywhere else and I listen to a fair amount of talk radio sympathetic to the tea party.
    At best, the Koch brothers are somewhat akin to cloud seeders. They don’t control every drop of rain, despite what Olberman and Madow would tell you.

  83. Of course the main argument against this view is “sustainability”. Can the Earth sustain even more people consuming natural resources?
    Interesting how those who ask the question have already gotten theirs, and now want to prevent others from doing the same.

    Also interesting that they use a reason for ‘going green’ that they say we should be worried ‘fossil’ fuels will be used up. But they want to stop them from being used now before they can even be used up. They contradict themselves. They would get what they want if they would let all fossil fuels be used up (if that’s possible) then everyone would be forced to use alternatives. What a dream that would be for them!

  84. Great article.
    I would add further to the perils of poverty: REAL pollution, not CO2. I mean pollution of water, air and land. The wealthy countries have, and are, addressing this through wastewater treatment, regulating emission of particles and land management. But this is a luxury the poor countries can’t afford.
    Improving the standard of living in poor countries (partly through access to affordable energy) will result in a cleaner world and better management of our natural resources. The obsession with CO2 directs resources away from cleaning the water, air and land.

  85. A vibrant economy is what maximizes the tax revenue collected by the government. The two largest periods of growth in tax revenue collected by the government occurred after two major tax-CUTTING initiatives: JFK’s in the early 1960’s, and Reagan’s in the early 1980’s.
    There was also the large tax/spending cuts that brought on The Roaring 20’s.

  86. Perhaps they aren’t interested in maintaining a superheated economy and working day and night.
    Or perhaps they made correct decisions in some areas (“voucher-style” education as opposed to the braindead socialist American model), and incorrect decisions in others (such as the marginal tax rate).
    There is nothing about the most productive tax rate (not too low, but NOT too high!) that compels a body to work day and night. It just makes one’s effort more rewarding. With the correct tax rate, one could work even less hard in Norway and reap even greater rewards — AND even have greater government revenue.
    If Western Europe would take advantage of its strengths and superiority and reject its weaknesses (as it is in the process of doing), America would look pretty sick by comparison, but the whole world (including the US) would be better off.

  87. Re evanmjones says:
    November 1, 2010 at 6:36 pm
    Good post Evan. Additionaly how quality of life should be measured is a can of worms.
    As for longevity, in the US if you make it past youth to any decent maturity you will live longer , an indication that the US health care, as burdened and flawed as it was, was better for the elderly.

  88. Ross Barton says:
    November 1, 2010 at 3:54 pm
    “These figures are compliments of Prof. Paul Krugman, 2009 Nobel prize winner in economics.”
    I haven’t been able to read Krugman for some time now, at least a couple of years. The reason is that he lives in a fantasy of his own making and spews venom at anyone who would disagree. It is painful to see the collapse of his mind and his spirit. He rants for greater stimulus. Sorry, Sir, but propping up state governments who will do nothing but prop up teachers’ unions is not going to stimulate anything.

  89. activist scientists who have used global warming as an excuse to accomplish policy goals that would have never been accomplished on their own merits.
    Richard Lindzen on that:
    0:19 second video

  90. racookpe1978 says: wrote
    November 1, 2010 at 5:22 pm
    “So, my question to you, is: Why? Why do you want failure for your fellow humans, death to many millions more, and more riches for those liberals and socialists who enslave you?”
    It’s a process. It’s the Hamiltonian business model. That system is coming to an end. Revel in it. Be happy you are alive at this point in time to witness how it all unfolds.
    Don’t worry, we still have one more trick up our sleeves to make it happen. We already used the solar minimum and climategate to defeat cap-n-trade, but it still lurks out there, way out there. The complete and total economic collapse that is a mathematical certainty to happen will happen. This will put and end to the wars and all the other bad stuff. We just needed the right people in government to pick up the pieces in the way desirable to us, in preservation of the constitution.

  91. People mix up different elites. The folks who run the oil companies are an elite. Famous actors and actresses are another elite. Top tier scientists are yet another elite. The latter two may be annoying or amusing, but their fundamental self interests are not in conflict with needs of society and the extent of their power is minimal.
    Spenser fails to address why the few scientists sceptical of the extent of AGW seem to keep their jobs and even continue to receive government grants. And he utterly fails to explain why NSF funded research continued to support AGW under Bush. Since Spenser’s own idealogical motivations are now clear perhaps they explain why he is so out of sink with his colleagues whose political views are diverse.

  92. How else can we explain that they do not see the hypocrisy the rest of the nation sees in their behavior?
    Michael Crichton on the hypocrisy of elitists,
    1:12 video:

  93. You can’t do it with stimulus. Keynes and his “aggregate demand” theory is out to lunch. If you simply hand out money you have produced nothing. You eat for a day, then starve. The people you buy from get a one-time profit and then nothing. Wealth is “multiplied” by one or even less than one, since it is costly and inefficient to redistribute.
    With supply-side, you free up capital that is used to hire people (invest, etc.) and pay them wages as those people produce valuable goods/services. That is self-sustaining and then some. Wealth is genuinely multiplied.
    Maybe this speaks poorly for human nature. But that is the way it works. Socialism works about as well for humans as free-market capitalism works for termites. It’s not a liberal-conservative thing. It’s a human-nature thing.
    As for longevity, in the US if you make it past youth to any decent maturity you will live longer , an indication that the US health care, as burdened and flawed as it was, was better for the elderly.
    Yes, plus the fact we desperately try to save every premature birth adds considerably to US death rate. In Europe (and most of the rest of the world), they simply write many of them off and they never even make it into the death stats. “Life expectancy” is a very apples/oranges type statistical phenomenon.

  94. Owen says:
    “My relatives in Norway live under a government that is far closer to socialism than the USA has ever been. Ditto for Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Finland, etc. These countries are ahead of the US in fundamental quality of life – free medical care for all and excellent medical care by the way, free education, generous leaves for childbirth, etc. The average lifespan reflects the good healthcare and education. All of these countries tax gasoline and energy heavily and drive energy efficient cars (not American guzzlers). Denmark is on its way to being oil independent. Germany has beat America every year in this decade in the amount of exports to the rest of the world. European socialism simply means providing for your people, insuring health, education, and a decent life. The ultrasocialist Scandanavian countries annually are ranked as the top countries in the world for quality of life.
    “Mr. racookpe1978 seems to be obsessed with his pathological fear of socialism. I would suggest he spend some time in Norway and talk perhaps to my relatives: teacher, engineer, physician, and a farmer’s wife – all robust, healthy, and happy. Travel is a great cure for bucholic parochialism and festering ideology.”
    _______
    Those are all teeny-tiny countries compared to the U.S.A., and not one of them is racially or ethnically diverse. They are homogenized, conformist, white-bread, and very boring. Germany has a growing Muslim population, but it has not assimilated. And not one of these countries has 20-40 million illegal immigrants using their public services, committing huge numbers of crimes, or interfering with their elections.
    Our country is thousands of miles across; little cars with little engines cannot move tens of millions of people and billions of tons of goods from one end to the other.
    Living in a Scandinavian country may be easier for many, but at whose expense? The United States had spent tens of billions of dollars protecting other countries from hostile governments, because they don’t invest heavily in their own defense. Without that expenditure, they have more to spend on other things.
    Who does the quality of life rankings? The U.N.? Do you see millions of people around the world trying to immigrate to Scandinavia?
    Health care is not free in any of the countries you list. Citizens pay huge taxes to cover these costs.
    Here’s the thing: If you want to live in a socialist country, why not move to one? Why do you have to change this country? Is the world so small it can’t stand even one free republic? You remind me of Northerners who move to Florida, where I live, and try to make it into New York or Pennsylvania, instead of letting it be what it is.

  95. Owen says:
    November 1, 2010 at 6:13 pm
    My relatives in Norway live under a government that is far closer to socialism than the USA has ever been. Ditto for Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Finland, etc. These countries are ahead of the US in fundamental quality of life – free medical care for all and excellent medical care by the way, free education, generous leaves for childbirth, etc. The average lifespan reflects the good healthcare and education. All of these countries tax gasoline and energy heavily and drive energy efficient cars (not American guzzlers). Denmark is on its way to being oil independent. Germany has beat America every year in this decade in the amount of exports to the rest of the world. European socialism simply means providing for your people, insuring health, education, and a decent life. The ultrasocialist Scandanavian countries annually are ranked as the top countries in the world for quality of life.
    Mr. racookpe1978 seems to be obsessed with his pathological fear of socialism. I would suggest he spend some time in Norway and talk perhaps to my relatives: teacher, engineer, physician, and a farmer’s wife – all robust, healthy, and happy. Travel is a great cure for bucholic parochialism and festering ideology.

    I worked with Ericsson for 2 years, some in Sweden, later I worked with SAAB. I have a lot of respect for the scandinavian countries and what they have achieved by making the most of their human resources – they don’t have much in the way of land and minerals (Norwegian Oil is the exception).
    However – the northern european cultures have a strong work ethic and a respect for the usefulness of technology – to which I credit their success. I wonder if what you say will still be relevant in 2 years time, given the general indebtedness of the Eurozone on the scandinavian doorstep.
    Denmarks flirtation with wind power still has to prove itself as a cost effective option – time will tell. Denmark progressing towards independence of oil – I find that difficult to believe.
    Ultrasocialist seems a very strong term to use for countries that have companies such as Nokia, Volvo, Saab, Ericsson, Ikea, etc, that competitively build and sell products on a commercial basis to the world – sounds more like capitalism.

  96. I see all sorts of arguments about which is better for economic prosperity–increased taxes or a reduction in taxes.
    Without resorting to facts and figures (which can be distorted to support any supposition the publisher of those numbers may have), let’s look at the basic philosophy behind this whole approach to civilization. The key idea is whether it is better to give or to get (or take and bestow), and I’ll make it personal.
    Requiring that I give a large portion of my income to the government doesn’t make me happy, hence I’m less productive because I see all me effort diverted to someone else–I don’t get to realize the benefit of my hard work. No, somebody else does. I say, why bother? I won’t work as hard. The government takes from me and the way they justify giving to others just isn’t fair. By taking this approach to the limit of all workers (which I believe react in a way similar to myself), the everybody’s productivity undoubtedly goes down and malaise sets in. Overall GDP obviously goes down as a consequence. And if you tell me otherwise, I simply won’t believe you–I know you’re fudging the numbers, to put it politely.
    Now let’s take a look at the person who got my money, thanks to the largess of the government. They didn’t work for that money, but it spends just the same. Such people are not grateful nor are they productive. Their response is generally one of greed and lack of appreciation–they want more and more because they have little or no understanding how much work went into generating that money. Now because a significant portion of the population is no longer pulling their weight in society, the GDP has to decline. Again, if you tell me otherwise, I simply won’t believe you–I know you’re fudging the numbers, to put it politely.
    Somebody getting something for nothing and somebody getting nothing for something are two sides of the same coin when the government become the intrusive thief. It is neither good for society nor for the individual. Such a violation of natural law always carries a natural penalty, generally visited upon those future generations that are completely innocent while it is their parents and grandparents (that’s you and me) that allowed their future to be destroyed.
    And no grandiose scenarios, arguments, references, graphs, or prizes in economics can make it otherwise.

  97. evanmjones says:
    November 1, 2010 at 7:17 pm
    You can’t do it with stimulus. Keynes and his “aggregate demand” theory is out to lunch. If you simply hand out money you have produced nothing. You eat for a day, then starve. The people you buy from get a one-time profit and then nothing. Wealth is “multiplied” by one or even less than one, since it is costly and inefficient to redistribute.
    With supply-side, you free up capital that is used to hire people (invest, etc.) and pay them wages as those people produce valuable goods/services. That is self-sustaining and then some. Wealth is genuinely multiplied.
    Maybe this speaks poorly for human nature. But that is the way it works. Socialism works about as well for humans as free-market capitalism works for termites. It’s not a liberal-conservative thing. It’s a human-nature thing.

    I assume that Keynes’ theories gained traction because they provide a justificational framework for Government intervention into the market/economy. Not on whether they were right or wrong – current experience is rapidly illustrating that Keynes was drastically wrong. However it will take a lot for the zealots to reconsider their dogma.

