Business Fumes Over Carbon Dioxide Rule


Officials gather in Copenhagen this week for an international climate summit, but business leaders are focusing even more on Washington, where the Obama administration is expected as early as Monday to formally declare carbon dioxide a dangerous pollutant.

An “endangerment” finding by the Environmental Protection Agency could pave the way for the government to require businesses that emit carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases to make costly changes in machinery to reduce emissions — even if Congress doesn’t pass pending climate-change legislation. EPA action to regulate emissions could affect the U.S. economy more directly, and more quickly, than any global deal inked in the Danish capital, where no binding agreement is expected.

Many business groups are opposed to EPA efforts to curb a gas as ubiquitous as carbon dioxide.

An EPA endangerment finding “could result in a top-down command-and-control regime that will choke off growth by adding new mandates to virtually every major construction and renovation project,” U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue said in a statement. “The devil will be in the details, and we look forward to working with the government to ensure we don’t stifle our economic recovery,” he said, noting that the group supports federal legislation.

Advancing Emissions

Track the rise of carbon dioxide emissions.

Countdown to Copenhagen

Take a look at events leading up to the climate conference.

EPA action won’t do much to combat climate change, and “is certain to come at a huge cost to the economy,” said the National Association of Manufacturers, a trade group that stands as a proxy for U.S. industry.

Dan Riedinger, spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute, a power-industry trade group, said the EPA would be less likely than Congress to come up with an “economywide approach” to regulating emissions. The power industry prefers such an approach because it would spread the burden of emission cuts to other industries as well.

Electricity generation, transportation and industry represent the three largest sources of U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions.

An EPA spokeswoman declined to comment Sunday on when the agency might finalize its proposed endangerment finding. Congressional Republicans have called on the EPA to withdraw it, saying recently disclosed emails written by scientists at the Climatic Research Unit of the U.K.’s University of East Anglia and their peers call into question the scientific rationale for regulation.

The spokeswoman said that the EPA is confident the basis for its decision will be “very strong,” and that when it is published, “we invite the public to review the extensive scientific analysis informing” the decision.

EPA action would give President Barack Obama something to show leaders from other nations when he attends the Copenhagen conference on Dec. 18 and tries to persuade them that the U.S. is serious about cutting its contribution to global greenhouse-gas emissions.


The vast majority of increased greenhouse-gas emissions is expected to come from developing countries such as China and India, not from rich countries like the U.S. But developing countries have made it clear that their willingness to reduce growth in emissions will depend on what rich countries do first. That puts a geopolitical spotlight on the U.S.

At the heart of the fight over whether U.S. emission constraints should come from the EPA or Congress is a high-stakes issue: which industries will have to foot the bill for a climate cleanup. A similar theme will play out in Copenhagen as rich countries wrangle over how much they should have to pay to help the developing world shift to cleaner technologies.

“There is no agreement without money,” says Rosário Bento Pais, a top climate negotiator for the European Commission, the European Union’s executive arm. “That is clear.”

An endangerment finding would allow the EPA to use the federal Clean Air Act to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions, which are produced whenever fossil fuel is burned. Under that law, the EPA could require emitters of as little as 250 tons of carbon dioxide per year to install new technology to curb their emissions starting as soon as 2012.


Pawel Kopczynski/ReutersA man climbed on a globe that is part of an installation in downtown Copenhagen.

The EPA has said it will only require permits from big emitters — facilities that put out 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year. But that effort to tailor the regulations to avoid slamming small businesses with new costs is expected to be challenged in court.

Legislators are aware that polls show the public appetite for action that would raise energy prices to protect the environment has fallen precipitously amid the recession.

Congressional legislation also faces plenty of U.S. industry opposition. Under the legislation, which has been passed by the House but is now stuck in the Senate, the federal government would set a cap on the amount of greenhouse gas the economy could emit every year. The government would distribute a set number of emission permits to various industries. Companies that wanted to be able to emit more than their quota could buy extra permits from those that had figured out how to emit less.

Proponents of the cap-and-trade approach say emission-permit trading will encourage industries to find the least-expensive ways to curb greenhouse-gas output. But opponents say it will saddle key industries with high costs not borne by rivals in China or India, and potentially cost the U.S. jobs.


AFP/Getty ImagesAn official prepares the Danish flag in the large Copenhagen meeting hall that will host the United Nation’s summit on climate change beginning Monday. The conference ends Dec. 18.



The oil industry has warned that climate legislation could force some U.S. refineries to shut down, because importing gasoline from countries without emission caps could be cheaper than making the gasoline on domestic soil.

Legislators “have decided that coal and electric users don’t bear the burden” of emissions constraints for many years, said John Felmy, chief economist for the American Petroleum Institute, an industry group. “Early in the program, oil users are the ones who are hammered.”

