By Michael P. Riccards
The U.S. Department of Education has given us once again the nation’s report card, this time for 2006. The performance of students and adults on the international assessment of educational achievement in 2003 shows again that the USA is below Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, Chinese Taipei, Finland, the Netherlands, and even Latvia, Lithuania, Russia, England and Hungary.
The percentage of American children ages 3 to 5 who attend early childhood care and education programs has decreased. Total expenditures per student increased 23 percent in constant dollars in the period 1995 to 2003. In higher education the rate of high school graduates jumped from 49 to 67 percent from 1972 to 2004. Increases in costs for tuition and fees especially hit the middle income groups.
The average reading scores of fourth and eighth graders increased only two points between 1992 and 2005. The percentage of fourth graders performing at or near proficient levels has stayed the same, and was 31 percent for eighth-graders. Gaps between white and black and white, and Hispanic fourth and eight-graders have shown little measurable change.
There really is little indication of major improvements under No Child Left Behind standards. Why is that? Paul Tough in the “New York Times” has argued that the education gap in the United States is due to the very real differences in life style and ambitions of the lower and the middle classes. That is a familiar argument going back to the Coleman report which accentuated the importance of middle class values in understanding educational achievement back in the 1960s.
Studies show that the kinds of words and statements that children “heard varied by class.” Not only is the range of vocabulary wider among the middle class, but the number of encouraging utterances is greater for them. Research shows that parental nurturing among the middle class is likely to provide stimulation of the brain’s medial temporal lobe which aids in the development of memory skills. Thus the manner in which low income kids are raised puts them at a disadvantage in the measures that count in contemporary America.
Some schools have emphasized actually teaching and facilitating the work ethic with an emphasis on team building, cooperation, and creativity. One must guide the behavior and even the values of students before or during the teaching of the literate arts. School experiments like those done by KIPP (Knowledge Is Power Program) have focused their reform efforts on such an approach and have been held up as a model. But they teach a maximum of 12,000 students nationally—a small percentage of children who go to school in this nation.
Donald Roscoe Brown, writing in the “Trenton Times”, has argued that vouchers will not save low income black students . He argues that the schools instead should simply remove the bad-acting students from class and get back to the business of learning and teaching. His prescription is meant for all students, regardless of race. That return to discipline is for him a more important step than creating alternative schools like KIPP.
It is critical to realize that we as a nation now know what our curriculum should reasonable contain grade by grade, subject by subject. We are being pushed back on the notion, very American in tone, that it is important in the family and in the school, to look at attitudes, character training, and essential personal values in order to make that investment in curriculum and teachers pay off.
A REPORT ON EDUCATION - 2006
By Michael P. Riccards
The U.S. Department of Education has given us once again the nation’s report card, this time for 2006. The performance of students and adults on the international assessment of educational achievement in 2003 shows again that the USA is below Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, Chinese Taipei, Finland, the Netherlands, and even Latvia, Lithuania, Russia, England and Hungary.
The percentage of American children ages 3 to 5 who attend early childhood care and education programs has decreased. Total expenditures per student increased 23 percent in constant dollars in the period 1995 to 2003. In higher education the rate of high school graduates jumped from 49 to 67 percent from 1972 to 2004. Increases in costs for tuition and fees especially hit the middle income groups.
The average reading scores of fourth and eighth graders increased only two points between 1992 and 2005. The percentage of fourth graders performing at or near proficient levels has stayed the same, and was 31 percent for eighth-graders. Gaps between white and black and white, and Hispanic fourth and eight-graders have shown little measurable change.
There really is little indication of major improvements under No Child Left Behind standards. Why is that? Paul Tough in the “New York Times” has argued that the education gap in the United States is due to the very real differences in life style and ambitions of the lower and the middle classes. That is a familiar argument going back to the Coleman report which accentuated the importance of middle class values in understanding educational achievement back in the 1960s.
Studies show that the kinds of words and statements that children “heard varied by class.” Not only is the range of vocabulary wider among the middle class, but the number of encouraging utterances is greater for them. Research shows that parental nurturing among the middle class is likely to provide stimulation of the brain’s medial temporal lobe which aids in the development of memory skills. Thus the manner in which low income kids are raised puts them at a disadvantage in the measures that count in contemporary America.
Some schools have emphasized actually teaching and facilitating the work ethic with an emphasis on team building, cooperation, and creativity. One must guide the behavior and even the values of students before or during the teaching of the literate arts. School experiments like those done by KIPP (Knowledge Is Power Program) have focused their reform efforts on such an approach and have been held up as a model. But they teach a maximum of 12,000 students nationally—a small percentage of children who go to school in this nation.
Donald Roscoe Brown, writing in the “Trenton Times”, has argued that vouchers will not save low income black students . He argues that the schools instead should simply remove the bad-acting students from class and get back to the business of learning and teaching. His prescription is meant for all students, regardless of race. That return to discipline is for him a more important step than creating alternative schools like KIPP.
It is critical to realize that we as a nation now know what our curriculum should reasonable contain grade by grade, subject by subject. We are being pushed back on the notion, very American in tone, that it is important in the family and in the school, to look at attitudes, character training, and essential personal values in order to make that investment in curriculum and teachers pay off.
The U.S. Department of Education has given us once again the nation’s report card, this time for 2006. The performance of students and adults on the international assessment of educational achievement in 2003 shows again that the USA is below Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, Chinese Taipei, Finland, the Netherlands, and even Latvia, Lithuania, Russia, England and Hungary.
The percentage of American children ages 3 to 5 who attend early childhood care and education programs has decreased. Total expenditures per student increased 23 percent in constant dollars in the period 1995 to 2003. In higher education the rate of high school graduates jumped from 49 to 67 percent from 1972 to 2004. Increases in costs for tuition and fees especially hit the middle income groups.
The average reading scores of fourth and eighth graders increased only two points between 1992 and 2005. The percentage of fourth graders performing at or near proficient levels has stayed the same, and was 31 percent for eighth-graders. Gaps between white and black and white, and Hispanic fourth and eight-graders have shown little measurable change.
There really is little indication of major improvements under No Child Left Behind standards. Why is that? Paul Tough in the “New York Times” has argued that the education gap in the United States is due to the very real differences in life style and ambitions of the lower and the middle classes. That is a familiar argument going back to the Coleman report which accentuated the importance of middle class values in understanding educational achievement back in the 1960s.
Studies show that the kinds of words and statements that children “heard varied by class.” Not only is the range of vocabulary wider among the middle class, but the number of encouraging utterances is greater for them. Research shows that parental nurturing among the middle class is likely to provide stimulation of the brain’s medial temporal lobe which aids in the development of memory skills. Thus the manner in which low income kids are raised puts them at a disadvantage in the measures that count in contemporary America.
Some schools have emphasized actually teaching and facilitating the work ethic with an emphasis on team building, cooperation, and creativity. One must guide the behavior and even the values of students before or during the teaching of the literate arts. School experiments like those done by KIPP (Knowledge Is Power Program) have focused their reform efforts on such an approach and have been held up as a model. But they teach a maximum of 12,000 students nationally—a small percentage of children who go to school in this nation.
Donald Roscoe Brown, writing in the “Trenton Times”, has argued that vouchers will not save low income black students . He argues that the schools instead should simply remove the bad-acting students from class and get back to the business of learning and teaching. His prescription is meant for all students, regardless of race. That return to discipline is for him a more important step than creating alternative schools like KIPP.
It is critical to realize that we as a nation now know what our curriculum should reasonable contain grade by grade, subject by subject. We are being pushed back on the notion, very American in tone, that it is important in the family and in the school, to look at attitudes, character training, and essential personal values in order to make that investment in curriculum and teachers pay off.
ANOTHER $30M?