  98. If you want to live in a socialist country, why not move to one?
    Well, maybe that’s not entirely fair. (The rich ones won’t let you in, and the others I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemies.)
    I assume that Keynes’ theories gained traction because they provide a justificational framework for Government intervention into the market/economy.
    Maybe. hey, no one would be happier than I if Keynes had turned out to be right. But he ain’t, and that’s all there is to it. Even sad facts are facts.

  99. Owen says:
    November 1, 2010 at 6:42 pm
    Perhaps they aren’t interested in maintaining a superheated economy and working day and night.
    ===============================================
    And perhaps we’re not interested in giving our money to the government, and then having the government dictate what we can do. Again, a step up for you guys, you started out with that and were used to it, a form of Roman law. Socialism is a step up from kings and monarchs.
    Our country was founded on totally different principals. We are innocent until proven guilty, and we as citizens give rights to our government. Not the other way around.
    Again – for you guys, it was a step up.
    For us, it is a step down.

  100. Owen says:
    November 1, 2010 at 6:13 pm
    I would suggest he spend some time in Norway …

    Owen, does it ever get above freezing in Norway?
    Knowing little about the country, I suspect that they have one short growing season,
    and export little in the way of food.

  101. Wow! A full blown political discussion on WUWT. Gotta be a first!
    Dr Roy Says: “Yet, many Americans believe that government can more equitably distribute the wealth generated by a country.”
    Socialist Governments can, for a while at least, bribe many low income voters with the taxes of the rich. Usually a while later the people wake up and realise that the greater harm is hurting them personally.
    evanmjones says: “I never earned a penny that wasn’t trickled down from someone richer than me.”
    The only trickle down effect I have ever felt is from the sibling in the bunk above me when I was a very young child.

  102. The belief that a better-educated few should be allowed power over the less educated masses. That government knows better than the people do.
    Richard Lindzen on this same point, how masses are manipulated with propaganda,
    1:18 video

  103. For those who keep commenting on the economic effects of tax cuts:
    Don’t forget, like climate, economics is a nonlinear science.

  104. Just read the Declaration of Independence if you want to see how pi$!ed off the settlers of the original colonies became at the King of England over his intrusion into their personal affairs.
    Vaclav Klaus on environmentalism- the greatest threat to freedom:

  105. As an immigrant to the US I believe I have a perspective that a lot of Americans do not have and certainly those who haven’t lived here cannot have.
    I believe that the US is the best place in the world for people to achieve personal growth. It is that way because by and large people here do not like being told what to do and prefer to do it for themselves.
    I love it here and would not choose to live anywhere else. I was offered the chance to relocate back to my homeland by my current employer a couple of years ago. It took me less than half a second to say no, and that included thinking time.
    God Bless America – it sounds corny to some maybe but I mean it most sincerely.

  106. whatever criticisms are made of the Tea Party (Parties), the fact is they have shaken up the political “elites”. if it were not for the Tea Parties campaigning against cap’n’tax, the GOP would still be on the carbon-taxing fence:
    1 Nov: WSJ: Scott Rasmussen: A Vote Against Dems, Not for the GOP
    Voters don’t want to be governed from the left, right or center. They want Washington to recognize that Americans want to govern themselves
    More precisely, it is a rejection of a bipartisan political elite that’s lost touch with the people they are supposed to serve. Based on our polling, 51% now see Democrats as the party of big government and nearly as many see Republicans as the party of big business. That leaves no party left to represent the American people…
    But most have come to recognize that if we have to rely on politicians for the change, there is no hope. At the same time, Americans instinctively understand that if we can unleash the collective wisdom and entrepreneurial spirit of the American people, there are no limits to what we can accomplish…
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703708404575586063725870380.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

  107. Mike says:
    November 1, 2010 at 7:15 pm
    People mix up different elites. The folks who run the oil companies are an elite. Famous actors and actresses are another elite. Top tier scientists are yet another elite. The latter two may be annoying or amusing, but their fundamental self interests are not in conflict with needs of society and the extent of their power is minimal.
    Spenser fails to address why the few scientists sceptical of the extent of AGW seem to keep their jobs and even continue to receive government grants. And he utterly fails to explain why NSF funded research continued to support AGW under Bush. Since Spenser’s own idealogical motivations are now clear perhaps they explain why he is so out of sink with his colleagues whose political views are diverse.
    ======================================================
    Typically, I’ll break up other people’s posts to the points I want to bare, but yours is lunacy in its entirety, so I have to leave it there,.(Hopefully posterity will forget.)
    You mention Bush by name, but, not a “top tier scientist” such as Hansen, who went around the world proclaiming the Bush administration was silencing him. More, you didn’t mention the media that followed, aired and printed the “silencing” of Hansen. And, while you correctly assigned “amusing” to the entertainment industry, the news media quoted many in the entertainment industry as affirmation of the silencing. And even today often quote nearly illiterate twits for affirmation of the alarmism de jour.
    Now, we can discuss the “extent” of media and the press’ power, but suffice it to say, I think you’re understating the power of the pen. Thank God for the internet! And thank God for hard drives!
    Have you notice the “few” skeptical scientists are increasing in numbers? Almost daily! More, why do you girls keep bringing back Bush and his funding? You do know that all spending bills start in the House of Reps? And that Bush was a politician given to political expedience? Sorry sis, I deal with reality. Who did what is of no concern to reality. But, if we’re concerned about opinions, here’s mine. Bush was a fine president for 6 years. After that, he acquiesced to the whims of the majority in both houses. History tells us that’s when things went to crap.

  108. The only trickle down effect I have ever felt is from the sibling in the bunk above me when I was a very young child.
    If you ever worked for a boss, then, by definition, you experienced it again even if you failed to feel it.
    If you have spent your life as a successful entrepreneur, then my hat is off to you (and, by the way, are you hiring?).
    For those who keep commenting on the economic effects of tax cuts:
    Don’t forget, like climate, economics is a nonlinear science.

    Taxes can be too low. Taxes can be too high. Finding a rate somewhere (anywhere!) between that which maximizes revenue (high limit) and maximizes production (low limit) is FINE with me.
    Anything outside that range (too high or too low) is a Trenberth Travesty!

  109. Pablo an ex Pat says:
    November 1, 2010 at 7:49 pm
    Thank you Pablo. It is people like you that keep this nation great. Welcome and God bless.

  110. Please note that in the ’80’s Henry Kendall, the Founder of the “Union of Concerned Scientists” was given a Nobel Prize for his work on Quarks during the ’70s.
    From everything I’ve read, his contribution was MINIMAL and of MINIMAL impact.
    Yet, the N.P. ? What gives? This was just about the time the Swedes were riding their ANTI-NUCLEAR “high horse”, and had put forth a plan to “eliminate” their 12 nuclear power plants, which generate about 45% of their electrical base.
    Kendall was their poster boy. (Yes, I know the a Nobel “Peace Prize” is awarded by a Norweigen committee! But the Science prizes are still strictly Swedish..) Thus to BOLSTER CREDIBILITY of the U.C.S., the Swedes managed to find H.K.’s “trivial” work “significant”. Thus my trust in the “integrity” of the N.P.’s in areas such as the sciences, or economics, or “Peace” has been about ZERO for 20 years. It’s a “political beauty contest” where the most politically correct venues have been awarded for years. ALAS, quite the pity that!

  111. Dr Spencer:
    What a great essay!
    What you describe is the political fallout of a system of granting awards for research by a government that is controlled by elitist politicians who have been carefully and thoroughly brainwashed by big name law schools into believing that progressivism is the only acceptable form of governmental philosophy. The writings of Woodrow Wilson tell us that today’s aspiring liberal politicians are not socialist but progressives. A key tenant of Wilson’s philosophy is that the US Constitution is limiting the efficiency of our government to govern because the defense of individual liberty is wasteful and time consuming. He believed that the governmental agencies are in a better, more informed position to set policy that the legislature. According to Wilson the efficiency of government is greatest when a group of college educated elitists set policy. So today we have agencies with appointed administrators setting policies on education, climate, and energy with an absence of legislative influence.
    Many Americans voted for change and they got change. However, the change they got was not what they were promised. It was Woodrow Wilson government by elitists.

  112. attempts to restrict personal choice in energy use will end up killing people.
    ‘Global warming’ is also killing people through biofuel programs,
    Lord Monckton, 5:12 video

  113. If these elitists really were interested in the poor, they would be doing everything they could to help individuals take control of their own economic destinies. One billion people in the world still do not have electricity.
    Ross McKitrick on the morality of helping the poor of the world get electricity with coal,
    2:00 video

  114. Most people can’t see the obvious. Anything that contradicts their deep seated convictions is ignored.
    I am a liberal. I believe in the maximum freedom for each individual. I believe that unfettered freedom for corporations is just as bad as bureaucracy for subjugating people.
    Being Canadian, I would far rather have universal health care than have to deal with an HMO. You Americans do have death panels already, they are called HMOs.
    It distresses me that, when the state purports that it is protecting the little guy, what we mostly get is oppression by bureaucracy.
    The truth is neither entirely on the right or on the left. That which works is a moving target. Something that raises up people one day oppresses them the next. Any system can be corrupted, fester and die. Clinging tenaciously to laissez faire capitalism or to socialism is not going to work in the long term.
    Dr. Spencer, knock off the rant on elitists. It makes you look like just as much of a meat head as you apparently think they look like. Name calling is for children. Your specialty is science. You are an expert on science. You are not an expert on political science or economics or anything else like that. There are good and bad people on both sides of the issue but you should accept the basic human decency of most of the people on both sides. Your best contribution is as a scientist talking about science. Advocacy for what looks like a political position only has the effect of diminishing your credibility.

  115. Dr T G Watkins says:
    November 1, 2010 at 5:28 pm
    …. equality of opportunity is an essential aim but equality of achievement is impossible given the inevitable Gaussian distribution of intelligence and motivation.
    ============================================================
    Hate to be a nit picker, but intelligence (and probalbly motivation) is a log-normal distribution, not a Gaussian (normal) distribution. Log-normal distributions are characterized by a long “tail,” and are named such, because the the log of the quanity being considered is normally distributed. Income distribution is a log-normal distribution. The long tail of the intelligence distribution makes equality of achievement even more impossible.

  116. When governments make energy more expensive, or environmental organizations pressure foreign countries to not build hydroelectric dams, poor people die.
    John Christy on moral issues of ‘global warming’, on better, and longer life because of fossil fuels,
    1:26 video

  117. pat says:
    November 1, 2010 at 7:53 pm
    whatever criticisms are made of the Tea Party (Parties), the fact is they have shaken up the political “elites”. if it were not for the Tea Parties campaigning against cap’n’tax, the GOP would still be on the carbon-taxing fence:<——true that!!!
    "1 Nov: WSJ: Scott Rasmussen: A Vote Against Dems, Not for the GOP
    Voters don’t want to be governed from the left, right or center. They want Washington to recognize that Americans want to govern themselves
    More precisely, it is a rejection of a bipartisan political elite that’s lost touch with the people they are supposed to serve."
    ========================================================
    Perhaps it is the era I grew up in. It is unfathomable for me to view the political gamesmanship as it is today. It doesn't register properly. But, I should first, clarify. There isn't anything inherently wrong with big business. GM at one time was the world's largest employer. To state the obvious, creating good jobs is a good thing. The problem is big business has become synonymous with out-sourcing and reaping the benefits of our laws while reaping the benefits of cheap labor at the expense of the displaced workers. Fiorina would be hands down winner in Cali if most of us tech savy people would forget her closing the last U.S. hp plant while stating 'we need to understand U.S. jobs aren't a given'.
    A note to the rest of the world. Please take HP away from us. They are, in a microcosm, what is wrong with "big business" today. This nation and any other nation, only works when this nation is the priority of the populace and its leaders. Sorry Cali, you have a choice between an overt or covert U.S. hater which both, would and do, by action and word put ideology above county and countrymen. It is time for another party.

  118. evanmjones says:
    November 1, 2010 at 7:57 pm
    Taxes can be too low. Taxes can be too high.
    Let’s try to make them too low and deal with it then.

  119. There is going to be a lot of slug fests on the way to the bottom. But rest assured we are on our way to the bottom. The left and right are like a tag team match. Their’s nothing either party can do to stop where we are going. We just have a twist to these elections. We have the remnant of the founders of our country trying to preserve some semblance of what we once had. Titanic is going to the bottom. Make no mistake.

