The on-line links to the following articles can be found in the "issues archive" of our
Federal Issues Committee website [ http://www.indeedfree.com/fic/issues/archive.html ]
and also at the Federal Issues Committee webpage of IndianaArmstrongPatriots.com

A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word "incontrovertible" from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question "cui bono?" Or the modern update, "Follow the money."

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.

Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.

A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.

If elected officials feel compelled to "do something" about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.

Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of "incontrovertible" evidence.

By Robert J. Samuelson December 23, 2011

There are moments when our political system, whose essential job is to mediate conflicts in broadly acceptable and desirable ways, is simply not up to the task. It fails. This may be one of those moments. What we learned in 2011 is that the frustrating and confusing budget debate may never reach a workable conclusion. It may continue indefinitely until it's abruptly ended by a severe economic or financial crisis that wrenches control from elected leaders.

We are shifting from "giveaway politics" to "takeaway politics." Since World War II, presidents and Congresses have been in the enviable position of distributing more benefits to more people without requiring ever-steeper taxes. Now this governing formula no longer works, and politicians face the opposite: taking away -- reducing benefits or raising taxes significantly -- to prevent government deficits from destabilizing the economy. It is not clear that either Democrats or Republicans can navigate the change.

This good fortune reflected falling military spending -- from 52 percent of federal outlays in 1960 to 20 percent today -- and solid economic growth that produced ample tax revenue. Generally modest budget deficits bridged any gap. But now this favorable arithmetic has collapsed under the weight of slower economic growth (even after a recovery from the recession), an aging population (increasing the number of recipients) and high health costs (already 26 percent of federal spending). Present and prospective deficits are gargantuan.

The trouble is that, while the economics of giveaway policies have changed, the politics haven't. Liberals still want more spending, conservatives more tax cuts. (Although the tax burden has stayed steady, various "cuts" have offset projected increases and shifted the burden.) With a few exceptions, Democrats and Republicans haven't embraced detailed takeaway policies to reconcile Americans' appetite for government benefits with their distaste for taxes. President Obama has provided no leadership. Aside from Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.), chairman of the House Budget Committee, few Republicans have.

Any resolution of the budget impasse must repudiate, at least partially, the past half-century's politics. Conservatives look at the required tax increases and say, "No way." Liberals look at the required benefit cuts and say, "No way."

Each reverts to scripted evasions. Liberals imply (wrongly) that taxing the rich will solve the long-term budget problem. It won't. For example, the Forbes 400 richest Americans have a collective wealth of $1.5 trillion. If the government simply confiscated everything they own, and turned them into paupers, it would barely cover the one-time 2011 deficit of $1.3 trillion. Conservatives deplore "spending" in the abstract, ignoring the popularity of much spending, especially Social Security and Medicare.

So the political system is failing. It's stuck in the past. It can't make desirable choices about the future. It can't resolve deep conflicts.

An alternative theory is that we're muddling our way to a messy consensus. All the studies and failed negotiations lay the groundwork for ultimate accommodation. Perhaps. But it's just as likely that this year's partisan scapegoating implies more partisan scapegoating. Political leaders assume that financial markets won't ever choke on U.S. debt and force higher interest rates, stiff spending cuts and tax increases.

At best, this is wishful thinking. At worst, it's playing Russian roulette with the country's future.

1. peaking at 13 percent in 1979 and 1980 : http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/2011_erp_appendixB.pdf
2. share of federal spending : http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist.pdf
3. how fast deficits should be reduced : http://economics21.org/commentary/why-there-no-bipartisan-budget-deal

The U.S. debt has ballooned from $1 trillion in 1981 to $15 trillion today. Annual deficits under President Obama routinely exceed $1 trillion. Regardless of the party in power, the ruling class continues to employ the "kick the can down the road" tactic. The tactic implies an infinite road with no end. In reality, the road is more like a runway with a definitive endpoint, and we are nowhere near take-off speed.

Consider these ten facts:

1) U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio is over 100%.

