Courting Common Sense. Washington Post Editorial
Will the White House and Congress find a better way to nominate and confirm judges?
WaPo, Wednesday, January 21, 2009; page A10
MIGHT A NEW administration and Congress bring a new approach to the handling of judicial nominations? Might pettiness give way to rationality and fair-mindedness? Don't count on it. But in such a week, we can hope.
Activists on both sides of the political spectrum already have started saber-rattling. Conservatives threaten to block "extreme" appointments by President Barack Obama without bothering to define what that means. In the process, they have all but abandoned their battle cry of the past eight years that the president is entitled to judges who reflect his "judicial philosophy." Liberal interest groups, many still bitter that the Clinton administration did not move the courts more to the left, are pressing the incoming administration to appoint "progressive" legal thinkers who can undo what they see as eight years worth of Republican damage.
There's room for improvement all around. President Bush was slow to name candidates to long-vacant seats. At times he ignored bipartisan recommendations and tapped hard-right nominees he knew had little chance of confirmation. This approach served to erode goodwill even with moderate Democrats. Democrats, meanwhile, at times engaged in unjustified filibusters and gross distortions of some nominees' records. During Mr. Bush's first term, the highly qualified Miguel Estrada was nominated to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, but the selection was filibustered and never given a floor vote. Democrats hid behind a flimsy, bureaucratic excuse to block the nomination. The real reason for opposition: Mr. Estrada, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Honduras, was seen as a top contender to become the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice.
Mr. Bush's second term brought the nomination of Peter Keisler to the D.C. Circuit. Opponents used a long-standing controversy over the number of judicial slots and the workload of the D.C. Circuit to argue against Mr. Keisler; that opposition did not abate when Congress settled the workload matter.
We're under no illusions that the partisan mischief will end entirely with the start of a new administration. But we can hope for improvements -- for well-qualified nominees who are judged fairly on their merits.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
PPI: Asia Spends More on Research than Europe
Asia Spends More on Research than Europe
Progressive Policy Institute, January 21, 2009
The Numbers:
Spending on scientific research & development, 2007:
- North America: ~ $393 billion
- Europe: ~ $290 billion
- Asia: ~ $320 billion
What They Mean:
India's medieval mathematicians invented the zero and modern numerals around 500 AD. Engineers in neighboring China dreamed up paper, explosives, the compass, and movable type. But the 17th-century Scientific Revolution came not in Asia but the west, and so did the 20th century's medicines, airplanes, radio, computers, spacecraft, TV sets, and telecom gear.
Why? Albert Einstein, wondering about the issue in 1922, blamed Asia's high populations and low labor costs for slowing invention. ("In both India and China the low price of labor has stood in the way of the development of machinery.") A half-century later, British history-of-Chinese-science master Joseph Needham speculated that Europe had jumped ahead by inventing capitalism, which meant competition among businesses for customers and therefore innovation. The question remains interesting -- but only in an historical sense, because Asian science has roared back to life.
Asia's most sophisticated economies have been among the world's heaviest researchers for years. Japan's $130 billion in R&D spending amounted to 3.2 percent of Japanese GDP, far above the rich world's 2.1 percent average and topped only by Israel and Sweden. (The United States was at 2.7 percent, Australia 2.2 percent, Canada 2.0 percent, and Europe 1.7 percent.) Korea's $38 billion in research spending outstripped Britain's $35 billion, and made up 3.0 percent of GDP. Taiwan and Singapore are also well above the world's rich-country average.
Science is reviving in the two giants as well. Chinese research spending, relative to GDP, has doubled in a decade from 0.8 percent to 1.5 percent. In dollar terms, China's $85 billion spending ranks third or fourth in the world (depending on exchange rates), roughly at par with Germany. India's science spending is about $24 billion and about 0.8 percent of GDP. And within the last three or four years -- likely for the first time in four centuries -- Asia's research spending topped Europe's. The United States still tops the world, at $370 billion to Asia's $320 billion and Europe's $290 billion ... but for how long?