  120. Ross Barton says:
    November 1, 2010 at 3:54 pm
    That line about Reagan cutting taxes and tax revenue soaring has been disproven time and again. People who cite this claim forget population growth and inflation during his presidency. Here are the annual rates of growth of real revenue per capita over several decades:
    1973-1979: 2.7%
    1979-1990: 1.8%
    1990-2000: 3.2%
    2000-2007: ~0.0%
    These figures are compliments of Prof. Paul Krugman, 2009 Nobel prize winner in economics. As you can see, real revenue growth as a result of Reagan’s tax cuts was poor.
    Ummm…. don’t think so. Here are the raw numbers, compliments US Dept of Commerce and other US Govt Agencies.
    1980, the year Reagan took office, GDP was $2,788.1B, and tax receipts $885.62B
    1988, the year Reagan left office, GDP was $5,100.5B, and tax receipts $1,676.22B
    The inflation impact on the 1988 dollar compared to the 1980 dollar was .699301
    In constant dollar terms the tax collections were $1167.284B.
    This rounds neatly to a growth rate of 3.5% p.a., higher than the GDP growth rate.
    Pretty significant in economic terms as it proved that lower actual rates does not mean lower actual collections. The first 2 years of Reagan’s administration was a pretty vicious recession (worse than the current one in several respects) that played havoc with the numbers, and which was necessary to tame a terrible inflation. Absent that two years (which occurred BEFORE the tax cuts) and the numbers look considerably better. But then, all of us on this blog know how we can cherry pick the years to prove anything. Not to mention fool around with numbers. Particularly when we are “Nobel” prize laureates.
    Just the facts.

  121. commieBob says:
    November 1, 2010 at 8:11 pm
    Being Canadian…

    Dr. Spenser is an American, and will no doubt be voting tomorrow.
    I thank him for his essay on why.

  122. Roy addressed the elitist pronouncements of Al Gore, James Cameron, Harrison Ford, Julia Roberts, and RFK, Jr. But Al Gore is about as scientifically erudite as Ted Haggard, and the scientific vacuity of many movie stars is no surprise.
    I felt let down when Roy started discussing the elitist arrogance involved in trying to force an AGW-driven policy on us all, and then ended up only naming politicians and movie stars as his examples.
    The real question is how do we explain the scientists involved? Michael Mann, Jim Hansen, Phil Jones, Tom Karl, Gavin Schmidt, Jonathan Overpeck, Kenvin Trenberth, Ben Santer, Ray Pierrehumbert, Bob Bolin, John Houghton, and so many others, have run pell-mell into AGW partisanship and too many have not hesitated to use defamation as a weapon.
    I have real trouble assigning their partisan behavior merely to venal grantsmanship. For quite a while, I’ve had the view on this that Hal Lindsey described so well when he resigned from the APS. Their behavior is too bizarre; too bizarre to reflect banal motives. My own opinion is that the elitism is ideologically based, and that the principals involved have sacrificed scientific integrity on the altar of environmental salvationism.
    The doubly strange thing for me, is that this happened in a branch of physics, where mathematics prevails most strongly, where predictions are most precise, where the results are most quantified, and where the scientists are most rigorously trained in the meaning of models and in the statistics of uncertainty. Physicists should have been most resistant to the ideological subversion of their discipline. And yet. . .
    So, Roy, if you have some thoughts about the how and the why of the surrender of physicists to a physics-subverting righteous ideology, I’d sure like to read them.

  123. Let’s try to make them too low and deal with it then.
    Better too low than too high.
    But even better to be anywhere between the levels of highest revenue and highest productivity. (Currently, we are definitely taxing too much!)

  124. “But I would ask, can the world sustain the poverty-stricken? Poor countries have had most of their trees cut down. Imagine if global society collapsed and billions of people had to make do on their own with what they could scavenge from nature.”
    The answer has already been written, and that answer is no. Bare knuckle agriculture cannot support 9 billion people, it might make 3, but not 9.
    No need to imagine global society collapsing and the scavenging. What is described is the actual conditions at the start of the first Solar Grand Minimum after the MWP…. in Europe. The woods were depleted (little heating fuel available) and the marginal agricultural lands were abandoned as the harvest yields declined.
    By the luck of the draw, some lands will be in a better condition upon a natural climate downturn.
    The biggest danger in an energy-starved world is the weaponry that now exists and has proliferated.

  125. Is there something in the Huntsville water that drives the naivety out of UAH scientists? Great article. Say hello to my friend Rob Sheldon for me.

  126. pat says:
    November 1, 2010 at 7:53 pm
    the collective wisdom and entrepreneurial spirit of the American people, there are no limits to what we can accomplish
    Milton Friedman would appear to agree with you:

  127. President Obama has deliberately fanned the flames of class warfare and hatred, labeling Americans with a different opinion from his as “enemies.” How can that be a good and healthy thing?
    Democrat-style American class warfare hates tenth commandment: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods.” But leftist politicians deliberately pander to this common human failing: “Why should he have a nice house, when you have to sweep floors and live in an apartment?”
    The answer is that ‘he’ [Everyman] probably worked hard and saved and got educated and did without, in order to make his life better. But had ‘he’ failed, the government would never make him whole again. Real Americans pick themselves up and start again.
    America was founded as a pure meritocracy. There is no primogeniture or entail here. Telling people they have a stake in the earned wealth of others is the most corrosive idea in American politics.
    Politicians advocating the forced transfer of wealth from productive citizens to layabouts in return for votes should be banished to a worker’s paradise like North Korea. IMHO, of course.

  128. This is the best post I’ve seen on the internet in a while. Thank you Roy Spencer. And thank you Anthony Watts.

  129. commieBob says:
    November 1, 2010 at 8:11 pm

    Well presented argument, But you lost me at “meat head”.

  130. rbateman says: wrote
    November 1, 2010 at 8:43 pm
    “The biggest danger in an energy-starved world is the weaponry that now exists and has proliferated.”
    “Imagine if global society collapsed and billions of people had to make do on their own with what they could scavenge from nature.”
    Amazing the things we are randomly thinking these nowadays.
    May I introduce u to Renaissance 2.0 in order to fix the problem, you need to know how it got to be a problem first before you can fix it.

  131. commieBob says:
    November 1, 2010 at 8:11 pm
    re; Canadian Health Care vs. HMO
    My doctor will order an MRI in a heartbeat on the least suspicion it might reveal something, I can get it done the same day I see my doctor, and my HMO pays for it.
    Is that how it works in Canada too?
    That’s a rhetorical question, eh. Hosers have to wait an average of over two months for an MRI. If you’re happy with that more power to ya but when I need medical care I expect to get it the same day.

  132. commieBob says:
    November 1, 2010 at 8:11 pm
    …..
    I am a liberal. I believe in the maximum freedom for each individual. I believe that unfettered freedom for corporations is just as bad as bureaucracy for subjugating people.

    =======================================================
    That’s good Bob, I’m a liberal, too, then. However, most would call me very conservative. I know of no one that advocates unfettered freedom for corporations, so that’s just weird.
    ========================================================
    Being Canadian, I would far rather have universal health care than have to deal with an HMO. You Americans do have death panels already, they are called HMOs.
    ========================================================
    That’s nice Bob. I’m glad you live in a country that engages in the will of the populace. What a novel idea! BTW, it isn’t mandatory we Americans participate in HMOs. Isn’t that nice? In fact, I don’t. I’ve only that silly BC/BS stuff. So, I suppose you could say our participation in death panels are optional today, but maybe not tomorrow. Here’s to hoping you weren’t part of the people trying to help us ignorant Americans “see the light”. I owe you a visit if you were.
    ========================================================
    It distresses me that, when the state purports that it is protecting the little guy, what we mostly get is oppression by bureaucracy.
    =======================================================
    Yeh? Me too. The difference is, we don’t revel and wallow in what someone else can provide for us, we do something about it and wish only the opportunity to provide for ourselves.

  133. @Owen
    I spent enough time in Oslo on business 20 years ago to know it’s an interesting place to visit and about the last place I’d ever want to live. Three weeks out of the year when it’s barely warm enough for brass monkeys to go the beach is bad enough but anyplace where a six-pack of weak beer in a supermarket costs USD $20 that’s just ridiculous. What’s the matter, can’t Norwegians control their alcohol intake without the government taxing it so much that ordinary folks can’t afford it? I’ve travelled all over Europe and Asia on business and Norway takes the prize for the most anal-retentitive society I’ve seen.
    And talk about hypocritical when it comes to AGW – most of Norway’s GDP comes from oil.

  134. First, the tar sands in the US rival the size of those in Canada. they are just “protected by the Government” and unavailable for protection due to environmental concerns.
    Second, normal oil reserves in the US are enough to cover what we use for up to 100 years. Those are also protected.
    I hate oil scarcity being parroted like it is all the time. This has been debunked in the literature so often…onto the other topic…
    Elitism is a true phenomena in the US. This is taught at the first political science class and is a true feature of American politics. Do you really think someone like George W. Bush or Al Gore could have possibly made it as far as they did without their respective fathers? Elitism has worked for America since the start when the people who founded our country were themselves elitists…
    But I make a big distinction here… elitism works when the elites are after the public’s well being. The second they become corrupt and look after their own or other elite’s self interests, the system tends to break down. Either through atrophy (voters notice and vote them out) or through the system itself getting bogged down, elitism will work only as long as the elites look after the interests of all of their people.
    This has failed since the elites instead of looking after the interests of the people are looking after their own self-interests. Cap and trade is not in the interest of anyone. The bankers get rich, oil companies get rich, the poor get poor in this system….only the elites benefit. Health care could be, but any fix needs to be for all the people and really give the people a true system that works instead of exclusive clauses for special interest groups, new taxes, etc. The people benefiting the most in the new health care are the elites to a large extent. The rare person who doesn’t buy health insurance because they don’t want to pay for it and gets hurt…well they will benefit, but is it really fair for them to benefit when they never intended to get health care in the first place?
    Don’t think health care is an issue of price. Medicare is there as a safety net for the poor, and this might not be the best solution, but it does exist…..There are issues with the system before that could have been dealt with such as pre-existing conditions/life time limits, etc…but the main problem of people simply not buying healthcare is not something that is in the best interest of most people. Who benefits the most from this is large healthcare firms which pass their costs onto the Government, HMO’s as well, large medical practices which have more people with healthcare that may not want it, but use it since its free, etc. Who does that really benefit?
    The doctors get the same pay, but get more patients. They do not benefit. same for health care workers. The patients, get worse care since the per patient load of every doctor is now higher. The elites benefit from the recent health care system.
    This is the true cause of voter dis-satisfaction. Voters were open to a dialogue on health care and wanted changes. This was why Obama was elected, but instead of “a new form of politics” he did the same old school politics with health care that he had promised he wouldn’t do. This upsets many voters, because he is only after his own self interest and that of other elites. And therefore him and the rest of the democratic leadership blew their chance at really changing Washington.
    The election tomorrow is going to be about anti-elitism more then anything for all the reasons I stated above. No matter which party comes out ahead, the true failure is in the current representatives who failed by not looking after the interests of the people who voted them into office in the first place.

  135. You don’t even know who is running against Nanci Pelosi in San Fransisco. That’s because the MSM kept that information from you.
    There was supposed to be a double tag team smackdown match between Sharon Angle and Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and John Dennis. We didn’t get the second half of that match. They deprived it from us. That is the power they have.
    Yes, John Dennis was running against Nancy Pelosi.

  136. Ross Barton says: November 1, 2010 at 3:54 pm
    “These figures are compliments of Prof. Paul Krugman, 2009 Nobel prize winner in economics.”
    Paul Krugman has produced such suspect analysis over the past few years; I wonder why you did not probe deeper. There are lots of variables on tax collections, but I am willing to focus on tax rates for this post. Let’s try to be aware of the cherry picking in Krugman’s nubmers. In fact, tax collections were sputtering before Reagan’s tax cuts — 3% in one year, followed by negative growth the following year. But when Reagan’s tax cuts were fully implemented, growth (in tax collections) rose to 9 to 11% on an annual basis. These annual growth rates came down with the Bush (I) and Clinton tax hikes. But when capital gains tax rates were cut in the 1990s, then we saw the strongest growth in tax collections in the 90s.
    Similarly, when Bush (II) tax cuts were fully implemented, we then saw double digit increases in tax collections.
    In case it is not obvious, astute economists pay attention to when changes in tax rates are actually implemented and not just passed.