By Michael M. Shapiro
When the building of the new Jets/Giants stadium was being debated, taxpayers were repeatedly assured that it would not cost them a dime. Soon they were saddled with costs for improved roadways leading to the stadium and other similar services. Now, the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority (NJSEA) has unanimously voted to have the taxpayers pay tens of millions of dollars to refinance the stadium debt. It turns out that tax-free bonds were initially used to finance the debt; however, now that the land upon which the stadium is being built is privately owned, the Internal Revenue Service requires that taxable bonds finance it. The NJSEA therefore voted to refinance the project using taxable bonds, which will add $20M-$30M to New Jersey’s state debt. This amount will eventually need to be paid by New Jersey taxpayers. The situation raises numerous questions that demand answers:
First, did the NJSEA vote to refinance the stadium before seeking other options? While NJSEA Board members reportedly stated they had no choice, did the NJSEA approach the Jets and Giants to request that they pick up the tab? If not, why not?
Second, why will New Jersey have to pay the bill instead of the Jets and Giants? Furthermore, since the teams demand to keep the moniker, “New York”, why should New Jersey and her taxpayers pick up the tab?
Third, which elected officials are responsible for this fiasco? When did they know of this situation and what did they do to prevent it?
Finally, why oh why are New Jersey taxpayers continuing to fund professional sports teams? These sports teams are raking in hundreds of millions of dollars while our State and her citizens are drowning in debt. If the Jets and Giants can afford tens of millions of dollars for less than successful players, surely they can cover a $30M tab to finance their elaborate new stadium, which will earn them millions more in the long-term.
It is time to end government sponsorship of professional sports in New Jersey and to recognize that such sponsorship is an abuse of the taxpayer that must not be tolerated. It is also time to hold accountable the elected and appointed officials who engineered yet another taxpayer-funded debacle.
Michael M. Shapiro, founder of ShapTalk.com, is an attorney who resides in New Providence. Mike currently serves as the Chairman of the New Providence Democratic Party and as Editor of The Alternative Press, www.thealternativepress.blogspot.com. He welcomes feedback via e-mail at mike@shaptalk.com.
When the building of the new Jets/Giants stadium was being debated, taxpayers were repeatedly assured that it would not cost them a dime. Soon they were saddled with costs for improved roadways leading to the stadium and other similar services. Now, the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority (NJSEA) has unanimously voted to have the taxpayers pay tens of millions of dollars to refinance the stadium debt. It turns out that tax-free bonds were initially used to finance the debt; however, now that the land upon which the stadium is being built is privately owned, the Internal Revenue Service requires that taxable bonds finance it. The NJSEA therefore voted to refinance the project using taxable bonds, which will add $20M-$30M to New Jersey’s state debt. This amount will eventually need to be paid by New Jersey taxpayers. The situation raises numerous questions that demand answers:
First, did the NJSEA vote to refinance the stadium before seeking other options? While NJSEA Board members reportedly stated they had no choice, did the NJSEA approach the Jets and Giants to request that they pick up the tab? If not, why not?
Second, why will New Jersey have to pay the bill instead of the Jets and Giants? Furthermore, since the teams demand to keep the moniker, “New York”, why should New Jersey and her taxpayers pick up the tab?
Third, which elected officials are responsible for this fiasco? When did they know of this situation and what did they do to prevent it?
Finally, why oh why are New Jersey taxpayers continuing to fund professional sports teams? These sports teams are raking in hundreds of millions of dollars while our State and her citizens are drowning in debt. If the Jets and Giants can afford tens of millions of dollars for less than successful players, surely they can cover a $30M tab to finance their elaborate new stadium, which will earn them millions more in the long-term.
It is time to end government sponsorship of professional sports in New Jersey and to recognize that such sponsorship is an abuse of the taxpayer that must not be tolerated. It is also time to hold accountable the elected and appointed officials who engineered yet another taxpayer-funded debacle.
Michael M. Shapiro, founder of ShapTalk.com, is an attorney who resides in New Providence. Mike currently serves as the Chairman of the New Providence Democratic Party and as Editor of The Alternative Press, www.thealternativepress.blogspot.com. He welcomes feedback via e-mail at mike@shaptalk.com.
CHOICE FOR CHANGE
By Hank Butehorn
Republicans put forth their platform for this year’s election; “Choice for Change” is a list of reforms they pledge to enact. Those who look only to the particulars might say it is the same old song and dance. However, those people fail to see the forest for the trees; it appears Republicans are singing and dancing to a different tune.
The most important agenda item - and the most significant to Republicans as indicated by its place of prominence on the list - is that from which all else flows….initiative and referendum, returning government to the people and returning the Liberty that has been taken and trampled in recent years.
Elected officials (Democrats and Republicans) have consolidated power in their own hands for to long, taking more of our Liberty, and exhibiting ever increasing control over our lives. Now there is a chance for a change. …. “Let the people decide;” giving a voice back to the people
While the NJGOP claims a “bold statement,” it is actually a return to the basics and fundamentals. The bold statement may be that elected officials have heard the outrage of the people that they have been ignored and looked down upon as incapable of making decisions about issues that affect their lives. But, I & R could lead to a change and force elected representatives to actually listen to the people.
From excessive taxation to trampling property rights, from out of control growth in spending to increasing socialist redistribution, from removing God from the public square to permitting court dictated political agendas, from self interest and corruption to - most recently - illegal aliens, legislators in Trenton continue to ignore the will of the people and impose their “all knowing,” “do as I say, not as I do” practices. Initiative and referendum provide the opportunity to reverse that course.
While the remaining reforms may have their own flaws, and may not excite voters to go to the ballot box in November, I & R - and returning power to the people - is a reason to vote. I & R can lead to ballot questions to amend the constitution to eliminate Abbott funding and implement school choice programs, to prohibit the use of eminent domain for anything other than a traditional public use, and define marriage as one man and one woman …. three examples just for starters, but others could follow the I & R process Republicans pledge to establish.
Many will point to the particular agenda items and claim Republicans are not putting forth anything new; the same old tired campaign pledges of “lower taxes,” “ending the culture of corruption,” and “reducing the size of government.” Pledges almost all politicians continually claim but fail to follow through on. But, they fail to appreciate the significant of the greater principle and concept Republicans are putting forth …. individual Liberty and Freedom.
Democrats will point to Republican lack of credibility because they failed to pass I & R in 1991; but that response actually exposures the Democrats’ failures and problem. First, with the turn over since 1991, and particularly this year, the new Republican class cannot be judged by the failures of their predecessors. But, rather than deflecting attention from the real issue by pointing to 16 years ago, Democrats will either have to say they favor I & R - returning power to the people - and will push for its passage if they remain in power, or admit they want to continue to consolidate power in the hands of elected elites.
Democrat ideology and practice has been more consistent with the latter; they continue to try and stay in good graces by handing out morsels similar to the nobles in England of long ago, but that has only resulted in continued wrongful taking of our Liberty, and the people are ready to revolt. Regardless the past, it is time for the Democrats to either support a return of power to the people or explain why they don’t want to “let the people decide.”
So the choice that is being proposed is one of power in the hands of the people or consolidation of power in the hands of a few elites and the judiciary. That IS a choice, and the wrong choice will lead to further tyranny, oppression, and liberty lost.
As John Adams said in a letter to his wife in 1775, “a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.”
That is why the outcome of November’s election is so important; Republicans have put forth a choice for change, a change to allow us…..the people….to decide, and preserve Liberty. From that point the people can make the decisions and force the changes legislators have not.
Hank Butehorn is an Executive Committee member of CWA-NJ and a regular contributor to www.gopusanj.com.
Republicans put forth their platform for this year’s election; “Choice for Change” is a list of reforms they pledge to enact. Those who look only to the particulars might say it is the same old song and dance. However, those people fail to see the forest for the trees; it appears Republicans are singing and dancing to a different tune.
The most important agenda item - and the most significant to Republicans as indicated by its place of prominence on the list - is that from which all else flows….initiative and referendum, returning government to the people and returning the Liberty that has been taken and trampled in recent years.