The Iron and Steel Institute, which represents more than 75% of steel made in the U.S., said that successful climate policy — whether through the EPA or Congress — must “reduce emissions without altering the competitiveness of American steelmakers.”

The issue of how curbing emissions would affect jobs in developed countries is likely to erupt in Copenhagen in the battle over how much rich countries should pony up for cleaner technologies in developing nations.

Estimates of the cost for reducing emissions in developing countries vary widely, but the European Commission said in September that the bill could reach $150 billion annually by 2020. Leaders of the EU’s 27 nations have said only that the EU would pay its “fair share” of the total, without committing to an amount.

Yet EU industry lobbies are weighing in against that proposal. It is “not realistic,” said Axel Eggert, spokesman for Eurofer, the trade group for European steelmakers. Steelmakers want to “make sure that the financing is not a subsidy for our competitors,” he said.

— Ian Talley and Stephen Power contributed to this article.

Write to Jeffrey Ball at and Charles Forelle at




The EPA’s war on carbon

Lead Story

The EPA’s war on carbon

By Michelle Malkin  •  December 7, 2009 11:28 AM

Eco-czars of the Obama administration, activate!

Form of…a corrupted “scientific” finding on greenhouse gas “public endangerment.”

Timed for maximum impact on the Copenhagen global warming treaty talks, the Obama EPA is set to announce that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare, paving the way for the green bureaucrats to radically regulate emissions.

Keeping an open mind about dissenting researchers? Listening to input from the Hill? Screw them:

The Obama administration is pressing for a new law that would establish a cap-and-trade system to curb emissions from power plants and scores of other sources. But the administration has also warned that it plans to move ahead with EPA rules absent a final bill. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is urging GOP colleagues to back an emissions bill in part because Congress, not EPA, should decide the contours of a national emissions program. The so-called endangerment finding stems from a major 2007 Supreme Court decision that enables EPA to limit the emissions if it finds that greenhouses gases are indeed a danger. The agency issued a preliminary finding in April.

The EPA announcement could also give U.S. negotiators more leverage at the international climate talks in Copenhagen that begin today, demonstrating domestic action even though Congress has not completed a final bill to curb emissions.

Although EPA chief Lisa Jackson will make the announcement this afternoon, the edict has global warming zealot and Obama energy czar/chief ClimateGate denier Carol “Put nothing in writing…ever” Browner’s fingerprints all over it.

Take a moment to refresh your memories on how Obama’s enviro-ministers have dealt with inside watchdogs on the endangerment issue. It’s the same way the ClimateGate cabal has dealt with its critics: By attempting to squash them. From my June 26 column:

The free market-based Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington (where I served as a journalism fellow in 1995) obtained a set of internal e-mails exposing Team Obama’s willful and reckless disregard for data that undermine the illusion of “consensus.” In March, Alan Carlin, a senior research analyst at the Environmental Protection Agency, asked agency officials to distribute his analysis on the health effects of greenhouse gases. EPA has proposed a public health “endangerment finding” covering CO2 and five other gases that would trigger costly, extensive new regulations of motor vehicles. The open comment period on the ruling ended this week. But Carlin’s study didn’t fit the blame-human-activity narrative, so it didn’t make the cut.

On March 12, Carlin’s director, Al McGartland, forbade him from having “any direct communication” with anyone outside his office about his study. “There should be no meetings, emails, written statements, phone calls, etc.” On March 16, Carlin urged his superiors to forward his work to EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, which runs the agency’s climate change program. A day later, McGartland dismissed Carlin and showed his true, politicized colors:

“The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round. The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision… I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.”

Contrary comments, in other words, would interfere with the “process” of ramming the EPA’s endangerment finding through. Truth-in-science took a backseat to protecting eco-bureaucrats from “a very negative impact.”

In another follow-up e-mail, McGartland warned Carlin to drop the subject altogether: “With the endangerment finding nearly final, you need to move on to other issues and subjects. I don’t want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research etc, at least until we see what EPA is going to do with Climate.”

But, of course, the e-mails show that EPA had already predetermined what it was going to do – “move forward on endangerment.” Which underscores the fact that the open public comment period was all for show. In her message to the public about the radical greenhouse gas rules, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson requested “comment on the data on which the proposed findings are based, the methodology used in obtaining and analyzing the data, and the major legal interpretations and policy considerations underlying the proposed findings.” Ms. Jackson, meet Mr. Carlin.