  137. For Owen
    (and the rest of the American bashers)
    Before I say anything else, let it be known that I am not an American. I’m from Canada, the first major democracy in the world to establish socialized medicine. In fact, I grew up in the province of Saskatchewan, the first province in the country to have socialized medicine and my grandfather was a founding member of the CCF party who won power and brought it in. As Dave Springer alluded to, our system has challenges, and I don’t think what we have today is what the founders of the CCF envisioned. Every time someone proposes a change, the opposition comes out of the woodwork screaming that we don’t want to be “like the Americans”. Well I second that. As one comic quipped, Americans die from lack of health coverage and Canadians die standing in line. At least the Americans get to lie down first. Point being both systems have lots of room for improvement. Now… onto America vs Norway etc.
    Good on those European countries who are shipping goods world wide, beating the Americans at their own game. Been a long time since any of those ships hit an iceberg and sank, thanks to regular tracking and reporting world wide at substantial cost. You guys recover that cost in the goods you sell right? No? Oh yeah, the USA provides that as a free service to the whole world. Perhaps you should stand up in a forum like the United Nations and thank them. You pay for your membership, it costs you a lot of money, may as well use it. Well, not as much as Americans since they cover 50% of the costs by themselves, silly selfish buggers. Then there’s all that money they spent over the years on their military. You know the one I’m talking about. Aircraft carriers, missile systems, submarines, you know, all that stuff they got that kept the USSR from wandering into your countries and bringing you the really really nasty kind of socialism because those war mongering Americans made it clear they were prepared to defend you. The people of North Korea live on four ounces of rice per day, mostly donated by the free world. North Korea would gladly export their standard of living to South Korea except those ignorant Americans have a few tens of thousands of troops there to prevent it. Tell me, how many Norwegian troops are there in South Korea helping out? Swedish? Danish? German? Well, you probably help out in other trouble spots in the world instead like Afghanistan. Oh wait, that’s almost all Americans plus some Canadians. There’s other countries there too of course, happy to help out… as long as there’s no fighting, they only send small numbers of troops for non combat roles. Someone mentioned Scandinavian countries being leaders in high tech. Take cell phones for example, Nokia is spanking Motorola in that market. You know the market I mean, the one that runs mostly on American satellites? I bought a Japanese made GPS recently, really like it. Gets its position for free from American satellites.
    I could go on for a very long time. Are the Americans lilly white? Of course not. They screw up like everyone else and sometimes spectacularly so. But the fact is that they have shouldered far more than their fair share of the world’s problems these past few decades, paid for them with both blood and money, and there isn’t a single democracy on the planet that does not owe America an historical debt. That they are today led by a president who is more interested in apologies for what America has done wrong than in pride for what they have done right is sad. That Owen and others vaunt the accomplishments of other countries who are glad to brag of their better way of life while conveniently forgetting that it is paid for in part, in blood and money, by the country they criticize is even sadder.
    God bless America. May she soon find her way back to the path she has walked for so many years, and done again the mantle she once wore so proudly. Leader of the free world. I see no one else stepping up to that responsibility, just complainers yammering away while getting a free ride.

  138. @Ben D.
    Ben, I think you’re missing a few points. First, about health care……when I was a young person, I didn’t purchase insurance. Yes, it was provided, at a cost, by my employers, but I didn’t. Why? Two reasons. One, they didn’t pay me enough to afford it, and two, I was a healthy young adult that chose not to live in fear of the big “what if”. If you got suckered into living in that fear and paying money that you’ll never get back out, well, that’s on you. Not me.
    Secondly, while Medicare may be a “safety net for the poor”, I’ve never once seen it lift someone to a higher level, nor have I ever witnessed it prohibiting someone from being less poor. It simply serves as a cost of living. For the hard working poor, it is useless. I speak from direct experience. The people that took from my fathers under the pretense of providing for my children are, in fact, liars. The cost was much, the promise was great, the delivery was …….nothing.
    The charity by state is only for those willing to wallow in self-pity and self imposed poverty. Society benefits none by sponsoring such ill thought machinations.

  139. Is Spencer an elitist-turned-libertarian?
    I look forward to a Democrat bloodbath on Tuesday. I’ll have the beer and popcorn ready for the TV entertainment as the MSM has a collective dump in their drawers over the unfavourable election results.

  140. re: Owen 6:13 pm
    Domestically, of course, Norwegians are a very decent, ‘clean living’ people, deriving almost all their electricity from hydro.
    But paradoxically, Norway is a petroleum economy:
    The petroleum sector (oil & gas) contributes 25% of GDP, 40% of state revenues, 24% of total investment and 50% of total exports.
    Without the North Sea oil and gas, I suspect life in Norway would not be quite so benign.

  141. Davidmhoffer
    Believers in a deity or not, the right knows that history and climate are cyclical.
    They do? What about the man they last trotted out to be president?
    An open letter from The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley to Senator John McCain about Climate Science and Policy
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/an_open_letter_from_the_viscou_1.html
    Dear Senator McCain, Sir,
    YOU CHOSE a visit to a wind-farm in early summer 2008 to devote an entire campaign speech to the reassertion of your belief in the apocalyptic vision of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change – a lurid and fanciful account of imagined future events that was always baseless, was briefly exciting among the less thoughtful species of news commentators and politicians, but is now scientifically discredited. …
    (good read on the discredited part)

  142. ELOQUENTLY SAID, Dr. Spencer!
    And this part repeated for effect:
    “I am often asked, “So, are you saying there is a conspiracy here?”
    No, because the ultimate goals were not a secret. Just a bunch of elitists carrying out plans that the politicians supported — with continuing promises of congressional funding for research that those politicians knew would support Job #1 of government — to stay needed by the people. Many of the scientists involved are just along for a ride on the gravy train. Even I ride that train.”

    ============================
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  143. Ross Barton says:
    November 1, 2010 at 3:54 pm
    “These figures are compliments of Prof. Paul Krugman, 2009 Nobel prize winner in economics.”
    FYI: There is no such thing as a ‘Nobel prize in economics’.
    Correct is: ‘The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economy in Memory of Alfred Nobel’.
    Brgds/TJ

  144. Smokey says:
    November 1, 2010 at 6:11 pm
    Why are the big money folks almost all leftists? Status. They’ve already got theirs, they can buy governments, and they do not want a less exclusive big bucks club.
    =======================
    The truth of the matter….
    An oligarchy.

  145. Oh and one last point I neglected in my previous tirade.
    Owen, I’m glad to learn that your relatives are doing well. Educated, working, happy employees. There is the fundamental difference between your socialist dream state and a nation fixated on creating a super heated economy. Employees. In one you can earn as good a living as your government sees fit for the education you have and the profession you choose. You can start your own business of course, provided that it does not compete with those sectors of the economy that are socialized and run by government. Your options are limited as a consequence. In the other, you are not burdened by the cost of a social safety net, and have a far broader range of choices in regard to controlling your own destiny and being responsible for the outcome, good or bad. Be critical all you want of the mindset, but consider that it is that self reliance and drive toward a super heated economy that produced the telephone, the television, the electric light bulb, automobiles, airplanes, computers, and oh yes… that clever medium that you are using right now to tell us how much better socialism is, the internet.

  146. Ed Murphy;
    Davidmhoffer
    Believers in a deity or not, the right knows that history and climate are cyclical.
    They do? What about the man they last trotted out to be president?>>
    Candidates are not chosen on a single issue. Further, climate was not even the top issue two years ago and today it has fallen even further. I generalized, and presenting as an example a candidate for president who bought into the scam says nothing about the general view of the party membership, which in turn is not necessarily representative of those citizens who hold a right of centre view in general. It was also two years ago, much has changed, and I spoke of the present. Your comment reminds me of the technique used to reconstruct climate from tree rings. You take cores from a couple of hundred trees, examine each one closely, and when you find a single tree somewhere in Siberia that shows the earth to be warming, you quickly get rid of all the other cores and scream LOOK AT THIS! PROOF! Well, maybe not exactly the same, Mann at least kept six other cores to try and make it look good. 7 trees representing all the other billions of trees on the planet is believable, but just one? C’mon.

  147. savethesharks says:
    November 1, 2010 at 11:17 pm
    Not even an oligarchy. We are going back towards feudalism.
    Note the political families to the front, and the old money behind banks.
    Every now and then a maverick may appear and slay a dragon or so, like Soros and Bill Gates, and since dowries are not in fashion they get their rewards direct in status.
    I think free markets have a “date by” and we are presently in a time loop where nothing is settled. I will prophecy:
    a) Either there will be an expressed WWIII( the US and allies are waging continuous wars). In this case we will be back to square number one, black markets to free markets as WWII showed us in Europe
    b) Or the robots will take over all production, fusion and thorium reactors will give plenty of free energy. The analogue are the feudal times when the elite amused themselves with science and art and smart enterprises and the labor was carried by the serfs.
    Robots will be the serfs and a new value system will have to be found for the hoi polloi. Pay attention to what is happening with nanotechnology and robots.
    Already the dole is one expression of the lack of real jobs and the need to support people somehow, though it is due to the outsourcing of manufacture to China. In this second future, everybody will be on the dole 🙂 and smart people will have to compete for the interesting jobs.

  148. Now, David, what I wish to point out to all of you is… follow the money on the people on the ballot and John McCain has plenty of that dirty, filthy leftist Heinz wealth in his personal piggy bank.
    He married into it.

  149. “Yet, many Americans believe that government can more equitably distribute the wealth generated by a country. This is a laudable goal on the face of it.”
    No, from everone according to their ability, to everyone according to their needs, is pure evil. How will you motivate people to provide according to their ability when you cannot give them material incentives? By force, which is why every socialist country have been such horrid experiences with labour camps and severly restricted personal freedoms. Wealth distribution anywhere but on the margin is evil.

  150. Thank you.
    This comment thread is most educational and entertaining read of 2010.
    I wish there was as much passion in countering the bad science of CO2 as a pollutant and a significant greenhouse gas as there is about the politics of science.
    Nothing I read here changed my votes for tomorrow.
    Again, a sincere thanks for the fascinating read from Dr. Spencer’s first line to the last line of comments.

  151. Re: Ed Murphy (11:10 pm), thanks for that link.
    Monckton eloquently states it all and not just the science.

  152. Dr. Spencer: Quote>But I would ask, can the world sustain the poverty-stricken? Poor countries have had most of their trees cut down. Imagine if global society collapsed and billions of people had to make do on their own with what they could scavenge from nature.< unquote.
    ———————————————————————————–
    I get this suspicion that what the rich elite, preaching CAGW, are actually aiming for is the total annihilation of the poor of the world by energy strangulation, thus reducing the population by 1 billion people…..two billion…… while in the process reducing others from the lower middle classes towards poverty and again anihilating these…. until the world population is reduced to just 1 billion people. This onebillion would of course include them, the rich elite I mean and the gravy-train 'science' staff and Pachauri's hands on the steam throttle.
    You know, books havebeen written advocating mass sterilisation on the premise that the planet cannot sustain more than a billion homo sapiens……………..another form of eugenics?

  153. For those upthread who were asking about the “C” in CAGW: CAGW used to stand for Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. It now stands for Citizens Against Government Waste.

  154. It’s fantastic that Dr. Spencer is talking about individual freedom, increasing role of government in people’s lives, and free markets. Yes, to understand the politics and economics behind the man-made warming dogma, the political science behind their “climate science” should be studied.

  155. Pablo an ex Pat [November 1, 2010 at 7:49 pm] says:
    “As an immigrant to the US I believe I have a perspective that a lot of Americans do not have and certainly those who haven’t lived here cannot have.
    I believe that the US is the best place in the world for people to achieve personal growth. It is that way because by and large people here do not like being told what to do and prefer to do it for themselves.
    I love it here and would not choose to live anywhere else. I was offered the chance to relocate back to my homeland by my current employer a couple of years ago. It took me less than half a second to say no, and that included thinking time.
    God Bless America – it sounds corny to some maybe but I mean it most sincerely.”

    James Sexton [November 1, 2010 at 7:57 pm] says:
    “Thank you Pablo. It is people like you that keep this nation great. Welcome and God bless.”