Elected officials (Democrats and Republicans) have consolidated power in their own hands for to long, taking more of our Liberty, and exhibiting ever increasing control over our lives. Now there is a chance for a change. …. “Let the people decide;” giving a voice back to the people
While the NJGOP claims a “bold statement,” it is actually a return to the basics and fundamentals. The bold statement may be that elected officials have heard the outrage of the people that they have been ignored and looked down upon as incapable of making decisions about issues that affect their lives. But, I & R could lead to a change and force elected representatives to actually listen to the people.
From excessive taxation to trampling property rights, from out of control growth in spending to increasing socialist redistribution, from removing God from the public square to permitting court dictated political agendas, from self interest and corruption to - most recently - illegal aliens, legislators in Trenton continue to ignore the will of the people and impose their “all knowing,” “do as I say, not as I do” practices. Initiative and referendum provide the opportunity to reverse that course.
While the remaining reforms may have their own flaws, and may not excite voters to go to the ballot box in November, I & R - and returning power to the people - is a reason to vote. I & R can lead to ballot questions to amend the constitution to eliminate Abbott funding and implement school choice programs, to prohibit the use of eminent domain for anything other than a traditional public use, and define marriage as one man and one woman …. three examples just for starters, but others could follow the I & R process Republicans pledge to establish.
Many will point to the particular agenda items and claim Republicans are not putting forth anything new; the same old tired campaign pledges of “lower taxes,” “ending the culture of corruption,” and “reducing the size of government.” Pledges almost all politicians continually claim but fail to follow through on. But, they fail to appreciate the significant of the greater principle and concept Republicans are putting forth …. individual Liberty and Freedom.
Democrats will point to Republican lack of credibility because they failed to pass I & R in 1991; but that response actually exposures the Democrats’ failures and problem. First, with the turn over since 1991, and particularly this year, the new Republican class cannot be judged by the failures of their predecessors. But, rather than deflecting attention from the real issue by pointing to 16 years ago, Democrats will either have to say they favor I & R - returning power to the people - and will push for its passage if they remain in power, or admit they want to continue to consolidate power in the hands of elected elites.
Democrat ideology and practice has been more consistent with the latter; they continue to try and stay in good graces by handing out morsels similar to the nobles in England of long ago, but that has only resulted in continued wrongful taking of our Liberty, and the people are ready to revolt. Regardless the past, it is time for the Democrats to either support a return of power to the people or explain why they don’t want to “let the people decide.”
So the choice that is being proposed is one of power in the hands of the people or consolidation of power in the hands of a few elites and the judiciary. That IS a choice, and the wrong choice will lead to further tyranny, oppression, and liberty lost.
As John Adams said in a letter to his wife in 1775, “a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.”
That is why the outcome of November’s election is so important; Republicans have put forth a choice for change, a change to allow us…..the people….to decide, and preserve Liberty. From that point the people can make the decisions and force the changes legislators have not.
Hank Butehorn is an Executive Committee member of CWA-NJ and a regular contributor to www.gopusanj.com.
WILL WE LET THEM?
By Hank Butehorn
One year ago, on the fifth anniversary of 9-11, I attended a military funeral; my grandfather, a World War II veteran, a true patriot, and part of the greatest generation was laid to rest. The night before his eldest daughter gave a eulogy worthy of the hero. She referenced a story about a young cousin, 8 years old, who, when told of stories about our grandfather’s service, asked, "did you know that Grandpa helped save the free world?"
After the eulogy members of the local VFW, (a post named after my grandfather’s brothers; two WWII heroes who laid down their lives for their country in that war), performed a ceremony in honor of their fellow patriot gone on to the next life. After that ceremony an uncle - referencing the soldiers and others from "the greatest generation" - asked "who will take their place?"
The question, however, is not "who;" the question is whether those of this generation who are ready, able, and willing will be given the same respect, opportunity, and ability to act and perform as their forefathers, in today’s fight to save the free world.
Millions of Americans across the Country gathered at memorial sites, churches, and other places on September 11th to remember those murdered six years earlier. The memorial events reflect the values of freedom loving people across the globe; respect for the inalienable God given rights of Life and Liberty. These values separate these people from the terrorists against whom we all fight, and such values are the reason victory in the war against terror is inevitable ...... so long as some stop acting to prevent that victory.
Unfortunately, however, we fight not only the enemy from without, we are also opposed by forces within; the latter could be more harmful than the former. For their own political gain - or based upon blindness to the truth in the struggle and consequences of certain tactics - the actions of some undermine victory of the cause.
Among the factors essential to victory in any war of the magnitude in which we currently find ourselves two elements for the cause are critical, moral superiority and popular support. While short term success by military strength is possible without either, long term victory cannot be achieved without both.
The moral superiority of Liberty, Freedom, and political self-determination over oppression and tyranny is the foundation upon which victory will be achieved in this war. But, will the actions and statements of some, made for their perceived political gain, remove the popular support such as to undermine the fight against the Islamo-fascist jihadists?
Most say they want to defeat that enemy and support the troops actively engaged in that battle. However, some continue to speak and act in a manner that undermines the path to victory in that conflict. From attacking the means by which the war is carried out to misleading the people about the role of certain fronts in the greater global conflict; from having already conceding defeat in, to contradicting the import of, a central mission in the war; from diminishing any benefit achieved on the road toward victory to vilifying the tactics used; certain actions and conduct - and intolerant political correctness - not only undermine popular support, they also blur the clarity of moral superiority.
The tactics, and blur caused thereby, may have the effect of removing both critical elements for victory in the minds of some. And, they do this for their own political gain, to gain power despite the potential cost to America and the Freedom and Liberty for which she is a beacon.
While some stand in opposition, the great men and women of our military, and those who truly support them and their mission, are ready and willing to fill the shoes of those from the greatest generation that walked before them.
The patriots are eager to ensure and protect the continued opportunities to live, love, and enjoy Liberty and Freedom; they are ready to fight to help save the free world. The question is whether we will let them.
Hank Butehorn is an Executive Committee member of CWA-NJ and a regular contributor to http://www.gopusanj.com/.
###
The Hall Institute of Public Policy - New Jersey is a non-partisan, not-for-profit organization that explores issues of social, economic, educational and cultural importance to the Garden State. For more information, visit the Hall Institute online at http://www.hallnj.org/ or email info@hallnj.org.
One year ago, on the fifth anniversary of 9-11, I attended a military funeral; my grandfather, a World War II veteran, a true patriot, and part of the greatest generation was laid to rest. The night before his eldest daughter gave a eulogy worthy of the hero. She referenced a story about a young cousin, 8 years old, who, when told of stories about our grandfather’s service, asked, "did you know that Grandpa helped save the free world?"
After the eulogy members of the local VFW, (a post named after my grandfather’s brothers; two WWII heroes who laid down their lives for their country in that war), performed a ceremony in honor of their fellow patriot gone on to the next life. After that ceremony an uncle - referencing the soldiers and others from "the greatest generation" - asked "who will take their place?"
The question, however, is not "who;" the question is whether those of this generation who are ready, able, and willing will be given the same respect, opportunity, and ability to act and perform as their forefathers, in today’s fight to save the free world.
Millions of Americans across the Country gathered at memorial sites, churches, and other places on September 11th to remember those murdered six years earlier. The memorial events reflect the values of freedom loving people across the globe; respect for the inalienable God given rights of Life and Liberty. These values separate these people from the terrorists against whom we all fight, and such values are the reason victory in the war against terror is inevitable ...... so long as some stop acting to prevent that victory.
Unfortunately, however, we fight not only the enemy from without, we are also opposed by forces within; the latter could be more harmful than the former. For their own political gain - or based upon blindness to the truth in the struggle and consequences of certain tactics - the actions of some undermine victory of the cause.
Among the factors essential to victory in any war of the magnitude in which we currently find ourselves two elements for the cause are critical, moral superiority and popular support. While short term success by military strength is possible without either, long term victory cannot be achieved without both.