2) The U.S. borrows ~41 cents of very dollar it spends.

3) Mandatory spending (i.e., entitlement programs + debt interest) exceeded federal revenues in 2011 ($2.384 trillion vs. $2.177 trillion).

4) In 2011, the U.S. borrowed money to pay for all discretionary ($496 billion) and non-discretionary ($891 billion) spending.

5) Real inflation rates from 2000 through 2011 were between 5% and 10%.

6) Real unemployment rates according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics averaged 16.02% in 2011.

7) The labor participation rate is at a thirty-year low of 63.9%.

8) The top 10% of taxpayers paid 70.47% of all federal income tax revenue in 2009 while the bottom 50% paid less than 3%.

9) The base money supply (M0) has expanded from $1 trillion in late 2008 to $2.7 trillion today. The broadest money supply measurement (M2) expanded from $3.7 trillion in early 2008 to $9.7 trillion today.

10) There are $8.23 trillion of deposits at bank and savings institutions and $111 billion on deposit at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

The amount of systemic leverage is astounding. Today, there is roughly $62 trillion of government (local, state, federal), private-sector, and household debt outstanding. Additionally, there is $8.23 trillion in deposits at bank and savings institutions, bringing the total outstanding claims on base money (real dollars) to $70 trillion. The ratio of claims on money to actual printed money (M0) is 26 to 1.

The GDP is also manipulated to provide the appearance of real economic growth when it is merely monetary policy and banking lending policies (i.e., fractional reserve banking) generating the illusion of growth through debt and credit expansion rather than measuring true productive economic output.

The ruling class should drop all pretenses of impartiality and simply consolidate all these functions under a Department of Disinformation. When it comes to propaganda, the ruling class would make Joseph Goebbels blush.

Not to worry. The U.S. isn't the only country in this predicament. European countries are in similar or worse predicaments than the U.S., and recently it was reported that the Japanese debt is about to exceed one quadrillion yen. That's right: a quadrillion. The only question is how long before the term "quadrillion" is introduced into the vernacular of the ruling class and the mainstream media here in the U.S.

Paul Brodsky of QB Asset Management Company wrote an article titled Change we Can Believe In. Brodsky wrote:

This is where the runway is coming to an end. There is simply too much systemic debt across all major economies. Many people fail to connect the dots. All public- and private-sector debt in the U.S. is denominated in the same currency as wealth/savings. Regardless of which political party you support, both parties are leading the American people down the same path of destruction, albeit at slightly different speeds.

Government's primary methods to raise revenue are through taxation or borrowing. According to 2008 IRS data, income tax returns filed with an adjusted gross income of $1 million or more paid $249 billion in federal taxes. The total taxable income for the same group was $938 billion. Even if the government taxed all income above $1 million at 100%, revenues would increase by $689 billion. However, many of those people will simply curtail their production, as there is no incentive to generate additional income if government confiscates 100% of it.

Clearly, the government cannot tax its way out of the debt problem. The government could continue to borrow money to fund deficit spending, but this simply exacerbates the situation. If you are in a hole, you don't keep digging a deeper hole. So adding more debt to the existing debt is not a viable solution.

The only other option government has at its disposal is inflation. This is where it becomes personal for everyone with a pension fund, 401K, annuity, equity investments, treasuries, municipal bonds, Social Security, etc. While inflation is often treated as an economic event, it is truly a political event. For purposes of political expediency, the ruling class and the Federal Reserve will simple print more money, increasing the base money (M0) supply. When the Fed prints more money, it dilutes the purchasing power of all dollars. Since our wealth is stored in dollars, wealth simply vanishes. The ruling class's favorite economist, John Maynard Keynes, said that "inflation is taxation without legislation."

An anonymous writer under the pen name FOFOA aptly describes what will transpire:

It's impossible to predict when the U.S. reaches the end of the runway. Eventually the ruling class will no longer be able to kick the can down the runway. A day of reckoning is coming.

This is the destructive Keynesian endgame pursued by the ruling class.