    I wholeheartedly second that motion. Welcome and thanks for the reminder of what many natural-born folks take for granted.
    Well it’s way too late to get into this thread (158 comments already). Besides, the polls open here soon, and I will be first in the door.
    Just a reminder to everyone, it has taken 100 years for the progressives/socialists to turn America from the home of the brave to a welfare state where close to 50% of the voters are feeding off the other 50%.
    This election cannot fix everything, it will take at least a generation. And although we can expect a political tidal wave and we can afford to revel in it a bit, we must turn our attention to those Congressional seats we failed to gain, and those Senate and Governorships that come up in future cycles. Even if we miss a few Senate seats, six years is not that long and we’ll get them next time. I just suggest one thing, only voting for people that intend on respecting the Constitution.
    So let’s go take out the trash!

  156. davidmhoffer says:
    November 1, 2010 at 10:32 pm
    Tell me, how many Norwegian troops are there in South Korea helping out? Swedish? Danish? German? Well, you probably help out in other trouble spots in the world instead like Afghanistan. Oh wait, that’s almost all Americans plus some Canadians. There’s other countries there too of course, happy to help out… as long as there’s no fighting, they only send small numbers of troops for non combat roles.
    =============================================================
    I trust you aren’t including the British in your rant. The latest figures from the MoD state that there have been 342 British fatalities in Afghanistan against the number quoted by the CBC website which gives the number of Canadian fatalities as 152.
    Apologies if this sounds as though it’s a kind of macho league table of deaths; it’s not meant to be that, it’s just making the point that your criticism of non-US participants in Afghanistan is somewhat misplaced, at least in some respects.
    I love the US and visit it every year, mainly because of the NFL. One live game per year is not enough for me. Go Raiders!

  157. Bubbagyro 4:41:
    Alfred Nobel’s middle name was Bernhard, not Lord.
    James Sexton 6:52pm:
    Norway isn’t in the European Union.
    Amino Acids in Meteorites 8:03pm:
    There is a not-inconsiderable British contingent fighting in Afghanistan.

  158. DaveF 3:49 am
    Yeh Dave, thanks for the clarity, but I was responding to this comment,“My relatives in Norway live under a government that is far closer to socialism than the USA has ever been. Ditto for Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Finland, etc. These countries are ahead of the US …..blather, blather, …” I hope you can see how I was been inclusive rather than errantly selective.

  159. Mr Green Genes says:
    November 2, 2010 at 2:44 am
    “I trust you aren’t including the British in your rant. The latest figures from the MoD state that there have been 342 British fatalities in Afghanistan against the number quoted by the CBC website which gives the number of Canadian fatalities as 152.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Of course, I can’t speak for anyone else here, but were I to rant about Europe or things European, our British cousins would be an understood exception to the rule. And no, I don’t consider that remembering fallen soldiers as an expression of machismo. God forbid that they would be forgotten.

  160. I have recently completed a review on international development – investments from the private sector and official aid run to $250 billion per annum, with about equal amounts in the two sectors. Most official aid goes to help national budgets. Less than 10% of that aid or investment reaches the poorest 2 billion people without adequate food and water, with impoverished soils, poor sanitation, poor health and virtually no role in the wider economy. These people rely on subsistence agriculture and are very vulnerable to climate change (largely natural, as I see it).
    The flow of development assistance whether private or governmental over the past decade or more has not significantly altered this situation – hence the revised Millennium Development Goals and reviews of how inward investment and aid is targeted.
    The only aid organisations that I, as an ecologist, feel have a real handle on this dreadful indictment of humanity are the private foundations and NGOs – with the Christians doing by far the best job on the ground (I am no fan of organised religion). These groups are a very small percentage of the whole aid flow but the only ones to focus on the actual real needs of the poor: stable soil, clean water, sanitation and ecologically sustainable agriculture as well as an intact culture, solid and safe community, surrounded by intact biodiversity. I would say about 1% of global aid gets to the grass-roots and meets these needs.
    Now the gear is shifting. The development model wants to get these people ‘out of poverty’ and into the global economy. That means leaving the land – which is then industrialised for agricultural production, moving to the city, living in abject squalor and maybe having a job, but afflicted by favella and shanty-town violence, drugs, prostitution and ill-health – with a dream of one day escaping the drudgery of some production line. In this model the economy grows – and the bulk of overseas aid is aimed at fostering that growth. China now leads in this kind of development aid in Africa. Climate change mitigation projects – biofuels especially, add to this process and trillions of ‘aid’ dollars are eagerly expected.
    What these people need is to adapt to the inevitable changes of climate and fossil fuel prices. It should be obvious that none of this is sustainable – it all has depended upon cheap fossil fuels and that era is over. Only the leading philanthropic organisations can see beyond this model – and US philanthropy is bigger than the rest combined (and official aid lower) and because they have an independent and caring mindset (I think the Gates foundation misses the mark, but Warren Buffet’s son hits the target – can’t remember his name, and he gets on with it, without fanfare, at the grass-roots level).
    That said – plus the fact that I love America, visit as often as I can, and have some of my closest friends and associates there – people who have given a huge amount for the cause of public safety and ecological integrity, I want to add a counterbalance to much of the postings above –
    The wealth of the USA and Canada and Mexico (with some of the highest paid CEOs) is fundamentally based upon an invasive land-grab and sustained genocide of indigenous peoples who were moved off the land by puritanical religious hypocrits who would readily trade human rights for mining rights to further their own elitist control and eventual economic domination. The US is now the global superpower, yet is afraid of its own shadow and dwells in deep insecurity, projecting its military power across the globe ostensibly to protect its national interests (secure lines of fuel and raw materials). And every western country (including Japan, India and China) benefits from this, most especially my own.
    More of the same development model is not what ‘the poor’ need. The global economy is unstable and the climate is changing. There are some good models being developed where money is not the only part of the equation – in fact, for some communities, it can be very damaging and they need protection from ‘economic’ development.
    It is my fervent wish, irrespective of democrat or republican outcomes, that America uses the undoubted resources of its wealth, caring and intelligence to lead in new models of development – but to do so it needs to drop the myopic American Dream, take a long hard look at its history, re-examne its military mode of operation and commit to making the whole world a better place – not in its own image, but in terms of what very different communities need.

  161. davidmhoffer says:
    November 1, 2010 at 10:32 pm
    For Owen
    (and the rest of the American bashers)
    Great post David…
    But the problem is that everyone and his brother wants the USA to help out in times of trouble, but commence US-bashing once the troubles are over…1st world war, 2nd world war, cold war..islamic terrorism…tsunamis… earthquakes.. famines….. you name it, everyone wants the US’s help but nobody really helps out in international conflicts, save maybe, for the UK.
    But consider this.. The UN is considering accepting IRAN on some UN committee for the advancment of woman….we might just as well put in a wild tiger in the penn to protect the sheep. The UN is Man’s enemy no. 1 and unfortunately the US is financing it big..

  162. The only reason I can think of again goes back to their elitist beliefs and desired policy outcomes. The belief that a better-educated few should be allowed power over the less educated masses. That government knows better than the people do.
    Although I agree with much of this blog’s critique of AGW science, this post is typical of its slide into political advocacy, and advocacy of a low order. So-called conservative claims are trumpeted and AGW is exhibit A for the prosecution. The Tea Party/Republican/Libertarian constituency howls its approval in comments. Little of value is contributed.
    Like anyone else, scientists are capable of close political analysis, but what appears on this blog is usually just sloganeering. No different from the drivel offered up on sites loyal to the opposite side of the aisle.

  163. Peter Taylor,
    The climate is changing, eh? FYI, the climate has always changed. In fact, it is currently changing less than usual. To use that as an excuse to promote your ‘ecology’ is disingenuous.
    You and your ecologist/eco-theives are a major part of the world’s problems. In fact, I would say that you are the problem. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and the bricks in that road are supplied by people who mistakenly believe they are doing good for mother Gaia. They are either deluded or conniving.
    You blame this country for what your own ancestors did when they immigrated here several hundred years ago:

    “The wealth of the USA and Canada and Mexico (with some of the highest paid CEOs) is fundamentally based upon an invasive land-grab and sustained genocide of indigenous peoples who were moved off the land by puritanical religious hypocrits who would readily trade human rights for mining rights to further their own elitist control and eventual economic domination.”

    I get it: the U.S. is evil. But you never have an unkind word for the truly evil countries in the world. China, Russia, almost all of Africa get a free pass. But it makes you feel good to demonize the U.S., doesn’t it? No doubt your pals nod and agree when you lie to them that this country is the source of the world’s problems – and that lots more American dollars are what is needed to put things right.
    The hypocrisy of do-gooders, who take other people’s money and funnel it through the hopelessly corrupt UN is on display here. You are convinced by their smarmy assurances that the money will be spent wisely instead of being pocketed by UN kleptocrats and siphoned off by the leaders of corrupt client states, in return for voting against the US and the West, and crying crocodile tears over the fact that almost all of it is completely wasted, ending up in the pockets of connivers.
    If you had integrity you would ask for charitable contributions instead of taking the wealth confiscated from honest working people, and use the religious organizations that you admit are the most effective at alleviating poverty, to honestly distribute the contributions. Your hand-wringing over the corrupt system is no antidote to the ongoing theft of already hard-bitten taxpayers.
    You are as hooked on other people’s money as the rest of the world’s kleptocrats. It’s time to re-think what you wrongly presume to be ethical behavior. No doubt you believe yourself to be beneficent, but you are simply an enabler of the scam that targets honest working people, using wonderful sounding words as a cover to get government hands deep into their pockets – when you admit that very little of the money taken will ever reach those in need.
    Americans are by far the most generous, charitable people on the planet. I voluntarily give thousands of dollars a year to the few charities that pass on at least 90% of their income to the intended recipients. And I am sick to death of people who think they are doing good – by confiscating other people’s earnings, and giving them away to scoundrels. All you are doing is enabling the ripping off of honest working folks to give a monetary crutch to the people you think you are helping. As long as there are ‘ecologists’ around, or eco-anything, the poor will have their crutch – or at least the promise of it, and they will never learn to walk without it. If you want to be a do-gooder, do it with your own money.

  164. Why can’t we just say what is really going on? Progressive policies are not misguided. They are an attempt to secure their own power by depriving it to others.
    As for those who want to pose the “no government” argument, get real. Nobody is arguing for no government. We argue for constitutional government. There is a big difference. To assume that there will be no social order if social security is dissolved, is to assume that state governments do not exist.
    This is a battle over the power of the federal government. Nothing more. Progressives know that securing federal power is the easiest way to achieve their ends. This is warfare. You must understand their tactics to defeat them. The encouraging thing is that our constitution is the battle plan. We just need to restore it to it’s rightful place. Don’t like the constitution? Amend it.

  165. @”Anton says:
    November 1, 2010 at 7:18 pm
    Who does the quality of life rankings? The U.N.? Do you see millions of people around the world trying to immigrate to Scandinavia?”
    Uh… yes. Yes, that is exactly what millions of people around the world is trying to do.
    @”evanmjones says:
    November 1, 2010 at 7:57 pm
    The only trickle down effect I have ever felt is from the sibling in the bunk above me when I was a very young child.
    If you ever worked for a boss, then, by definition, you experienced it again even if you failed to feel it.”
    If this is true, then by definition no boss or company owner with an employee would be able to make money. You don’t hire an employee to ‘trickle’ your wealth away at him. You hire him so that his wealth (defined by his work) flows into your company, and you trickle back the equivalent value (more or less) in the form of pay.

  166. To those idiots who continually blame Bush and Wall Street for the current recession, it was neither. It was the socialist programs of FDR that did it. FDR created Freddie Mac. From that point on the government has continually interfered in the housing market, nudging banks and Wall Street to find ways to lend to those who could not and cannot afford a house. Socialism is the problem here.
    http://mises.org/daily/3045

  167. Dr Spencer, thank you for that beautifully clear, cogent, rational and well-argued statement. I haven’t yet read your book but it’s definitely now on my reading list. I wish you every success in continuing to try and get that message across – and against those who will go on doing their utmost to denigrate, distort and deny the truth of what you’re saying. I wish you could come over here and beat some sense into the heads of the UK politicians who are, almost without exception, hell-bent on driving this country into the ground on the back of the CAGW mantra.