The moral superiority of Liberty, Freedom, and political self-determination over oppression and tyranny is the foundation upon which victory will be achieved in this war. But, will the actions and statements of some, made for their perceived political gain, remove the popular support such as to undermine the fight against the Islamo-fascist jihadists?
Most say they want to defeat that enemy and support the troops actively engaged in that battle. However, some continue to speak and act in a manner that undermines the path to victory in that conflict. From attacking the means by which the war is carried out to misleading the people about the role of certain fronts in the greater global conflict; from having already conceding defeat in, to contradicting the import of, a central mission in the war; from diminishing any benefit achieved on the road toward victory to vilifying the tactics used; certain actions and conduct - and intolerant political correctness - not only undermine popular support, they also blur the clarity of moral superiority.
The tactics, and blur caused thereby, may have the effect of removing both critical elements for victory in the minds of some. And, they do this for their own political gain, to gain power despite the potential cost to America and the Freedom and Liberty for which she is a beacon.
While some stand in opposition, the great men and women of our military, and those who truly support them and their mission, are ready and willing to fill the shoes of those from the greatest generation that walked before them.
The patriots are eager to ensure and protect the continued opportunities to live, love, and enjoy Liberty and Freedom; they are ready to fight to help save the free world. The question is whether we will let them.
Hank Butehorn is an Executive Committee member of CWA-NJ and a regular contributor to http://www.gopusanj.com/.
###
The Hall Institute of Public Policy - New Jersey is a non-partisan, not-for-profit organization that explores issues of social, economic, educational and cultural importance to the Garden State. For more information, visit the Hall Institute online at http://www.hallnj.org/ or email info@hallnj.org.
GLOBAL WARMING: MAN-MADE OR NATURAL?
By S. Fred Singer
In the past few years there has been increasing concern about global climate change on the part of the media, politicians, and the public. It has been stimulated by the idea that human activities may influence global climate adversely and that therefore corrective action is required on the part of governments. Recent evidence suggests that this concern is misplaced. Human activities are not influencing the global climate in a perceptible way. Climate will continue to change, as it always has in the past, warming and cooling on different time scales and for different reasons, regardless of human action. I would also argue that—should it occur—a modest warming would be on the whole beneficial.
This is not to say that we don’t face a serious problem. But the problem is political. Because of the mistaken idea that governments can and must do something about climate, pressures are building that have the potential of distorting energy policies in a way that will severely damage national economies, decrease standards of living, and increase poverty. This misdirection of resources will adversely affect human health and welfare in industrialized nations, and even more in developing nations. Thus it could well lead to increased social tensions within nations and conflict between them.
If not for this economic and political damage, one might consider the present concern about climate change nothing more than just another environmentalist fad, like the Alar apple scare or the global cooling fears of the 1970s. Given that so much is at stake, however, it is essential that people better understand the issue.
Man-Made Warming?
The most fundamental question is scientific: Is the observed warming of the past 30 years due to natural causes or are human activities a main or even a contributing factor?
At first glance, it is quite plausible that humans could be responsible for warming the climate. After all, the burning of fossil fuels to generate energy releases large quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The CO2 level has been increasing steadily since the beginning of the industrial revolution and is now 35 percent higher than it was 200 years ago. Also, we know from direct measurements that CO2 is a “greenhouse gas” which strongly absorbs infrared (heat) radiation. So the idea that burning fossil fuels causes an enhanced “greenhouse effect” needs to be taken seriously.
But in seeking to understand recent warming, we also have to consider the natural factors that have regularly warmed the climate prior to the industrial revolution and, indeed, prior to any human presence on the earth. After all, the geological record shows a persistent 1,500-year cycle of warming and cooling extending back at least one million years.
In identifying the burning of fossil fuels as the chief cause of warming today, many politicians and environmental activists simply appeal to a so-called “scientific consensus.” There are two things wrong with this. First, there is no such consensus: An increasing number of climate scientists are raising serious questions about the political rush to judgment on this issue. For example, the widely touted “consensus” of 2,500 scientists on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an illusion: Most of the panelists have no scientific qualifications, and many of the others object to some part of the IPCC’s report. The Associated Press reported recently that only 52 climate scientists contributed to the report’s “Summary for Policymakers.”
Likewise, only about a dozen members of the governing board voted on the “consensus statement” on climate change by the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Rank and file AMS scientists never had a say, which is why so many of them are now openly rebelling. Estimates of skepticism within the AMS regarding man-made global warming are well over 50 percent.
The second reason not to rely on a “scientific consensus” in these matters is that this is not how science works. After all, scientific advances customarily come from a minority of scientists who challenge the majority view—or even just a single person (think of Galileo or Einstein). Science proceeds by the scientific method and draws conclusions based on evidence, not on a show of hands.
But aren’t glaciers melting? Isn’t sea ice shrinking? Yes, but that’s not proof for human-caused warming. Any kind of warming, whether natural or human-caused, will melt ice. To assert that melting glaciers prove human causation is just bad logic.
What about the fact that carbon dioxide levels are increasing at the same time temperatures are rising? That’s an interesting correlation; but as every scientist knows, correlation is not causation. During much of the last century the climate was cooling while CO2 levels were rising. And we should note that the climate has not warmed in the past eight years, even though greenhouse gas levels have increased rapidly.
What about the fact—as cited by, among others, those who produced the IPCC report—that every major greenhouse computer model (there are two dozen or so) shows a large temperature increase due to human burning of fossil fuels? Fortunately, there is a scientific way of testing these models to see whether current warming is due to a man-made greenhouse effect. It involves comparing the actual or observed pattern of warming with the warming pattern predicted by or calculated from the models. Essentially, we try to see if the “fingerprints” match—“fingerprints” meaning the rates of warming at different latitudes and altitudes.
For instance, theoretically, greenhouse warming in the tropics should register at increasingly high rates as one moves from the surface of the earth up into the atmosphere, peaking at about six miles above the earth’s surface. At that point, the level should be greater than at the surface by about a factor of three and quite pronounced, according to all the computer models. In reality, however, there is no increase at all. In fact, the data from balloon-borne radiosondes show the very opposite: a slight decrease in warming over the equator.
The fact that the observed and predicted patterns of warming don’t match indicates that the man-made greenhouse contribution to current temperature change is insignificant. This fact emerges from data and graphs collected in the Climate Change Science Program Report 1.1, published by the federal government in April 2006 (see www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm). It is remarkable and puzzling that few have noticed this disparity between observed and predicted patterns of warming and drawn the obvious scientific conclusion.
What explains why greenhouse computer models predict temperature trends that are so much larger than those observed? The answer lies in the proper evaluation of feedback within the models. Remember that in addition to carbon dioxide, the real atmosphere contains water vapor, the most powerful greenhouse gas. Every one of the climate models calculates a significant positive feedback from water vapor—i.e., a feedback that amplifies the warming effect of the CO2 increase by an average factor of two or three. But it is quite possible that the water vapor feedback is negative rather than positive and thereby reduces the effect of increased CO2.
There are several ways this might occur. For example, when increased CO2 produces a warming of the ocean, a higher rate of evaporation might lead to more humidity and cloudiness (provided the atmosphere contains a sufficient number of cloud condensation nuclei). These low clouds reflect incoming solar radiation back into space and thereby cool the earth. Climate researchers have discovered other possible feedbacks and are busy evaluating which ones enhance and which diminish the effect of increasing CO2.
Natural Causes of Warming
A quite different question, but scientifically interesting, has to do with the natural factors influencing climate. This is a big topic about which much has been written. Natural factors include continental drift and mountain-building, changes in the Earth’s orbit, volcanic eruptions, and solar variability. Different factors operate on different time scales. But on a time scale important for human experience—a scale of decades, let’s say—solar variability may be the most important.