The EPA now justifies the suppression of the study because economist Carlin (a 35-year veteran of the agency who also holds a B.S. in physics) “is an individual who is not a scientist.” Neither is Al Gore. Nor is environmental czar Carol Browner. Nor is cap-and-trade shepherd Nancy Pelosi. Carlin’s analysis incorporated peer-reviewed studies and, as he informed his colleagues, “significant new research” related to the proposed endangerment finding. According to those who have seen his study, it spotlights EPA’s reliance on out-of-date research, uncritical recycling of United Nations data, and omission of new developments, including a continued decline in global temperatures and a new consensus that future hurricane behavior won’t be different than in the past.

But the message from his superiors was clear: La-la-la, we can’t hear you.

In April, President Obama declared that “the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.” Another day, another broken promise.

Philip Klein has more on the EPA bureaucrats expanding their power under the guise of saving the planet:

Lisa Jackson, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, made these intentions clear in her opening memo to employees in January 2009. “EPA will stand ready to help Congress craft strong, science-based climate legislation that fulfills the vision of the President,” she wrote, adding, “As Congress does its work, we will move ahead to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision recognizing EPA’s obligation to address climate change under the Clean Air Act.”

The Supreme Court decision Jackson referred to is Massachusetts v. EPA. Decided in 2007, the Court ruled that, pending a finding of “endangerment,” the EPA was required to regulate greenhouse gases in new vehicles. Obama appointed the lead attorney for the plaintiffs in the suit, Lisa Heinzerling, to be senior policy counsel on climate change at the EPA, a position that does not require confirmation. In her speeches and academic writings, Heinzerling has advocated an unabashedly activist role for the federal government in regulating carbon emissions….

Heinzerling has gone so far as to argue that since global warming kills people, a failure to address it is tantamount to somebody not acting on prior knowledge that a homicide is going to take place.

“Knowledge that death and suffering will result from our actions leads uncontroversially to a moral obligation to change our behavior,” Heinzerling wrote in a 2008 article for the Georgetown Law Journal. “In the United States, knowing killing is condemned in the criminal laws of all 50 states, in modern regulatory laws at the federal level, and in civil jury awards in tort cases. These laws embody a moral commitment against knowing killing that, in traditional criminal contexts, is uncontroversial. It should be no more controversial when it occurs on a global scale.”

Jackson is set to speak in Copenhagen.

I call to your attention GOP Sen. Jim Inhofe’s warning when the EPA took its first steps on this finding:

Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said today that the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed endangerment finding will unleash a torrent of regulations that will destroy jobs, harm consumers, and extend the agency’s reach into every corner of American life. Despite enormous expense and hardship for the American economy, these regulations will have virtually no effect on climate change.

“Today’s action by the EPA is the beginning of a regulatory barrage that will destroy jobs, raise energy prices for consumers, and undermine America’s global competitiveness,” Senator Inhofe said. “It now appears EPA’s regulatory reach will find its way into schools, hospitals, assisted living facilities, and just about any activity that meets minimum thresholds in the Clean Air Act. Rep. John Dingell was right: the endangerment finding will produce a ‘glorious mess.’

“It’s worth noting that the solution to this ‘glorious mess’ is not for Congress to pass cap-and-trade legislation, which replaces one very bad approach with another. Congress should pass a simple, narrowly-targeted bill that stops EPA in its tracks.”

Endangering Farmers, the Elderly, and Construction Workers: Once EPA makes a finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare under the Clean Air Act, who, specifically, would be affected? As EPA’s Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) makes clear, an endangerment finding would lead to regulations covering nearly every facet of the American economy. In reading through comments filed in the regulatory docket, one is struck by how broadly the Clean Air Act would apply once an endangerment finding is made-especially to sources that have hitherto never come under the ambit of the Act. EPA received thousands of public comments from various industries and groups that expressed concern and outright opposition-on issues of cost, competitiveness, jobs, and administrative complexity-to greenhouse gas regulation under the CAA.

AN “HISTORIC” DAY: EPA’s finding is indeed historic news, for the simple fact that it will enlarge EPA’s regulatory reach to an unprecedented degree, extending it into every corner of the US economy, causing enormous economic damage. According to Peter Glaser, a national legal expert on the Clean Air Act, an endangerment finding will lead to new EPA regulations covering virtually everything, including “office buildings, apartment buildings, warehouse and storage buildings, educational buildings, health care buildings such as hospitals and assisted living facilities, hotels, restaurants, religious worship buildings, public assembly buildings, supermarkets, retail malls, agricultural facilities…and many others.” An array of new development projects could be delayed, perhaps for several years, causing “an economic train wreck.” This conclusion was supported recently by the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis, which found that EPA’s new carbon regulations would destroy over 800,000 jobs and result in a cumulative GDP loss of $7 trillion by 2029.