  168. Lichanos says:
    “Although I agree with much of this blog’s critique of AGW science, this post is typical of its slide into political advocacy…”
    What are your thoughts on the American Lung Association’s slide into political advocacy?
    Today is election day in the U.S. It is to be expected that WUWT readers, who know a thing or two about how politics has corrupted science, would take an interest in the country’s change in direction.
    WUWT will continue to post articles on science, to the exclusion of almost everything else. But among other things, today is a referendum on the government’s science policy. With the eco-fascists usually calling the shots, it is a rare opportunity for the citizens to say, “WHOA!”

  169. Mr Green Genes;
    I trust you aren’t including the British in your rant.>>
    Error of omission on my part. To add to that, Britain stepped up in Iraq. WMD’s or not, it was British and American fighter bombers that, for ten years prior to invading Iraq, flew daily missions to prevent Sadam Hussein from exterminating the Kurds. DAILY for TEN YEARS. In the same vein, Britain showed up, as did Canada and others, to put an end to the attempted extermination of the Muslim Albanians in Bosnia. Number of Saudi troops there to support their Muslim brothers? 0. Egyptian? 0. Syrian? 0. Norway, Sweden, etc? Don’t recall but insignificant at best.
    Sad however that in the recent flare up between Britain and Argentina re the Falklands, the president of the “new” USA took a neutral position.

  170. The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can’t get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods.
    ~ H.L.Mencken

  171. Ed Murphy;
    Other than you have who married wrong, may I point out that John McCain is a decorated US soldier who spent considerable time as a prisoner of war during which he was tortured, starved, and nearly died. An elitist would have hired someone to do it for him.

  172. From Each According to His Ability to Each According to His Need
    Student; Uhm, I got every question on this exam correct. Why is my mark 67%?
    Professor; We needed your marks for something else.
    Student; And my lab partner hardly got any right at all, be he got 67% too.
    Professor; Yes, that’s what we needed your marks for, we gave some of them to him.
    Student; Why him?
    Professor; Because he needed them.
    Student; Why take them from me?
    Professor; Because you have the ability.
    Student; So, if I don’t study at all, don’t learn the material, I’ll get 67% anyway?
    Professor; No, you will go to jail for shirking your responsibility to the State.
    Student; If you put me in jail, who will build that nuclear reactor you need so bad?
    Professor; Your lab partner.
    Student; Are you insane? He’s a moron. He doesn’t have a clue what he is doing.
    Professor; Not true. Look at his last exam paper. 67%, just like you. Suggesting you are smarter than him is elitist, and threatening to not study makes you a traitor. I’m confiscating the rest of your marks and giving them to your lab partner. You will go to jail and he will be a genius with a mark of 200%.
    20 Years Later
    Scientist – hey, we can’t run this experiment in the Chernobyl nuclear reactor because it exceeds design limits and the safety systems trigger a shut down.
    Genius – Well, turn the safety systems off then.
    Scientist – is that safe?
    Genius – Of course. I looked at the numbers and decided it is safe. After all, I’m a genius.

  173. davidmhoffer says:
    November 1, 2010 at 10:32 pm
    God bless America. May she soon find her way back to the path she has walked for so many years, and done again the mantle she once wore so proudly. Leader of the free world. I see no one else stepping up to that responsibility, just complainers yammering away while getting a free ride.
    =========================================
    Thank you David

  174. Oops, I was sleepy, groggy, and dozing off. Sorry.
    Well, I’m off to vote for people who can remember how many cars and houses they own.
    not filthy rich old coots coaxing a ton of mileage off doing his duty

  175. While we’re talking about economic cases, why doesn’t anyone bring up Clinton? Yes, his presidency was during a period of economic strength, but I attribute it to the elder George Bush finally compromising on taxes with the Democrats which also led to his defeat. Clinton is the one that pushed the service “industry” over hard manufacturing and start our downfall into a third rate country.

  176. Ed Murphy says:
    November 2, 2010 at 9:03 am
    Oops, I was sleepy, groggy, and dozing off. Sorry.
    Well, I’m off to vote for people who can remember how many cars and houses they own.
    not filthy rich old coots coaxing a ton of mileage off doing his duty
    =======================================================
    Go get ’em tiger! Maybe if we try hard enough we can make sure none of our representatives were ever financially successful or served in our nation’s military. I’m sure that’d be a big help! Maybe if we found a very effective community organizer……….

  177. Djozar says:
    November 2, 2010 at 9:31 am
    While we’re talking about economic cases, why doesn’t anyone bring up Clinton? Yes, his presidency was during a period of economic strength, but I attribute it to the elder George Bush finally compromising on taxes with the Democrats which also led to his defeat. Clinton is the one that pushed the service “industry” over hard manufacturing and start our downfall into a third rate country.
    =======================================================
    Well, I agree, Clinton did push the service industry over manufacturing. And he did reap benefits of a set table by the 2 previous administrations and a congress that insisted on balanced budgets. Obviously, we’ve more problems than that. One day this nation will wake up and decide to start producing tangible goods again, drill our own oil, mine the energy necessary and quit exporting jobs while importing workers. The H1B program has imported over 1,000,000 workers to compete in the tech industry in the U.S. Other programs import in different areas of the labor market.

  178. latitude;
    YW
    It may be appropriate to repeat the words of one of the most famed journalists in Canadian history, Gordon Sinclair. He had enough of the American bashing and said so on his radio talk show. If you read through the following transcript, you will see his firm support for the role of the United States in the world, and his unwavering belief that the Americans would put the recent market crash behind them, get their act together, and once more lead the free world on all fronts. Keep in mind as you read it that market crash in question was in 1973, and came during a much maligned United States withdrawl from Vietnam:
    The United States dollar took another pounding on German, French and British exchanges this morning, hitting the lowest point ever known in West Germany. It has declined there by 41% since 1971 and this Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly the least-appreciated people in all the earth.
    As long as sixty years ago, when I first started to read newspapers, I read of floods on the Yellow River and the Yangtse. Who rushed in with men and money to help? The Americans did.
    They have helped control floods on the Nile, the Amazon, the Ganges and the Niger. Today, the rich bottom land of the Mississippi is under water and no foreign land has sent a dollar to help. Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy, were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of those countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States.
    When the franc was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it.
    When distant cities are hit by earthquakes, it is the United States that hurries into help… Managua Nicaragua is one of the most recent examples. So far this spring, 59 American communities have been flattened by tornadoes. Nobody has helped.
    The Marshall Plan .. the Truman Policy .. all pumped billions upon billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now, newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent war-mongering Americans.
    I’d like to see one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplanes.
    Come on… let’s hear it! Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tristar or the Douglas 107? If so, why don’t they fly them? Why do all international lines except Russia fly American planes? Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or women on the moon?
    You talk about Japanese technocracy and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy and you find men on the moon, not once, but several times … and safely home again. You talk about scandals and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everyone to look at. Even the draft dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, most of them … unless they are breaking Canadian laws .. are getting American dollars from Ma and Pa at home to spend here.
    When the Americans get out of this bind … as they will… who could blame them if they said ‘the hell with the rest of the world’. Let someone else buy the Israel bonds, Let someone else build or repair foreign dams or design foreign buildings that won’t shake apart in earthquakes.
    When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke. I can name to you 5,000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble.
    Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don’t think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.
    Our neighbours have faced it alone and I am one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles.
    I hope Canada is not one of these. But there are many smug, self-righteous Canadians. And finally, the American Red Cross was told at its 48th Annual meeting in New Orleans this morning that it was broke.
    This year’s disasters .. with the year less than half-over… has taken it all and nobody…but nobody… has helped.
    Gordon Sinclair
    1973
    Since read into the Congressional Record multiple times
    a couple of tiny tweaks, and he could be speaking of today.
    and he would be right (again)

  179. davidmhoffer says:
    November 2, 2010 at 7:56 am
    Mr Green Genes;
    I trust you aren’t including the British in your rant.>>
    Error of omission on my part.
    ==========================================================
    No problem, my friend. At this time of year in the UK we are commemorating our service personnel who have died in conflict over the past hundred years and that does include Iraq, Afghanistan and the Falklands conflict of 1982.

  180. “Maybe if we found a very effective community organizer……….”
    LOL – Like Gore, Cameron or Mann 😉

  181. “”””” davidmhoffer says:
    November 2, 2010 at 7:56 am
    Mr Green Genes;
    I trust you aren’t including the British in your rant.>>
    Error of omission on my part. To add to that, Britain stepped up in Iraq. WMD’s or not, it was British and American fighter bombers that, for ten years prior to invading Iraq, flew daily missions to prevent Saddam Hussein from exterminating the Kurds. DAILY for TEN YEARS. In the same vein, Britain showed up, as did Canada and others, to put an end to the attempted extermination of the Muslim Albanians in Bosnia. Number of Saudi troops there to support their Muslim brothers? 0. Egyptian? 0. Syrian? 0. Norway, Sweden, etc? Don’t recall but insignificant at best.
    Sad however that in the recent flare up between Britain and Argentina re the Falklands, the president of the “new” USA took a neutral position. “””””
    Well David not exactly; but I do get your point. The USA did have obligations under the OAS treaty that it couldn’t simply ignore, and had to tread lightly around. I can’t speak of the current administration whose anti-British rudeness is a total embarrassment to Americans.
    But you might remember in the battle for liberation of the Falkland Islands from their foreign invaders; the UK did have a UN directive to the invader to “get out or else”. And then there was that small matter of the supply of Sidewinder missiles, that PM Thatcher and her Defense Minister, had omitted to put on the shopping list. OOoops !! Well the US did conclude that we could do without some for a short duration; so we did loan the UK an adequate supply.
    As I recall you blokes fired 48 of those damn things from your Harriers; and three of them missed ! What the hell was that all about; I would have expected better out of the UK flyers.
    The Falkland Islands were among those lands in the South Atlantic, that did NOT become part of the Nation of Argentina, when those people obtained their freedom from Spain.
    Oddly, the battle for their Liberation commenced when Sea-king ? helicopters attacked and sank at the dock an Argentinian submarine that was trying to off load a couple of hundred troops to reinforce the garrison on South Georgia Island; who presumably were there to enforce new Argentinian rule over the penguins; so expecting no resistance, the dumbass Submarine commander sailed in to a British port on the surface on the morning of April 25th.
    Obviously he was not a student of history. April 25th is ANZAC Day; and not a good choice for a date to take on the British; in light of what happened on that date in 1915 on the Galipoli Peninsula of Turkey.
    So David; we didn’t forget y’alls; nor how Mrs Thatcher handled the whole thing. It was that event that really convinced me that I AM British. Of course now I’m a yank; but still proud of my origins.

  182. “”””” Peter Taylor says:
    November 2, 2010 at 5:15 am
    I have recently completed a review on international development – investments from the private sector and official aid run to $250 billion per annum, with about equal amounts in the two sectors. Most official aid goes to help national budgets. Less than 10% of that aid or investment reaches the poorest 2 billion people without adequate food and water, with impoverished soils, poor sanitation, poor health and virtually no role in the wider economy. “””””
    Well Peter; if we had just all stayed in Africa, then we all could be living like President Barack Hussein Obama’s destitute half brother in his native Kenya; which the First Lady describes as Barack’s Country. Well then there wouldn’t be so many of us; and there wouldn’t be any of those “indigenous ” peoples to come to the new world, and figure out how to drive a herd of buffalo over a cliff; to get a steak dinner.
    Left to their own ends some peoples in every region of this planet, have created wonderful things; from Cambodia to the jungles of Guatemala. But most of the worlds people have accomplished exactly nothing; but their own disease ridden subsistence.
    And it wasn’t central planners who created those wonders, and provided for the betterment of a large segment of the world community.
    I once attended a lecture by an esteemed Stanford Economist Professor; and he declared that we could completely bankrupt all the economies of the developed world; and sitll never solve the problems of Africa. Those people have to want to do it themselves; and surprisingly a great many of them have; and done it in the face of genocidal wars among themselves. We can help them; we can encourage them; we can help educate them; but we can’t make them successful; they have to do that themselves. Same goes for lots of other places. You cannot thrust the good life on people who don’t seem to want it.