Solar influence can manifest itself in different ways: fluctuations of solar irradiance (total energy), which has been measured in satellites and related to the sunspot cycle; variability of the ultraviolet portion of the solar spectrum, which in turn affects the amount of ozone in the stratosphere; and variations in the solar wind that modulate the intensity of cosmic rays (which, upon impact into the earth’s atmosphere, produce cloud condensation nuclei, affecting cloudiness and thus climate).
Scientists have been able to trace the impact of the sun on past climate using proxy data (since thermometers are relatively modern). A conventional proxy for temperature is the ratio of the heavy isotope of oxygen, Oxygen-18, to the most common form, Oxygen-16.
A paper published in Nature in 2001 describes the Oxygen-18 data (reflecting temperature) from a stalagmite in a cave in Oman, covering a period of over 3,000 years. It also shows corresponding Carbon-14 data, which are directly related to the intensity of cosmic rays striking the earth’s atmosphere. One sees there a remarkably detailed correlation, almost on a year-by-year basis. While such research cannot establish the detailed mechanism of climate change, the causal connection is quite clear: Since the stalagmite temperature cannot affect the sun, it is the sun that affects climate.
Policy Consequences
If this line of reasoning is correct, human-caused increases in the CO2 level are quite insignificant to climate change. Natural causes of climate change, for their part, cannot be controlled by man. They are unstoppable. Several policy consequences would follow from this simple fact:
· Regulation of CO2 emissions is pointless and even counterproductive, in that no matter what kind of mitigation scheme is used, such regulation is hugely expensive.
· The development of non-fossil fuel energy sources, like ethanol and hydrogen, might be counterproductive, given that they have to be manufactured, often with the investment of great amounts of ordinary energy. Nor do they offer much reduction in oil imports.
· Wind power and solar power become less attractive, being uneconomic and requiring huge subsidies.
· Substituting natural gas for coal in electricity generation makes less sense for the same reasons.
None of this is intended to argue against energy conservation. On the contrary, conserving energy reduces waste, saves money, and lowers energy prices—irrespective of what one may believe about global warming.
Science vs. Hysteria
You will note that this has been a rational discussion. We asked the important question of whether there is appreciable man-made warming today. We presented evidence that indicates there is not, thereby suggesting that attempts by governments to control greenhouse-gas emissions are pointless and unwise. Nevertheless, we have state governors calling for CO2 emissions limits on cars; we have city mayors calling for mandatory CO2 controls; we have the Supreme Court declaring CO2 a pollutant that may have to be regulated; we have every industrialized nation (with the exception of the U.S. and Australia) signed on to the Kyoto Protocol; and we have ongoing international demands for even more stringent controls when Kyoto expires in 2012. What’s going on here?
To begin, perhaps even some of the advocates of these anti-warming policies are not so serious about them, as seen in a feature of the Kyoto Protocol called the Clean Development Mechanism, which allows a CO2 emitter—i.e., an energy user—to support a fanciful CO2 reduction scheme in developing nations in exchange for the right to keep on emitting CO2 unabated. “Emission trading” among those countries that have ratified Kyoto allows for the sale of certificates of unused emission quotas. In many cases, the initial quota was simply given away by governments to power companies and other entities, which in turn collect a windfall fee from consumers. All of this has become a huge financial racket that could someday make the UN’s “Oil for Food” scandal in Iraq seem minor by comparison. Even more fraudulent, these schemes do not reduce total CO2 emissions—not even in theory.
It is also worth noting that tens of thousands of interested persons benefit directly from the global warming scare—at the expense of the ordinary consumer. Environmental organizations globally, such as Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and the Environmental Defense Fund, have raked in billions of dollars. Multi-billion-dollar government subsidies for useless mitigation schemes are large and growing. Emission trading programs will soon reach the $100 billion a year level, with large fees paid to brokers and those who operate the scams. In other words, many people have discovered they can benefit from climate scares and have formed an entrenched interest. Of course, there are also many sincere believers in an impending global warming catastrophe, spurred on in their fears by the growing number of one-sided books, movies, and media coverage.
The irony is that a slightly warmer climate with more carbon dioxide is in many ways beneficial rather than damaging. Economic studies have demonstrated that a modest warming and higher CO2 levels will increase GNP and raise standards of living, primarily by improving agriculture and forestry. It’s a well-known fact that CO2 is plant food and essential to the growth of crops and trees—and ultimately to the well-being of animals and humans.
You wouldn’t know it from Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, but there are many upsides to global warming: Northern homes could save on heating fuel. Canadian farmers could harvest bumper crops. Greenland may become awash in cod and oil riches. Shippers could count on an Arctic shortcut between the Atlantic and Pacific. Forests may expand.
Mongolia could become an economic superpower. This is all speculative, even a little facetious. But still, might there be a silver lining for the frigid regions of Canada and Russia? “It’s not that there won’t be bad things happening in those countries,” economics professor Robert O. Mendelsohn of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies says. “But the idea is that they will get such large gains, especially in agriculture, that they will be bigger than the losses.” Mendelsohn has looked at how gross domestic product around the world would be affected under different warming scenarios through 2100. Canada and Russia tend to come out as clear gainers, as does much of northern Europe and Mongolia, largely because of projected increases in agricultural production.
To repeat a point made at the beginning: Climate has been changing cyclically for at least a million years and has shown huge variations over geological time. Human beings have adapted well, and will continue to do so.
* * *
The nations of the world face many difficult problems. Many have societal problems like poverty, disease, lack of sanitation, and shortage of clean water. There are grave security problems arising from global terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Any of these problems are vastly more important than the imaginary problem of man-made global warming. It is a great shame that so many of our resources are being diverted from real problems to this non-problem. Perhaps in ten or 20 years this will become apparent to everyone, particularly if the climate should stop warming (as it has for eight years now) or even begin to cool.
We can only trust that reason will prevail in the face of an onslaught of propaganda like Al Gore’s movie and despite the incessant misinformation generated by the media. Today, the imposed costs are still modest, and mostly hidden in taxes and in charges for electricity and motor fuels. If the scaremongers have their way, these costs will become enormous. But I believe that sound science and good sense will prevail in the face of irrational and scientifically baseless climate fears.
S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, a distinguished research professor at George Mason University, and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project. He performed his undergraduate studies at Ohio State University and earned his Ph.D. in Physics from Princeton University. He was the founding dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami, the founding director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service, and served for five years as vice chairman of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere. Dr. Singer has written or edited over a dozen books and mono-graphs, including, most recently, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years.
The preceding copy was adapted from a lecture delivered on the Hillsdale College campus on June 30, 2007, during a seminar entitled “Economics and the Environment,” sponsored by the Charles R. and Kathleen K. Hoogland Center for Teacher Excellence. It is reprinted by permission of Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.
# # #
The Hall Institute of Public Policy - New Jersey is a non-partisan, not-for-profit organization that explores issues of social, economic, educational and cultural importance to the Garden State. For more information, visit the Hall Institute online at http://www.hallnj.org/ or email info@hallnj.org.
In the past few years there has been increasing concern about global climate change on the part of the media, politicians, and the public. It has been stimulated by the idea that human activities may influence global climate adversely and that therefore corrective action is required on the part of governments. Recent evidence suggests that this concern is misplaced. Human activities are not influencing the global climate in a perceptible way. Climate will continue to change, as it always has in the past, warming and cooling on different time scales and for different reasons, regardless of human action. I would also argue that—should it occur—a modest warming would be on the whole beneficial.
This is not to say that we don’t face a serious problem. But the problem is political. Because of the mistaken idea that governments can and must do something about climate, pressures are building that have the potential of distorting energy policies in a way that will severely damage national economies, decrease standards of living, and increase poverty. This misdirection of resources will adversely affect human health and welfare in industrialized nations, and even more in developing nations. Thus it could well lead to increased social tensions within nations and conflict between them.
If not for this economic and political damage, one might consider the present concern about climate change nothing more than just another environmentalist fad, like the Alar apple scare or the global cooling fears of the 1970s. Given that so much is at stake, however, it is essential that people better understand the issue.