Risky Legal Schemes: “…hospitals, schools, farms, commercial buildings, and a host of other small sources emit more than 250 tons per year of CO2-a limit expressly mentioned in the statute-they will be required, once an endangerment finding is made and CO2 becomes a regulated pollutant, to obtain costly, burdensome pre-construction permits for their activities…Further, Glaser notes that “the statutory language is mandatory and does not leave any room for EPA to exercise discretion or create exceptions.” In short, unless Congress exempts them, there’s no way out for schools, assisted living facilities, and thousands upon thousands of small businesses.”

I declare the Obama eco-appartchiks a public danger whose regulatory emissions must be contained.


Side note: My views on the Obama green power grab and the global warming mob have been clear and unchanged from day one. Some folks have asked about the ad that is appearing on the site today. I obviously do not agree with the advertiser’s support for the Copenhagen treaty.

The Cuckoo’s Nest visits Copenhagen

The Cuckoo’s Nest visits Copenhagen

By Mark W. Hendrickson

One of my all-time favorite novels is Ken Kesey’s One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, later made into an Oscar-winning film.  Set in an institution for psychological patients, Cuckoo’s Nest was a cautionary tale about all institutions-schools, churches, businesses, government bureaucracies, etc., it dramatized the horrors of what can happen when those in charge hijack an institution and place their own ambitions and lust for power, prestige, and control above the welfare of the very people whom the institution was created to help. 
The United Nations fits the cuckoo’s nest paradigm perfectly.  It is ostensibly dedicated to some of mankind’s loftiest ideals.  The U.N. Declaration of Human Rights affirms: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.” “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest.” “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.” “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion,” etc. 
In practice, though, the U.N. welcomes, legitimizes, and empowers regimes that systematically trample those rights.  U.N. officials readily betray the welfare and liberty of billions of individuals in their pursuit of world government.  With cynical irony, the UN extends the voting privilege to regimes that would never permit an honest, democratic vote in their own countries.  Also, because the major obstacle to global government is a strong, sovereign United States, U.N. delegates from illiberal regimes routinely gang up to vote against our interests.
Why would any American want to strengthen the UN?  Some individuals crave the unprecedented powers that a worldwide government would have.  Others pathologically hate liberal democracy, free markets, and limits on government power, and so despise American sovereignty.  Most pro-U.N. Americans, to give them the benefit of the doubt, are idealists who believe that the way to establish peace on earth is to do away with nation-states.  No nation-states, no wars, right?  Not so.
It amazes me that the same people who loathe private-sector business monopolies believe that a global monopoly of governmental power would be benign. When Stalin consolidated hegemony over the 15 republics that constituted the Soviet Union, there was no more war in the conventional sense, but the Soviet Union remained an exceedingly violent place.  The government warred against its own people, but the disarmed populace couldn’t fight back.  The death toll was enormous.
Those who believe that a one-world government would produce peace on earth should google “R. J. Rummel and democide.”  They will learn that wars have killed far fewer people than have strong governments.  Competition in business serves consumer welfare far better than monopoly, and so does political competition.  The 20th century featured lab-like experiments proving this: East and West Germany, North and South Korea, China vs. Taiwan and Hong Kong, east of the Iron Curtain and west of it – in all cases people voted with their feet to leave countries where there was a deadly monopoly of political power to live where politicians competed for the citizens’ approval.
This week the UN is pursuing all 3 of its nefarious goals trashing the rights of individuals, pushing for global governance, and knocking the U.S. down a few pegs-at the “climate change” meeting in Copenhagen.
UN Goal #1: The highest estimate of the estimated costs of a global cap & trade regime that I have seen was not from a global-warming skeptic, but the U.N.’s own figure of $552 trillion during the 21st century.  Since global GDP today is around $65 trillion, the UN is talking about sacrificing nearly a decade’s worth of wealth in the name of combating climate change.  Since the most lethal environment for humans is poverty, the U.N.’s call to reduce wealth by that unfathomable amount would cause tens of millions of unnecessary deaths — a gargantuan genocide or democide — and the violation of the most fundamental human right of all, life.
UN Goal #2: Preliminary language composed in advance of the Copenhagen confab calls for creation of a new UN body, “the Conference of the Parties (COP).” COP needs sweeping powers, because “the way society is structured will need to change fundamentally.”  Such “change” won’t be cheap, so the UN seeks a “massive scaling up of financial resources” to fund COP. 
Surprise! The UN wants to levy taxes!  This is huge, because if the U.N. ever gains the power to tax sovereign nations, national sovereignty will be in mortal jeopardy, and the era of one-world government will draw near.
UN Goal #3: The climate change claque seeks to penalize rich countries — especially the US — for our prosperity.  According to Friends of the Earth, “A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources.”  President Obama emphatically believes this.  He wants to redistribute American wealth abroad.  He doesn’t understand that rich countries became rich by embracing the principles of private property and free enterprise, while poor countries shunned that same road to prosperity.  The U.S. didn’t get rich by taking wealth from poor countries, and what poor countries need to prosper is not transfers of US wealth, but to adopt the right values and policies.
Thankfully, it doesn’t appear that the Copenhagen meeting will produce a CO2 emissions control agreement against a backdrop of global cooling, the climategate scandal, and economic weakness.  Nevertheless, what the U.N. insiders and Obama are plotting there is monstrous.  This week, the cuckoo’s nest is in Copenhagen. 
Mark Hendrickson, Ph.D. teaches economics at Grove City College and is Fellow for Economic and Social Policy with the College’s Center for Vision & Values.