  183. George E. Smith;
    Well David not exactly; but I do get your point. The USA did have obligations under the OAS treaty that it couldn’t simply ignore, and had to tread lightly around. I can’t speak of the current administration whose anti-British rudeness is a total embarrassment to Americans.>>
    I’m speaking of the rhetoric from Argentina of just a few months ago re-asserting their claim on the Falklands. The Obama administration took a neutral position. As for anti-British rudeness from the current administration, you can add rudeness to Canadians, Israelis, India, half of eastern Europe… if it is politeness you seek you had best hail from Iran or Syria or Russia. Sad to watch as Obama reaches out with the hand of friendship to those who spit in his face while backhanding his allies like they were small children in need of a good cuffing for not doing exactly as they are told.
    That said, and with no lack of respect for those who fought and died over the Falklands intended, it did result in one of the most amusing memories of my life. A day or so after the initial take over by Argentina, one of the weekly news magazines published a cartoon on their cover without even a caption, because the drawing said it all. It was a characture of a lion, aged but powerful. A tiny soldier in full uniform that tells you where he is from is poking holes in the lion’s tale with the bayonet of his rifle. The lion’s take is just a bit thicker than the soldier is tall. The lion is just turning its head backward to see what is going on, and the WTF? look on the lion’s face was priceless.
    Still makes me chuckle when the topic comes up, but the fact that Obama couldn’t say even a single word of support for Britain on the more recent issue is troubling. Particularly if you are from say Taiwan, South Korea, India, Israel, Japan, anyone who borders Venezuala or others for whom that should have been a wake up call.

  184. To remind everyone just who is “forcing” the carbon trade schemes – It “ain’t” the mainstreet republicans: It’s the Wall Street and socialist democrats who are appoiting and assigning their brethern into the seats of power who force the policies:
    This from IceCAP today:
    Oct 31, 2010
    A Nest of Carbon Vipers
    By Dennis Ambler, SPPI
    Vast sums of money, influence and power are involved in carbon mitigation schemes, and yet there is never any mention in the media of these massive and lucrative conflicts of interest. They appear quite content swallowing the diversionary tactics pushed by the likes of DeSmog Blog and Greenpeace ExxonSecrets with their claims of “oil- company funded deniers”. It is doubtful that mainstream journalists ever bother to look behind the scenes at these people, yet it is all available on official websites.
    It is no wonder that Christiana Figueres wanted the Kyoto Mechanism to continue, when she addressed the UNFCCC TianjinChicago Climate Exchange. Conference on the 4th of October, because without it her friends in the carbon business would find their virtual world starting to disappear, as evidenced by the recent problems at the Chicago Climate Exchange.
    An ancillary issue ripe for Congressional oversight is how do they get away with these incestuous financial relationships involving carbon trading companies, whilst devising and promoting legislation for a CO2 control agenda that will only benefit themselves and the companies that they advise, but will cause new and additional untold hardship to millions by casting them into political, economic and energy poverty.
    For example…
    UN Climate Secretary was Trained by Al Gore
    In March this year, Christiana Figueres replaced Yvo de Boer as the new Executive Secretary to the UNFCCC, which is responsible for the annual Conferences of the Parties, (COPS) such as COP 15 in Copenhagen and the upcoming COP 16 in Cancun, Mexico. Former Secretary De Boer, has moved to KPMG and “will have an international role working with KPMG member firms in advising business, governments and other organizations on sustainability issues.”
    Trained by Al Gore
    There are some very interesting details on Figueres’ website, one of which is her proud claim to have been “Trained and authorized by Al Gore to deliver his presentation The Inconvenient Truth.”
    She was greatly involved in Carbon Trading until taking up her new position. She has also been a member of the Executive Board of the Clean Development Mechanism of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
    The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is an arrangement under the Kyoto Protocol allowing industrialised countries with a greenhouse gas reduction commitment (called Annex 1 countries) to invest in ventures that reduce emissions in developing countries as an alternative to more expensive emission reductions in their own countries. It is the mechanism used for transferring wealth from industrialised nations to developing nations such as India and China.
    Carbon Pricing
    From 2008 to 2010, she was Vice Chair of the Rating Committee, Carbon Rating Agency, described on her web site as the “first entity to apply credit rating expertise to carbon assets”.
    The Carbon Rating Agency is a subsidiary of IdeaCarbon who say about themselves, “our unique access to some of the most influential decision-makers in the carbon and environmental community, gives us the possibility to foresee important regulatory and market trends and thus allow clients to have unparalleled views and advice on climate issues and debates.” IdeaCarbon is based in the Isle of Man, a tax haven.
    The Carbon Rating Agency openly boasts of its highly influential management team and ratings committee: “which includes ratings experts, financial market professionals, UN climate change negotiators and former senior managers from development agencies such as the World Bank, a combination which ensures that the full range of risks facing carbon projects are taken into account by the ratings process.”
    Influential people driving the carbon pricing agenda
    Idea Carbon includes amongst its advisers Lord Stern Chairman of the London School of Economics (LSE) Grantham Institute. He joined IdeaGlobal, the parent company, in 2007, as Vice Chairman. The Grantham Institute was set up in 2008 by Jeremy Grantham, chairman and co-founder of GMO, a $140 billion global investment management company based in Boston with offices in London, San Francisco, Singapore, Sydney and Zurich.
    He funds amongst others, WWF-US and Environmental Defense.WWF President Carter Rober and Environmental Defense President Fred Krupp, are both on the management board of the Grantham Institute along with Grantham himself.
    Fellow adviser at IdeaCarbon is Dr Samuel Fankhauser, who is also a colleague of Lord Stern at the LSE Grantham Institute as a Principal Research Fellow. Fankhauser is also on the UK Climate Change Committee and its Mitigation sub-committee. He participated in the 1995, 2001 and 2007 assessments of the IPCC.
    IdeaCarbon is involved in carbon trading on the Indian Multi-Commodities Exchange, (MCX), which estimates that by 2020 the market for project based carbon offsets is estimated to grow to at least 200bn.
    Another IdeaCarbon colleague of Lord Stern is Mr. Nitin Desai, a Special Advisor to the UN Secretary General on Internet governance and chair of the Advisory Group that organises the annual UN Internet Governance Forum. He is an Honorary Fellow of the LSE and former Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations from 1997 to 2003.
    In India, he is a colleague of IPCC chair Dr Pachauri, as a “Distinguished Visiting Fellow” at The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) and advises the Indian Government on its national climate change action plan.
    Christiana Figueres was also a Senior Advisor to C-Quest Capital, “a carbon finance business dedicated to originating and developing high-quality emission reduction projects around the world. We invest in carbon assets that generate not only superior returns but also concrete benefits to the environment. Founded by Ken Newcombe and Matthew Mendis in 2008, CQC is headquartered in Washington, D.C. with offices in Australia and Malaysia and a presence in India.”
    Ken Newcombe, CEO was from 2006 to 2007, Vice Chairman of Climate Change Capital in London, which manages the largest private sector carbon fund in the world. (Lord Oxburgh of the UEA enquiry is a director).
    “Before joining the private sector, Newcombe led the development of the Prototype Carbon Fund, a public-private partnership of the World Bank which pioneered the global carbon market and managed the growth of World Bank’s carbon finance business to eight carbon funds, with approximately a billion dollars under management for investment in carbon offset projects and laying the foundation for additional funding of the same order.”

  185. @ James Sexton
    “I find it interesting that you bring up Norway first. Let us compare how each nation was able to react to equivalents. Arnold and Quisling. One nation survived and drew strength from the act, another succumbed. Oh, wait, now I’m talking about more nations than just Norway!”
    What an utterly absurd comparison. The people of the original 13 colonies were largely of British origin. Did people like George Washington and Benajmin Franklin think of the British as foreigners when they were growing up? In case you are not aware of it Norwegians and Germans speak two different languages and have never considered themselves to be the same people.
    The British did not invade North America during the American Revolution or War of Independence whatever you want to call it. The settlers were very glad to have the British Army there as long as there was any threat from France. After the French were defeated the colonists were not so keen on paying their share of the costs even though, if anything, the standard of living in the colonies was higher than that back in Britain. A lot of colonists did not want a complete rupture of ties with Britain; they called themselves “Loyalists” and regarded the rebels as the traitors.
    You wrote “one nation survived and drew strength from the act” but neglected to point out that the reason for that nation’s survival was the intervention of the country that had previously been the greatest threat to the Colonies – France. Spain and Holland also helped by engaging British forces in other parts of the world.
    To compare the experience of Norway in the Second World War with that of the original 13 British Colonies in North America in the American Revolution is utterly absurd and is also gratuitously insulting to the heroes of the Norwegian resistance. North America is somewhat further away from Britain than Norway is from Germany and the logistical problems faced by British troops in America from 1775 onwards were just a teeny-weeny bit greater than those faced by the Germans in Norway in 1940.
    One of the biggest obstacles to a more reasoned attitude to the subject of climate change is that it is all to easy to paint many American critics of the theory of anthropogenic climate change as arrogant right-wing fanatics with a tenuous grasp of history and a contemptuous attitude to other countries.
    By the way, before any angry Americans respond to my points I should point out that I do NOT consider all Americans who love their country to be right-wing fanatics. In fact I would think there was something very seriously wrong with any American who did not love his/her country and was not proud of its history and its achievements, but you do not prove your patriotism by denigrating other countries or refusing to even consider the possibilty that some things might done better in other countries.

  186. brad says:
    November 1, 2010 at 4:51 pm
    “Add up the things you want to cut, I bet they dont touch the deficit. We should have a higher tax rate over 250K, and another over 1 million.”
    You are caught up in the Money Myth, the idea that, if poor people just had more money, they’d be rich. But, the wealth of a nation is not in the number of dollars it can print and allocate. It is in the real assets it holds, and the goods and services it can produce.
    If you take all the money and real assets from the top 1% and distribute it among the poor, you will make them marginally better off for a few months at best. But, you will have “eaten the seed corn” which provides next year’s harvest.
    Rich people, because of physical limits and because they are such a small portion of society, do not consume significant wealth which otherwise could be consumed by others. That is not what their possession of mere money does for them. What it does do is allow them to allocate resources and organize ventures to address needs and create new wealth to be shared by all. Either they do it, or the government does, but the government doesn’t do it even half as well, and government types have a tendency to gather wealth and perquisites themselves.
    You will not raise the poor to a sustainable higher level of prosperity by ever more artful division of a static “pie”, but only by growing that pie so that there is more to go around for everyone. At some point, when one reaches maturity, one learns to accept that there will always be those who have better looks, better lives, more money, and more prestige than oneself. Some undeservedly, in one’s eyes. But, one will never pull oneself up by pulling them down. Quite the opposite, one will only make one’s own life harder, and diminish prospects for prosperity for those one loves and cares for.
    Owen says:
    November 1, 2010 at 6:13 pm
    “My relatives in Norway live under a government that is far closer to socialism than the USA has ever been. Ditto for Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Finland, etc.”
    As others have noted, it is hardly fair to compare the US with Norway, the Saudi Arabia of the North Sea. As for the others, they are currently retreating from the Socialist model, and we outrank them in any case.

  187. davidmhoffer says:
    November 2, 2010 at 12:26 pm
    “Still makes me chuckle when the topic comes up, but the fact that Obama couldn’t say even a single word of support for Britain on the more recent issue is troubling.”
    ========================================================
    I’m not sure the rest of the world understands his loathe for all things western and in particular, Britain. While I don’t necessarily endorse the content of this article, this may help explain his feelings towards the Western world.
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article5276010.ece
    Fortunately, today, Obama is forced to hear a message of disapproval. Hopefully, he will receive the message and correct his path and policies. I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t think he has the ability to do so. He’s much too committed to the leftist agenda.

  188. @ davidmhoffer
    “Tell me, how many Norwegian troops are there in South Korea helping out? Swedish? Danish? German? Well, you probably help out in other trouble spots in the world instead like Afghanistan. Oh wait, that’s almost all Americans plus some Canadians.”
    Perhaps you should have taken the trouble to find out what European countries are or have contributed to the campaign in Afghanistan. There is a list of the numbers of fatal casualties from each of the Coalition countries at the Operation Enduring Freedom website.
    http://icasualties.org/oef/
    Denmark has lost 38 soldiers so far. That does not sound a lot, but since the population of the country is less than 5,500,000 Denmark’s losses are more proportionately than those of Canada or the United Kingdom or the United States.
    A little appreciation would not go amiss.