Man-Made Warming?
The most fundamental question is scientific: Is the observed warming of the past 30 years due to natural causes or are human activities a main or even a contributing factor?
At first glance, it is quite plausible that humans could be responsible for warming the climate. After all, the burning of fossil fuels to generate energy releases large quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The CO2 level has been increasing steadily since the beginning of the industrial revolution and is now 35 percent higher than it was 200 years ago. Also, we know from direct measurements that CO2 is a “greenhouse gas” which strongly absorbs infrared (heat) radiation. So the idea that burning fossil fuels causes an enhanced “greenhouse effect” needs to be taken seriously.
But in seeking to understand recent warming, we also have to consider the natural factors that have regularly warmed the climate prior to the industrial revolution and, indeed, prior to any human presence on the earth. After all, the geological record shows a persistent 1,500-year cycle of warming and cooling extending back at least one million years.
In identifying the burning of fossil fuels as the chief cause of warming today, many politicians and environmental activists simply appeal to a so-called “scientific consensus.” There are two things wrong with this. First, there is no such consensus: An increasing number of climate scientists are raising serious questions about the political rush to judgment on this issue. For example, the widely touted “consensus” of 2,500 scientists on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an illusion: Most of the panelists have no scientific qualifications, and many of the others object to some part of the IPCC’s report. The Associated Press reported recently that only 52 climate scientists contributed to the report’s “Summary for Policymakers.”
Likewise, only about a dozen members of the governing board voted on the “consensus statement” on climate change by the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Rank and file AMS scientists never had a say, which is why so many of them are now openly rebelling. Estimates of skepticism within the AMS regarding man-made global warming are well over 50 percent.
The second reason not to rely on a “scientific consensus” in these matters is that this is not how science works. After all, scientific advances customarily come from a minority of scientists who challenge the majority view—or even just a single person (think of Galileo or Einstein). Science proceeds by the scientific method and draws conclusions based on evidence, not on a show of hands.
But aren’t glaciers melting? Isn’t sea ice shrinking? Yes, but that’s not proof for human-caused warming. Any kind of warming, whether natural or human-caused, will melt ice. To assert that melting glaciers prove human causation is just bad logic.
What about the fact that carbon dioxide levels are increasing at the same time temperatures are rising? That’s an interesting correlation; but as every scientist knows, correlation is not causation. During much of the last century the climate was cooling while CO2 levels were rising. And we should note that the climate has not warmed in the past eight years, even though greenhouse gas levels have increased rapidly.
What about the fact—as cited by, among others, those who produced the IPCC report—that every major greenhouse computer model (there are two dozen or so) shows a large temperature increase due to human burning of fossil fuels? Fortunately, there is a scientific way of testing these models to see whether current warming is due to a man-made greenhouse effect. It involves comparing the actual or observed pattern of warming with the warming pattern predicted by or calculated from the models. Essentially, we try to see if the “fingerprints” match—“fingerprints” meaning the rates of warming at different latitudes and altitudes.
For instance, theoretically, greenhouse warming in the tropics should register at increasingly high rates as one moves from the surface of the earth up into the atmosphere, peaking at about six miles above the earth’s surface. At that point, the level should be greater than at the surface by about a factor of three and quite pronounced, according to all the computer models. In reality, however, there is no increase at all. In fact, the data from balloon-borne radiosondes show the very opposite: a slight decrease in warming over the equator.
The fact that the observed and predicted patterns of warming don’t match indicates that the man-made greenhouse contribution to current temperature change is insignificant. This fact emerges from data and graphs collected in the Climate Change Science Program Report 1.1, published by the federal government in April 2006 (see www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm). It is remarkable and puzzling that few have noticed this disparity between observed and predicted patterns of warming and drawn the obvious scientific conclusion.
What explains why greenhouse computer models predict temperature trends that are so much larger than those observed? The answer lies in the proper evaluation of feedback within the models. Remember that in addition to carbon dioxide, the real atmosphere contains water vapor, the most powerful greenhouse gas. Every one of the climate models calculates a significant positive feedback from water vapor—i.e., a feedback that amplifies the warming effect of the CO2 increase by an average factor of two or three. But it is quite possible that the water vapor feedback is negative rather than positive and thereby reduces the effect of increased CO2.
There are several ways this might occur. For example, when increased CO2 produces a warming of the ocean, a higher rate of evaporation might lead to more humidity and cloudiness (provided the atmosphere contains a sufficient number of cloud condensation nuclei). These low clouds reflect incoming solar radiation back into space and thereby cool the earth. Climate researchers have discovered other possible feedbacks and are busy evaluating which ones enhance and which diminish the effect of increasing CO2.
Natural Causes of Warming
A quite different question, but scientifically interesting, has to do with the natural factors influencing climate. This is a big topic about which much has been written. Natural factors include continental drift and mountain-building, changes in the Earth’s orbit, volcanic eruptions, and solar variability. Different factors operate on different time scales. But on a time scale important for human experience—a scale of decades, let’s say—solar variability may be the most important.
Solar influence can manifest itself in different ways: fluctuations of solar irradiance (total energy), which has been measured in satellites and related to the sunspot cycle; variability of the ultraviolet portion of the solar spectrum, which in turn affects the amount of ozone in the stratosphere; and variations in the solar wind that modulate the intensity of cosmic rays (which, upon impact into the earth’s atmosphere, produce cloud condensation nuclei, affecting cloudiness and thus climate).
Scientists have been able to trace the impact of the sun on past climate using proxy data (since thermometers are relatively modern). A conventional proxy for temperature is the ratio of the heavy isotope of oxygen, Oxygen-18, to the most common form, Oxygen-16.
A paper published in Nature in 2001 describes the Oxygen-18 data (reflecting temperature) from a stalagmite in a cave in Oman, covering a period of over 3,000 years. It also shows corresponding Carbon-14 data, which are directly related to the intensity of cosmic rays striking the earth’s atmosphere. One sees there a remarkably detailed correlation, almost on a year-by-year basis. While such research cannot establish the detailed mechanism of climate change, the causal connection is quite clear: Since the stalagmite temperature cannot affect the sun, it is the sun that affects climate.
Policy Consequences
If this line of reasoning is correct, human-caused increases in the CO2 level are quite insignificant to climate change. Natural causes of climate change, for their part, cannot be controlled by man. They are unstoppable. Several policy consequences would follow from this simple fact:
· Regulation of CO2 emissions is pointless and even counterproductive, in that no matter what kind of mitigation scheme is used, such regulation is hugely expensive.
· The development of non-fossil fuel energy sources, like ethanol and hydrogen, might be counterproductive, given that they have to be manufactured, often with the investment of great amounts of ordinary energy. Nor do they offer much reduction in oil imports.
· Wind power and solar power become less attractive, being uneconomic and requiring huge subsidies.
· Substituting natural gas for coal in electricity generation makes less sense for the same reasons.
None of this is intended to argue against energy conservation. On the contrary, conserving energy reduces waste, saves money, and lowers energy prices—irrespective of what one may believe about global warming.
Science vs. Hysteria
You will note that this has been a rational discussion. We asked the important question of whether there is appreciable man-made warming today. We presented evidence that indicates there is not, thereby suggesting that attempts by governments to control greenhouse-gas emissions are pointless and unwise. Nevertheless, we have state governors calling for CO2 emissions limits on cars; we have city mayors calling for mandatory CO2 controls; we have the Supreme Court declaring CO2 a pollutant that may have to be regulated; we have every industrialized nation (with the exception of the U.S. and Australia) signed on to the Kyoto Protocol; and we have ongoing international demands for even more stringent controls when Kyoto expires in 2012. What’s going on here?