Page Printed from: at December 07, 2009 – 12:01:58 PM EST

Donald Kennedy and the corruption of Science Magazine

Donald Kennedy and the corruption of Science Magazine

By James Lewis

Science magazine has been stewing so long in the Global Warming bouillabaisse that its very brains are beginning to smoke. That may be because its august Editor-in-Chief Donald Kennedy (until last year) was a dedicated Warm-monger. Science is the flagship journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the political lobby for Big Science in Washington, D.C. The Editor-in-Chief of Science is like the Queen of England: It’s the closest thing to God in the church hierarchy.  Everybody kisses your butt and all you have to do is wave your hand to the cheering peasantry from your golden coach.
Try a Google search for “Donald Kennedy AND Global Warming” and you get almost six million hits. Search for “global warming” in Science magazine itself, and you get 2,792 citations — almost as many as you get for “increased science funding.”
Here are some Science magazine headlines in the last several years, a period when we know that atmospheric temperatures were flat or declining. As MIT Professor of Meteorology Richard S. Lindzen just wrote in the Wall Street Journal: “Claims that climate change is accelerating are bizarre.”    The unfortunate tendency of the atmosphere to stop warming is of course why Phil Jones and the CRUdocrats were trying to “fix” the data in their infamous email exchanges.
During this time Science magazine published thousands of references to Global Warming, including headlines like:
CLIMATE CHANGE: Taming the Angry Beast
Ken Caldeira
Science 17 October 2008 322: 376-377 (in Books) ….What Past Climate Changes Reveal About the Current Threat–and How… (human) activities have triggered the possibility of catastrophic climate change, how we have come to recognize the threat……
CLIMATE CHANGE: IPCC Report Lays Out Options for Taming Greenhouse Gases
John Bohannon
Science 11 May 2007 316: 812-814
CLIMATE CHANGE: Global Warming Is Changing the World
Richard A. Kerr
Science 13 April 2007 316: 188-190
How Much More Global Warming and Sea Level Rise?
Gerald A. Meehl, Warren M. Washington, William D. Collins, Julie M. Arblaster, Aixue Hu, Lawrence E. Buja, Warren G. Strand, and Haiyan Teng
Science 18 March 2005 307: 1769-1772
Global Warming and the Next Ice Age
Andrew J. Weaver and Claude Hillaire-Marcel
Science 16 April 2004 304: 400-402
Et cetaera ad nauseam. It’s not a pretty sight.
Things get only worse when we look at the Eurekalert site, which is also run by the AAAS. Eurekalert presents an endless flow of press releases from universities that make billions from Federal grants. This is where our pop media  get their scientific  news. 
Here are some search results:
Global Warming: 2,500 hits
Climate Change: 5,140 hits
CO2 Global Warming: 2,498 hits
Anthropogenic: 338 hits
Catastrophic: 1,213 hits
Apparently a lot of PR guys and gals were mining this little vein of gold. Remember Goebbels’ slogan that “A Big Lie repeated often enough becomes the truth”? This is the Big Lie Repetition Machine. All your average journalist has to do is go to Eurekalert, search for “catastrophic” or “global warming” and copy the latest headline. Since the media are firing human ‘journalists’ these days, they might as well get a computer program to do it.
It was Donald Kennedy who initiated the Science magazine State of the Planet issues, to drive home the Global Warming meme. In an editorial in the 6 January 2006 issue of Science he wrote, “The consequences of the past century’s temperature increase are becoming dramatically apparent in the increased frequency of extreme weather events …”
Only trouble: It wasn’t true.
As skeptic Roger Pielke, Jr. wrote in a letter to Science that somehow passed the censors:
“Over recent decades, the IPCC found no long-term global trends in extratropical cyclones (i.e., winter storms), in “droughts or wet spells,” or in”tornados, hail, and other severe weather”… A recent study by the International Ad Hoc Detection and Attribution Group concluded that it was unable to detect an anthropogenic signal in global precipitation.” (Science, June 9, 2005, Letters)
But Mr. Kennedy’s mind was made up, and mere facts could not change it. In his Editorial on The Breakthrough of the Year for 2005, Kennedy wrote:
“An especially significant runner-up (to the Breakthrough of the Year for 2005) was climate change. 650,000-year-old ice cores from Antarctica give a continuous record of correlations between atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane and the temperature changes imposed by glacial cycles. New information put to rest the idea, popular with those skeptical about global warming, that satellite measurements, in contrast to ground measurements, showed cooling. One by one, holes in the global warming case are being filled. Government actions should follow; of that, I’ll say more in the first Science issue of the new year.” (  SCIENCE VOL 310 23 DECEMBER 2005 )