  189. Roy says:
    November 2, 2010 at 1:28 pm
    @ davidmhoffer
    http://icasualties.org/oef/
    Denmark has lost 38 soldiers so far. That does not sound a lot, but since the population of the country is less than 5,500,000 Denmark’s losses are more proportionately than those of Canada or the United Kingdom or the United States.
    A little appreciation would not go amiss.
    =======================================================
    Roy, I think you missed the point of David’s post, but let me assure you, the people of the U.S. know and remember all that have stood by and fought aside the U.S. When even one gives the ultimate sacrifice, we are all diminished. Their sacrifice and their memory should be with us always. Please bare with us as we tell our helmsman that he’s veered badly toward the port side.

  190. Roy;
    Perhaps you should have taken the trouble to find out what European countries are or have contributed to the campaign in Afghanistan. Denmark has lost 38 soldiers so far. That does not sound a lot, but since the population of the country is less than 5,500,000 Denmark’s losses are more proportionately than those of Canada or the United Kingdom or the United States. >>
    Again, I was making a general point, and the error of omission is mine. I’m glad to learn that Denmark is doing its part in Afghanistan, and my condolences to those families who have lost loved ones in the service of their country and humanity.
    But my point, errors of omission noted, stands. Over half the casualties in Afghanistan are American. If that were the only war to talk about, your “by proportion” point would carry weight. But the Americans suffered the bulk of the casualties in Kuwait, and Bosnia and others. The bulk of the troops standing gaurd over south Korea are American. It is American air craft carriers off the coast of Taiwan that makes China think carefully about the consequences of invasion, it was the American nuclear umbrella that halted further expansion of the USSR… Glad to know Denmark is doing their part in Afghanistan. But the Americans are doing their part ALMOST EVERYWHERE and no other country can say that.

  191. haven’t read all the posts – so apologis if this is repetitious.
    Seen on : – http://www.bestfilthyjokes.co.uk/politics_2.htm
    [not my website]
    “# 563-
    This teacher is truly a genius! As the late Adrian Rogers said, “you cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”
    An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
    Could not be any simpler than that. ”
    I think that supports Dr. Spencer.

  192. @ James Sexton
    Thanks James for your considerate response to my reply to David’s message. I hope you weren’t offended by my somewhat intemperate reply to your earlier message regarding Norway. It is often tempting to assume that you need to be pretty blunt to get a point across to other people but your reply to my message, and your replies to messages from some of the other people, show that I misjudged you.
    Please accept my apologies.

  193. @James Sexton, November 1, 2010 at 7:54 pm
    James: Is calling someone a “girl” really the best you can do? Please be so kind as to drop your voter ID card in the shredder.

  194. Thank you for your well-reasoned article!
    Many responses are pure political dribble … that is to be expected since you address an intersection of science and politics.
    In his farewell speech President Eisenhower cited two major threats to the US. One was the scientific-technological elite partnering with the Federal Government to invent problems requiring the expansion of government in return for funding to research these problems. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm Climate Science has become the perfect example of Eisenhower’s concern.
    According to Dr. William Happle the relationship between funding and providing the results the Federal Government wanted had become rather transparent. “This guy” (Climate Research Scientist seeking Federal Funds controlled by Happel) “looked at me and said”, ‘What answer would you like?’ This was a community even in the early 1990s that was being turned political. [The attitude was] ‘Give me all this money, and I’ll get the answer you like.’ ” http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/01/12/22506/
    I agree 100% with your conclusion as to the role of government: (1) make sure people play fair, and (2) get out of the way. To use the terms of the day I suggest: Require and rigorously enforce transparency. Then there will be very little need for complex government regulation.

  195. @ Michelle(Mike?) says:
    November 2, 2010 at 3:31 pm
    lol, I wrote three paragraphs, and that’s all you had to retort? You’re offended by gender mis-assignment? And you’re asking me to shred my voter registration? You know, if someone mistakes me for Lynn Jenkins or Kay Baily-Hutchinson, I’d ask them to get their eyes examined, but ok. OTOH, if they attached other arguments to the gender mis-assignment, I would address the arguments. Maybe you take a different approach. Weird how you couldn’t respond to anything I really said.


  196. Agree with what you say, Jim, but I would add that it is compounded by a healthy dose of crony capitalism. The US political system appears particularly vulnerable to the latter, probably because of the large amounts of money politicians need for campaign funding. What some have called “political entrepreneurs”* are all too willing to step in, in return for favors (either direct “pork” or legislation favoring their companies). The resultant market distortions have large adverse long term effects.
    *”Political entrepreneurs” are those who use the political system to enhance their profitability, rather than providing the market with a better or cheaper product.

  197. Jim says:
    November 2, 2010 at 6:44 am
    To those idiots who continually blame Bush and Wall Street for the current recession, it was neither. It was the socialist programs of FDR that did it. FDR created Freddie Mac. From that point on the government has continually interfered in the housing market, nudging banks and Wall Street to find ways to lend to those who could not and cannot afford a house. Socialism is the problem here.

    Agree with what you say, Jim, but I would add that it is compounded by a healthy dose of crony capitalism. The US political system appears particularly vulnerable to the latter, probably because of the large amounts of money politicians need for campaign funding. What some have called “political entrepreneurs”* are all too willing to step in, in return for favors (either direct “pork” or legislation favoring their companies). The resultant market distortions have large adverse long term effects.
    *”Political entrepreneurs” are those who use the political system to enhance their profitability, rather than providing the market with a better or cheaper product.
    Mods: if you could delete previous post of mine – HTML tags error

  198. Roy says:
    November 2, 2010 at 12:41 pm
    @ James Sexton
    Roy, sorry, it seems I struck a chord with you. Your apologies are accepted and I hope mine are towards you. I agree, the comparison I drew was not a very good analogy. My post was a knee jerk reaction to another post. I do try to be fair and level headed, but there are times. In the particular post you took exception towards, I may have took the person I responded to as an American. So, I thought the imagery of Arnold and Quisling to be apropos. There are times I wish the internet would be more private. If I’ve offended any, I offer my sincere apologies. With the exception of the idiot that posted….aww, with the exception of Owen.

  199. Mike says:
    November 2, 2010 at 8:00 pm
    @James Sexton:
    You did not saying anything substantive and still haven’t.
    ———————————————————————————————-
    First, let me say, I was trying to be nice. Truly, I was baiting you, but I thought that apparent. I re-posted your post so you could see the lunacy of your arguments. Sorry, I guess I was expecting too much.
    George Bush never engaged in the science of climate change other than a few comments that have turned out to be true. Dr. Hansen’s rants prove that to be true. While Hansen raved on about being silenced, he was talking to the world. If you can’t see the contradiction, that’s your problem, not any sane person’s problem.
    While you correctly point out the differences of elitists, you are egregiously wrong in attaching power to the various parties specifically pertinent to the climate change discussion. When was the last time you saw a quote from an “Oil company” head in regards to climate change? Do you know Dutch Shell’s stance on carbon exchange? I do. Did you know, until recently BP and Exxon funded PR in favor of carbon exchange? As did Caterpillar? I did.
    More about “power”. It is the people that have “power”. That’s why we see an endless drone of moronic actors and actresses in commercials preaching to us “powerless” about climate change. It is the people who are the ultimate judges, else there would be no need for the endless drone. In the same vain, the people gave “scientists” power, for a time. They’ve abused the power with falsehoods, exaggerations and other more contemptible actions. The discerning ability of the people have turned their ears to more trustworthy scientists.
    You spoke of “needs” of society as if it was requisite that someone provide said needs. No, society has all the needs necessary and no one provided the needs other than Nature and society itself. Unlike societies of yesteryear, we don’t need priests sacrificing tangibles or people at the alter of political correctness.
    BTW, sis. I’ll get your gender correct as soon as you get Dr. Spenser[sic]’s name correct. I wouldn’t think it would be that difficult for someone that wishes to enter an intellectual conversation.
    Much more to say about your little comment, but in the interest of brevity, I’ll await your retort and bring up more later.

  200. All politics is “local” and very, very personal. Oh yes, and to get a well oiled political machine at the local, state, and national levels, change the oil often.

  201. ****
    Alex Heyworth says:
    November 2, 2010 at 7:42 pm
    *****
    Alex,
    Just so you know, if I were king (and I don’t believe in kings 🙂 ), I would make the corporate/business tax zero and prohibit businesses from lobbying. If a business needed to communicate with Congress, they do it through public hearings. We need business out of politics, that’s for sure. And we need government out of business, with some exceptions. Most things aren’t good when carried to extremes.

  202. Rather amazing that a political thread, which would break down into chaos in most other websites, maintains relative civility here, and w/a number of well-written & informative posts (and a couple of reasonably civil but properly-executed smackdowns).

  203. James: You just aren’t saying much that is relevant. If there was an effort by the NSF to press scientists into supporting AGW the Bush Admin. would have exposed this and put a stop to it. Nothing like that happened. This undermines Spencer’s claim that science has been distorted because scientists were getting “continuing promises of congressional funding for research that those politicians knew would support Job #1” (that AGW is real and serious, requiring government action). So, Bush and the Republicans are all in on it? It’s just nutty.
    Some oil companies have played both sides, making public statements that AGW is real but funding groups that say it is not. Some, like the Koch brothers are more open. If you think scientists or actors have more political clout than oil companies you are too far gone to talk to.
    Powerful elites have often used anti-elitism as a cover for anti-intellectualism. That’s what is happening now.

  204. “”””” davidmhoffer says:
    November 2, 2010 at 12:26 pm
    George E. Smith;
    Well David not exactly; but I do get your point. The USA did have obligations under the OAS treaty that it couldn’t simply ignore, and had to tread lightly around. I can’t speak of the current administration whose anti-British rudeness is a total embarrassment to Americans.>>
    I’m speaking of the rhetoric from Argentina of just a few months ago re-asserting their claim on the Falklands. “””””
    Well David, I guess I missed that event; but would agree with you on your “miffedness”.
    And as I earlier alluded to; I’m under the impression that during the Colonial Era of the Americas; Britain and Spain (or wazzat England and Spain) did swap back and forth de facto possession of the Falkland Islands; depending on exactly whose pirates were currently in the area; so arguably there was a time when Spain by reason of occupation had “possession” of those islands , until England/Britain eventually reclaimed them and “colonised” them.
    So they were in British hands (I believe) at whatever time it was that Argentinians obtained their independence from Spanish rule. So they never have been a possession of Argentina.
    And since in 1948 all the civilized countries of the world signed the UN Charter; and basically agreed to not go round grabbing other people’s territory; then the issue would seem to be moot. And as I recall, PM Thatcher’s ambassador to the UN obtained a UN resolution that effectively authorized the UK to defend and reclaim their territory; if the Argentinian invaders didn’t move out of their own accord. There’s a slight matter of the US Navy not being in love with the idea of having, the Falklands, South Georgia, and The South Sandwich, and South Orkneys; being in unstable and potentially unfriendly hands.
    In other words; She did everything by the book.
    And as I recall, the residents of those islands mostly speak English; and have no historic ties with Latin America at all.
    The US would naturally come down on the side of self determination.
    Most of Latin America’s problems can be traced to the fact that they are the remnants of Spanish Colonial History; and not British Colonial History. Thank Goodness, the Spaniards never settled New Zealand; we’d all have had to move to Australia; and then there wouldn’t be any All Blacks !

  205. Ed Murphy says:
    November 2, 2010 at 12:28 am

    Now, David, what I wish to point out to all of you is… follow the money on the people on the ballot and John McCain has plenty of that dirty, filthy leftist Heinz wealth in his personal piggy bank.
    He married into it.

    BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! Wrong.
    That’s John Kerry not John McCain.

  206. @Smokey:
    Today is election day in the U.S.
    Say what you want, vote how you like. It’s your right. That fact doesn’t elevate your comments above the level of sloganeering of the AGW or Skeptic groups.

  207. Lichanos,
    If you believe I was “sloganeering,” I’d like to know how you got that idea.
    What I specifically asked you was:
    “What are your thoughts on the American Lung Association’s slide into political advocacy?”
    You neglected to answer. That’s how some folks react when the tables are turned on their own question.
    By the way, sorry about the election. And yes, I did vote. Prop 23 lost, but over all, the results were fine by me. ☺ ☺ ☺  

Comments are closed.