To begin, perhaps even some of the advocates of these anti-warming policies are not so serious about them, as seen in a feature of the Kyoto Protocol called the Clean Development Mechanism, which allows a CO2 emitter—i.e., an energy user—to support a fanciful CO2 reduction scheme in developing nations in exchange for the right to keep on emitting CO2 unabated. “Emission trading” among those countries that have ratified Kyoto allows for the sale of certificates of unused emission quotas. In many cases, the initial quota was simply given away by governments to power companies and other entities, which in turn collect a windfall fee from consumers. All of this has become a huge financial racket that could someday make the UN’s “Oil for Food” scandal in Iraq seem minor by comparison. Even more fraudulent, these schemes do not reduce total CO2 emissions—not even in theory.
It is also worth noting that tens of thousands of interested persons benefit directly from the global warming scare—at the expense of the ordinary consumer. Environmental organizations globally, such as Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and the Environmental Defense Fund, have raked in billions of dollars. Multi-billion-dollar government subsidies for useless mitigation schemes are large and growing. Emission trading programs will soon reach the $100 billion a year level, with large fees paid to brokers and those who operate the scams. In other words, many people have discovered they can benefit from climate scares and have formed an entrenched interest. Of course, there are also many sincere believers in an impending global warming catastrophe, spurred on in their fears by the growing number of one-sided books, movies, and media coverage.
The irony is that a slightly warmer climate with more carbon dioxide is in many ways beneficial rather than damaging. Economic studies have demonstrated that a modest warming and higher CO2 levels will increase GNP and raise standards of living, primarily by improving agriculture and forestry. It’s a well-known fact that CO2 is plant food and essential to the growth of crops and trees—and ultimately to the well-being of animals and humans.
You wouldn’t know it from Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, but there are many upsides to global warming: Northern homes could save on heating fuel. Canadian farmers could harvest bumper crops. Greenland may become awash in cod and oil riches. Shippers could count on an Arctic shortcut between the Atlantic and Pacific. Forests may expand.
Mongolia could become an economic superpower. This is all speculative, even a little facetious. But still, might there be a silver lining for the frigid regions of Canada and Russia? “It’s not that there won’t be bad things happening in those countries,” economics professor Robert O. Mendelsohn of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies says. “But the idea is that they will get such large gains, especially in agriculture, that they will be bigger than the losses.” Mendelsohn has looked at how gross domestic product around the world would be affected under different warming scenarios through 2100. Canada and Russia tend to come out as clear gainers, as does much of northern Europe and Mongolia, largely because of projected increases in agricultural production.
To repeat a point made at the beginning: Climate has been changing cyclically for at least a million years and has shown huge variations over geological time. Human beings have adapted well, and will continue to do so.
* * *
The nations of the world face many difficult problems. Many have societal problems like poverty, disease, lack of sanitation, and shortage of clean water. There are grave security problems arising from global terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Any of these problems are vastly more important than the imaginary problem of man-made global warming. It is a great shame that so many of our resources are being diverted from real problems to this non-problem. Perhaps in ten or 20 years this will become apparent to everyone, particularly if the climate should stop warming (as it has for eight years now) or even begin to cool.
We can only trust that reason will prevail in the face of an onslaught of propaganda like Al Gore’s movie and despite the incessant misinformation generated by the media. Today, the imposed costs are still modest, and mostly hidden in taxes and in charges for electricity and motor fuels. If the scaremongers have their way, these costs will become enormous. But I believe that sound science and good sense will prevail in the face of irrational and scientifically baseless climate fears.
S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, a distinguished research professor at George Mason University, and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project. He performed his undergraduate studies at Ohio State University and earned his Ph.D. in Physics from Princeton University. He was the founding dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami, the founding director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service, and served for five years as vice chairman of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere. Dr. Singer has written or edited over a dozen books and mono-graphs, including, most recently, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years.
The preceding copy was adapted from a lecture delivered on the Hillsdale College campus on June 30, 2007, during a seminar entitled “Economics and the Environment,” sponsored by the Charles R. and Kathleen K. Hoogland Center for Teacher Excellence. It is reprinted by permission of Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.
# # #
The Hall Institute of Public Policy - New Jersey is a non-partisan, not-for-profit organization that explores issues of social, economic, educational and cultural importance to the Garden State. For more information, visit the Hall Institute online at http://www.hallnj.org/ or email info@hallnj.org.
A REPORT ON EDUCATION - 2006
By Michael P. Riccards
Could a full-time legislature be part of the solution to many of New Jersey’s political problems? The U.S. Department of Education has given us once again the nation’s report card, this time for 2006. The performance of students and adults on the international assessment of educational achievement in 2003 shows again that the USA is below Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, Chinese Taipei, Finland, the Netherlands, and even Latvia, Lithuania, Russia, England and Hungary.
The percentage of American children ages 3 to 5 who attend early childhood care and education programs has decreased. Total expenditures per student increased 23 percent in constant dollars in the period 1995 to 2003. In higher education the rate of high school graduates jumped from 49 to 67 percent from 1972 to 2004. Increases in costs for tuition and fees especially hit the middle income groups.
The average reading scores of fourth and eighth graders increased only two points between 1992 and 2005. The percentage of fourth graders performing at or near proficient levels has stayed the same, and was 31 percent for eighth-graders. Gaps between white and black and white, and Hispanic fourth and eight-graders have shown little measurable change.
There really is little indication of major improvements under No Child Left Behind standards. Why is that? Paul Tough in the “New York Times” has argued that the education gap in the United States is due to the very real differences in life style and ambitions of the lower and the middle classes. That is a familiar argument going back to the Coleman report which accentuated the importance of middle class values in understanding educational achievement back in the 1960s.
Studies show that the kinds of words and statements that children “heard varied by class.” Not only is the range of vocabulary wider among the middle class, but the number of encouraging utterances is greater for them. Research shows that parental nurturing among the middle class is likely to provide stimulation of the brain’s medial temporal lobe which aids in the development of memory skills. Thus the manner in which low income kids are raised puts them at a disadvantage in the measures that count in contemporary America.
Some schools have emphasized actually teaching and facilitating the work ethic with an emphasis on team building, cooperation, and creativity. One must guide the behavior and even the values of students before or during the teaching of the literate arts. School experiments like those done by KIPP (Knowledge Is Power Program) have focused their reform efforts on such an approach and have been held up as a model. But they teach a maximum of 12,000 students nationally—a small percentage of children who go to school in this nation.
Donald Roscoe Brown, writing in the “Trenton Times”, has argued that vouchers will not save low income black students . He argues that the schools instead should simply remove the bad-acting students from class and get back to the business of learning and teaching. His prescription is meant for all students, regardless of race. That return to discipline is for him a more important step than creating alternative schools like KIPP.
It is critical to realize that we as a nation now know what our curriculum should reasonable contain grade by grade, subject by subject. We are being pushed back on the notion, very American in tone, that it is important in the family and in the school, to look at attitudes, character training, and essential personal values in order to make that investment in curriculum and teachers pay off.
# # #
FEEDBACK - Send us your comments on this article.
The Hall Institute of Public Policy - New Jersey is a non-partisan, not-for-profit organization that explores issues of social, economic, educational and cultural importance to the Garden State. For more information, visit the Hall Institute online at www.hallnj.org or email info@hallnj.org.
Could a full-time legislature be part of the solution to many of New Jersey’s political problems? The U.S. Department of Education has given us once again the nation’s report card, this time for 2006. The performance of students and adults on the international assessment of educational achievement in 2003 shows again that the USA is below Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, Chinese Taipei, Finland, the Netherlands, and even Latvia, Lithuania, Russia, England and Hungary.
The percentage of American children ages 3 to 5 who attend early childhood care and education programs has decreased. Total expenditures per student increased 23 percent in constant dollars in the period 1995 to 2003. In higher education the rate of high school graduates jumped from 49 to 67 percent from 1972 to 2004. Increases in costs for tuition and fees especially hit the middle income groups.