So — guess who was instrumental in getting Donald Kennedy appointed to that plum job at Science magazine? Yes, it was our old friend Paul Ehrlich, the author of The Population Bomb of 1968 — the one that sputtered frighteningly for decades but never went off. It was Paul Ehrlich who wrote the major puff piece for Donald Kennedy, introducing him as Editor-in-Chief of Science mag, the most powerful job in American science. 562
22 JULY2005 VOL 309 SCIENCE  
Are you beginning to suspect a set-up? Unh-huh…
I know a liberal who fell for Paul Ehrlich’s book The Population Bomb three decades ago and still believes it today. Liberals never have to change their minds, especially about facts. Certainly Ehrlich never changed his mind, and when his predictions about Planetary Doom failed, he didn’t come to the obvious conclusion that I must have been wrong. He just added more epicycles to his pleasingly complicated picture of the climate. That little sentence “I must be wrong” is the most important one in the entire vocabulary of honest scientists, of whom there are still a few lonely souls wandering over the blasted heath of Big Academia.
It seems that Ehrlich and Kennedy are good buds. Neither of them are scientists — but they do play them on TV, in the media and at Stanford.
Donald Kennedy was Commissioner of the FDA for Jimmy Carter in the Seventies and hasn’t stepped into a lab since that time, as far as I can tell from his publications — none are based on empirical evidence. All he writes are editorials.  Instead, Professor Kennedy returned to being head of Biology at Stanford University.
If you look up Kennedy’s bio on Wikipedia you’ll see it’s been airbrushed in Stalinist fashion — it’s only a few short paragraphs, with a big notice that Wikipedia does not allow disputed material to appear about living persons. That suggests that somebody wanted to cite some critical facts but Professor Kennedy objected. I wonder why? 
One likely reason is the infamous Stanford University Overhead Scandal. “Overhead” is what universities charge the government over and above the cost of supporting research: In the evil corporate world it’s called “profit margin.” Of course universities would never think about making profits, which is why their tuitions and overhead charges to the Feds have been going up and up and up. Barred from making profits, all they do is raise their salaries and pensions and pad their expense accounts. They’re in bed with a monopoly — the Federal science bureaucracy — so they charge monopoly prices.
Well, Donald Kennedy as President of Stanford was caught dipping a little too deeply into the honey pot. Some business about $7,000.000 bed sheets for the presidential residence and overbilling the Office of Naval Research 200 million dollars.  Small stuff. But the US Congress took notice, and called Donald Kennedy on the carpet. Mr. Kennedy defended every penny of his charges and resigned. That’s when his good friends, like Mr. Ehrlich, got him his job at Science mag.
Everything about Science now smells fishy. The scientific blog world should be searching through journal websites to see how deeply they are quagmired in the honey pot of Global Warming: Nature, Scientific American, The Lancet, National Geographic, the lot. They all have websites with search engines. Public exposure may help them to clean out that pervasive stink of rotten fish.
Because the decay goes far beyond the CRUddites in Britain; it’s all over the world among the machine politicians of science. All of them knew what was going on with the Biggest Science Scam in History, because it should be obvious to a child of six. Undergraduates in calculus classes learn that nonlinear dynamical systems are unanalyzable. Introductory physics classes learn there is no solution to the three-body problem, and the atmosphere is a lot more complicated than just three asteroids cycling around each other in space. Metereologist Edward Lorenz rose to fame in science by dramatizing the nature of chaotical systems, physical systems that cannot be predicted from their initial conditions. The weather is one of the best examples, but the earth sciences and biology are full of them.   So no sane scientist or mathematician could have believed the Global Warming scam. If any of them say they believe it today, they are either lying or incompetent.
Global Warming is like Political Correctness; everybody knows it’s a lie, but nobody is allowed to say it in public.
This is a sad time for decent science.
But on the other hand, it’s Springtime for Fraudocrats.

Page Printed from: at December 07, 2009 – 11:50:38 AM EST

The Flight from Fiscal Responsibility – by Tony Blankley

The Flight from Fiscal Responsibility – by Tony Blankley

Posted By Tony Blankley On December 7, 2009 @ 12:04 am In FrontPage


Regularly reading the Financial [1] Times (Britain’s leading financial daily) can put an American in a fighting spirit. At least, it puts this American (transplanted former Englishman and naturalized American citizen that I am) in such a disposition.

I have in mind, this time, an article in Monday’s edition by Jeffrey Garten, titled “We must get ready for a weak-dollar world.” The article makes two broad assessments:

1) “The two most significant structural consequences of the recent financial debacle are the massive deficits and debts of the US and the shift of economic power from west to east. There is only one effective way for governments to address the combined impact of both: press for a sea change in currency relationships, especially a permanently and greatly weakened dollar.”

2) “The issue is no longer whether the dollar is in long-term decline but which of two options will be taken. Should Washington and other capitals calmly and deliberately manage the transition to a new era, or, by default, should they let the market do it, with the risk of massive financial disturbances. Today, governments have a choice. Soon they may not.”

What I don’t like about the article is that it is — from an American point of view — defeatist and that objectively, it may turn out to be true.

But before contesting the latter point — that such decline is inevitable — it is vital to understand that a weak dollar driven by permanently excessive public debt directly threatens not only our prosperity but also our sovereign ability to protect our liberty in this heartless world. There is no better evidence of such a possible American future than the event 53 years ago this month that put paid to British pretensions to greatness and independence — the Suez crisis of 1956.

Briefly in 1956, when Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the British- and French-owned Suez Canal, Britain took understandable offense and organized [1] its retaking. Allied with Israel and France, Britain arranged for Israel to invade Sinai, after which Britain and France militarily intervened with the intent to have the world agree to let them continue to manage the canal.

Unfortunately for Britain, U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower disapproved of the effort. (He was up for re-election, and the Soviets had just invaded Hungary. Ike didn’t like being surprised by America’s closest ally, Britain, and he didn’t want the Third World to see America as complicit with colonialism.) Also, unfortunately for Britain, though it still had the army, navy and obligations of a great power, it relied on America for financial help.

Britain could not maintain its currency, the pound sterling, at the pound’s needed reserve currency value of $2.80 without American help. Also, Britain needed petroleum, which was being cut off by the Suez crisis.

The “genial” Eisenhower (who had worked side by side with British Prime Minister Anthony Eden when Eden was top foreign policy aide to Winston Churchill during World War II) had had enough. He instructed his treasury secretary, George Humphrey, to sell off the pound, break the British currency and economy and refuse to sell Britain any American oil (which we then had in abundance) until Britain gave up its military action.

And so effectively ended the British empire, not at the hands of an enemy, but by the ungentle touch of its closest ally, the United States [1], to whom its weak currency and debt-ridden economy was perennially dependent.

Eden had a nervous breakdown and retired from government. That December, his replacement, Harold Macmillan, commented to U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles:

“The British action (at Suez) was the last gasp of a declining power. … Perhaps in 200 years, the United States (will) know how we felt.”

Well, here we are, 147 years shy of that predicted American comeuppance date of A.D. 2156. And now the stately British Financial Times is suggesting that the United States may be imminently vulnerable to a not-so-friendly China playing Ike’s role of spoiler of American sovereignty to our role as the dear old broke Britain of 1956.

That is why the United States should not accept the shrewd but not yet inevitable prognosis of the Financial Times. In the next few years — and starting immediately, while our gross domestic product is still bigger than the combined economies of China, Japan, Germany and Russia — we must start radically cutting our spending until our fiscal condition supports a strong dollar and low taxes [1].

It is an open political question whether the majority of Americans love our country, our children and our grandchildren enough to take the painful sacrifice (vast reductions in entitlement benefits) it will take to guarantee our sovereign and prosperous future.

But we are being given that rare chance to glimpse into our near future and see what will befall our children after the past 40 years of spending excess compounded by this latest year of spending madness. What a fine theme for the 2010 election cycle.

But are we Americans still brave enough to remain free? My guess is that neither the two major political parties nor the majority of the public loves America enough to campaign and vote on the hard, bitter truth about our condition.

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine:

URL to article:

URLs in this post:

[1] Financial:

[2] Image:

Google – from friend to foe?

Google – from friend to foe?

James Temple, Chronicle Staff Writer

Monday, December 7, 2009

Two bright young men transformed an idea into the era’s dominant technology company by outmaneuvering lumbering giants in the field. As the upstart blossomed into a titan in its own right, its behavior sparked allegations of monopolistic practices and drew the eye of the Justice Department.