The average reading scores of fourth and eighth graders increased only two points between 1992 and 2005. The percentage of fourth graders performing at or near proficient levels has stayed the same, and was 31 percent for eighth-graders. Gaps between white and black and white, and Hispanic fourth and eight-graders have shown little measurable change.
There really is little indication of major improvements under No Child Left Behind standards. Why is that? Paul Tough in the “New York Times” has argued that the education gap in the United States is due to the very real differences in life style and ambitions of the lower and the middle classes. That is a familiar argument going back to the Coleman report which accentuated the importance of middle class values in understanding educational achievement back in the 1960s.
Studies show that the kinds of words and statements that children “heard varied by class.” Not only is the range of vocabulary wider among the middle class, but the number of encouraging utterances is greater for them. Research shows that parental nurturing among the middle class is likely to provide stimulation of the brain’s medial temporal lobe which aids in the development of memory skills. Thus the manner in which low income kids are raised puts them at a disadvantage in the measures that count in contemporary America.
Some schools have emphasized actually teaching and facilitating the work ethic with an emphasis on team building, cooperation, and creativity. One must guide the behavior and even the values of students before or during the teaching of the literate arts. School experiments like those done by KIPP (Knowledge Is Power Program) have focused their reform efforts on such an approach and have been held up as a model. But they teach a maximum of 12,000 students nationally—a small percentage of children who go to school in this nation.
Donald Roscoe Brown, writing in the “Trenton Times”, has argued that vouchers will not save low income black students . He argues that the schools instead should simply remove the bad-acting students from class and get back to the business of learning and teaching. His prescription is meant for all students, regardless of race. That return to discipline is for him a more important step than creating alternative schools like KIPP.
It is critical to realize that we as a nation now know what our curriculum should reasonable contain grade by grade, subject by subject. We are being pushed back on the notion, very American in tone, that it is important in the family and in the school, to look at attitudes, character training, and essential personal values in order to make that investment in curriculum and teachers pay off.
# # #
FEEDBACK - Send us your comments on this article.
The Hall Institute of Public Policy - New Jersey is a non-partisan, not-for-profit organization that explores issues of social, economic, educational and cultural importance to the Garden State. For more information, visit the Hall Institute online at www.hallnj.org or email info@hallnj.org.
WHO’S CHRISTIE’S NEXT TARGET?
By Michael M. Shapiro
Earlier this month, eleven elected officials were arrested by the FBI and charged by United States Attorney for the State of New Jersey Chris Christie with accepting bribes in exchange for steering public contracts to private companies. The eleven range from former members of the Pleasantville Board of Education to Assemblyman Rev. Alfred E. Steele who is also undersheriff for Passaic County. While the alleged individual payments are small, ranging from $1,500 to $17,500, the amount of money in question is immaterial: any amount of money accepted by an elected official in exchange for certain action is illegal and an affront to all New Jersey taxpayers. Given the large number of officials arrested, is this the end of Chris Christie’s corruption busting? Likely, it is only the beginning.
Since New Jersey has 566 municipalities and over 600 school boards and thousands of local, county and state elected and appointed officials, even if a small percentage of them are corrupt, the number of politicians in Chris Christie’s crosshairs would be enormous. Add to this the likelihood that there are more than just a small percentage of elected officials who are legally or ethically compromised and the number expands exponentially.
What is it that causes New Jersey’s elected officials to engage in illegal conduct on a level not seen in most other states? First, years of indifference by federal law enforcement in New Jersey permitted politicians to think that they could do whatever they pleased and not get caught. Second, weak attorneys general in the State of New Jersey in recent history enabled politicians to become reckless. Third, politicians themselves are brought up in a political environment in New Jersey that survives on massive campaign contributions, spending, and influence peddling to a degree not seen in most other states. Fourth, many politicians hold more than one job, creating serious conflicts of interest that have gone unchecked for years. Fifth, there is often a symbiotic relationship between politicians and the press, which undermines the “watchdog role” of the media and has caused the media to follow, rather than lead, when it comes to corruption in New Jersey politics. Sixth, the politicians themselves who make it to elected office have frequently succumbed to the ethical pressures surrounding them during their campaigns and afterwards, leading them to be more willing to cross the legal line. Finally, because of human nature, which typically can involve greed and ulterior motives, many politicians are not in politics for altruistic reasons but rather to advance themselves, their friends, and their relatives, whether it be through political connections or jobs or money.
For all of these reasons, New Jersey politicians are ripe targets for corruption investigations. Given Chris Christie’s focus on rooting out corruption in New Jersey politics, he is likely to snare many more pols before he leaves office. The only question is just how many can he bust in the time he has remaining.
Michael M. Shapiro, founder of ShapTalk.com, is an attorney who resides in New Providence. Mike currently serves as the Chairman of the New Providence Democratic Party and as Editor of The Alternative Press, http://www.thealternativepress.blogspot.com/. He welcomes feedback via e-mail at mike@shaptalk.com
###
The Hall Institute of Public Policy - New Jersey is a non-partisan, not-for-profit organization that explores issues of social, economic, educational and cultural importance to the Garden State. For more information, visit the Hall Institute online at http://www.hallnj.org/ or email info@hallnj.org.
Earlier this month, eleven elected officials were arrested by the FBI and charged by United States Attorney for the State of New Jersey Chris Christie with accepting bribes in exchange for steering public contracts to private companies. The eleven range from former members of the Pleasantville Board of Education to Assemblyman Rev. Alfred E. Steele who is also undersheriff for Passaic County. While the alleged individual payments are small, ranging from $1,500 to $17,500, the amount of money in question is immaterial: any amount of money accepted by an elected official in exchange for certain action is illegal and an affront to all New Jersey taxpayers. Given the large number of officials arrested, is this the end of Chris Christie’s corruption busting? Likely, it is only the beginning.
Since New Jersey has 566 municipalities and over 600 school boards and thousands of local, county and state elected and appointed officials, even if a small percentage of them are corrupt, the number of politicians in Chris Christie’s crosshairs would be enormous. Add to this the likelihood that there are more than just a small percentage of elected officials who are legally or ethically compromised and the number expands exponentially.
What is it that causes New Jersey’s elected officials to engage in illegal conduct on a level not seen in most other states? First, years of indifference by federal law enforcement in New Jersey permitted politicians to think that they could do whatever they pleased and not get caught. Second, weak attorneys general in the State of New Jersey in recent history enabled politicians to become reckless. Third, politicians themselves are brought up in a political environment in New Jersey that survives on massive campaign contributions, spending, and influence peddling to a degree not seen in most other states. Fourth, many politicians hold more than one job, creating serious conflicts of interest that have gone unchecked for years. Fifth, there is often a symbiotic relationship between politicians and the press, which undermines the “watchdog role” of the media and has caused the media to follow, rather than lead, when it comes to corruption in New Jersey politics. Sixth, the politicians themselves who make it to elected office have frequently succumbed to the ethical pressures surrounding them during their campaigns and afterwards, leading them to be more willing to cross the legal line. Finally, because of human nature, which typically can involve greed and ulterior motives, many politicians are not in politics for altruistic reasons but rather to advance themselves, their friends, and their relatives, whether it be through political connections or jobs or money.
For all of these reasons, New Jersey politicians are ripe targets for corruption investigations. Given Chris Christie’s focus on rooting out corruption in New Jersey politics, he is likely to snare many more pols before he leaves office. The only question is just how many can he bust in the time he has remaining.
Michael M. Shapiro, founder of ShapTalk.com, is an attorney who resides in New Providence. Mike currently serves as the Chairman of the New Providence Democratic Party and as Editor of The Alternative Press, http://www.thealternativepress.blogspot.com/. He welcomes feedback via e-mail at mike@shaptalk.com
###
The Hall Institute of Public Policy - New Jersey is a non-partisan, not-for-profit organization that explores issues of social, economic, educational and cultural importance to the Garden State. For more information, visit the Hall Institute online at http://www.hallnj.org/ or email info@hallnj.org.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