If it were late 1999, this would be a story about Microsoft Corp. A decade later, it’s a strikingly similar tale about Google.

The Mountain View Internet company built a $100 billion brand and seized control of the search industry by delivering superior tools and convincing the world it took its “Don’t Be Evil” motto seriously.

But as the company extends its influence in advertising, media, mobile and dozens of other areas, that perception is increasingly called into question.

The most fervent have dubbed it “the new Evil Empire.” Others say it’s simply becoming another big company focused on the bottom line. Either is a change for a company that cultivated a reputation for trying to improve the world.

“The perception has shifted dramatically,” said Rob Enderle, technology analyst with the Enderle Group. “Google has become incredibly heavy-handed.”

Some insist the charges are overblown, arguing the company is just another in a long list that drew outsized scrutiny as it grew dominant.

“It gets disproportionate blame because it’s disproportionately successful,” said Jeff Jarvis, author of “What Would Google Do.”

Most valuable brand

He added that rankings of corporate reputation consistently put Google near the top. Indeed, this year Fortune rated the company the fourth most admired, and Millward Brown Optimor listed it as the world’s most valuable brand.

But some observers say Google is exacerbating the tendency to distrust large corporations by failing to recognize how its actions will be perceived – or failing to care.

Google Books is a prime example, Enderle said. It’s an open debate whether the plan to scan millions of books and make them searchable online will prove the benefit to humanity that Google promises – or hand it a monopoly over certain digital works, as opponents allege.

But the consensus is the company fomented an avoidable backlash by forging ahead with its controversial plan without consulting the parties with the most at stake. Authors and publishers responded with lawsuits alleging copyright infringement.

Google “had the power to do it and so thought ‘why not?’ ” Enderle said. “That’s the core of how a company goes from being seen as friendly to being seen as evil.”

The initial proposed settlement raised antitrust concerns at the Justice Department, which along with a chorus of criticism from libraries, academics and competitors forced a redrafting of the deal.

Another growing concern is that, as Google has expanded into new businesses, it has arguably contradicted certain founding principles.

The Google search engine was designed as a neutral system that ranked results based only on relevance. The company still proclaims: “We never manipulate rankings to put our partners higher in our search results.”

No disclosure

A search for Black Eyed Peas on Google, however, returns high links to songs by the band on, without any disclosure of the company’s partnership with the music provider. Halfway down the page are links to the group’s videos on YouTube, with no indication that Google owns the site.

The company is using its dominance in search to establish or extend leads in other business areas, said Gary Reback , a prominent Silicon Valley attorney representing opponents of the Google books settlement.

“Our goal as a search engine is to give users the info they’re seeking as quickly as possible,” Google spokesman Adam Kovacevich said. “Sometimes that means embedding our own content … at the top of the page when it benefits users.”

Litany of concerns

A litany of other concerns has been raised about Google’s privacy policies, dominance over online advertising, censorship of search results in China and impact on traditional media.

But for any claim against it, Google can fairly point to examples of model corporate behavior. In 2004, the company committed to dedicating 1 percent of its equity and profits to address “the world’s most urgent problems.” It stood up to government demands for user data when rivals backed down. And it set up an initiative to allow users to easily transport their online data, even from Google applications to those of its rivals.

Compared to many, it goes to great lengths to earn consumers’ trust, said Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.

“By dint of its size, it is threatening, but I think it’s trying to do the best it can in that context to be a good corporate citizen,” he said.

Even Google’s fans, though, say it needs to recognize and respond to the way its actions are perceived, even when it’s convinced strategies are right or righteous.

“Google thinks of itself as Snuffleupagus, but others see it as Big Foot,” author Jarvis cautioned.

Should the perception of Google continue to worsen, there is a risk beyond government lawsuits, analysts say. The company’s highly profitable advertising model depends on a tacit agreement with its customers: We’ll provide innovative products for free, if you let us flash ads tailored to your online behavior.

But if consumers stop believing the company will handle their information responsibly, it’s an easy switch to a new search engine.

Google is aware

Google says it does recognize the threat. Like Microsoft a decade ago, it has dramatically scaled up its lobbying and public relations efforts. It has recently sought to partner with the industries complaining most vocally about its disruptive technologies and has given users more power to edit information stored about them.

“We’ve long subscribed to the theory of transparency and openness and have worked hard in recent years to engage with critics and fans alike,” Google spokesman Matt Furman said. “We recognize that our competition is one click away.”

About Google

Founders: Larry Page (left) and

Sergey Brin

Founded: Menlo Park, Sept. 4, 1998

Headquarters: Mountain View

Chairman, CEO: Eric Schmidt

Revenue: $21.8 billion for 2008

Employees: About 20,000 full-time as of January 2009

Source: Google

E-mail James Temple at