Further Reading:
Is Asia inventing, or just spending? In 1980, according to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, European researchers filed twice as many U.S. patent applications as Asians. By 2007, Japan's 79,000 applications alone outnumbered the 69,000 from all European countries combined, and Asia's total nearly doubled Europe. Korea's 23,000 applications were barely behind Germany's second-place 23,600; Taiwan, with 18,500, was above both Britain and France. India and China still file fewer patents than the top-tier Asian technological economies and the big European states, but are rising fast. Chinese and Indian researchers accounted for 30 patent applications in 1980, 900 in 2000, and 5,300 in 2007. The PTO patent records: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/appl_yr.pdf
Science in Asia links:
Tokyo-based Asia Science and Technology Seminar trains young Asian scientists:http://www.jistec.or.jp/ASTS/asts_e.html
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh speaks to the Science Congress in Shillong on India's high-tech future:http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=46369
The Robotic Association of Japan insists that soft, weak, vulnerable humans have nothing to fear from its metallic, computerized and remorseless creations:http://www.rsj.or.jp/index_e.html
Korea's Ministry of Knowledge Economy (until last year the Min. of Commerce & Industry), perhaps missing the real threat, proposes an ethics charter meant to prevent human abuse of androids:http://www.korea.net/news/news/newsView.asp?part=100&serial_no=20080228018
China's Science and Technology Ministry:http://www.most.gov.cn/eng/
Taiwan's National Science Council announces bio-tech parks, cryptography, license-plate recognition, and more:http://web1.nsc.gov.tw/mp.aspx?mp=7 ASEAN's Science and Technology Network:http://www.astnet.org/
And San Diego's school system instructs America's youth on classical Chinese technology:
www.sdcoe.k12.ca.us/score/chinin/chinintg.htm
R&D around the world:
High end -- Israel is the world's most science-intensive economy, devoting 4.7 percent of GDP to R&D. Sweden is next at 3.7 percent, followed by Japan and Finland at 3.4 percent. South Korea ranks fifth 3.2 percent, with Switzerland sixth. Japan's commitment has risen from 2.0 percent in 1980, and 2.7 percent in the mid-1990s. America's 2.7 percent remains high on international rankings, but -- in contrast to Asian economies -- has not grown since the mid-1980s. American businesses spend heavily on R&D, and U.S. government investment in life sciences and medicine is high. The lag comes from low public funding for research on physics, aerospace, chemistry, and other hard sciences. The National Science Foundation has data on American research spending and other science matters over time:http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08317/
And the OECD counts research totals by country for its members plus Argentina, China, Israel, the EU, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, Romania, Russia, and Taiwan:
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/9/44/41850733.pdf
Can do better -- The luminaries of European science would not be pleased. Galileo would blush to see Italy's low 1.1 percent of GDP; Archimedes would likewise fume to see Greece spending only 0.6 percent. Newton would be startled to learn that Korea spends more on research than Britain. (The U.K. government research budget is high, but British companies apparently do less research than some of their rivals.) Copernicus might feel worst of all, with Poland the only advanced country to have cut its R&D budgets in this decade. The highest research commitments are in Scandinavia and Germany. The European Science Agency:
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/area/index.cfm?fareaid=1
Developing world -- Latin America, the Middle East apart from Israel, Africa, and Southeast Asia are well behind East Asia as research powers. The World Bank's 2008 Development Indicators book finds the Latin average at 0.6 percent, led by Brazil's 0.9 percent. Tunisia is the Muslim world's most research-intensive state at 1.0 percent of GDP, followed by Malaysia, Morocco, and Turkey at 0.7 percent; Uganda's 0.8 percent and South Africa 0.9 percent are Africa's highest rates. Singapore tops Southeast Asia at a rich-world 2.3 percent, but larger ASEAN members could be doing more: the Philippines and Indonesia are at 0.1 percent, Thailand 0.3 percent and Vietnam 0.2 percent. Brazil's 0.9 percent is Latin America's highest rate, with Chile, Argentina, and Mexico next at 0.5 percent.
Progressive Policy Institute, January 21, 2009
The Numbers:
Spending on scientific research & development, 2007:
- North America: ~ $393 billion
- Europe: ~ $290 billion
- Asia: ~ $320 billion
What They Mean:
India's medieval mathematicians invented the zero and modern numerals around 500 AD. Engineers in neighboring China dreamed up paper, explosives, the compass, and movable type. But the 17th-century Scientific Revolution came not in Asia but the west, and so did the 20th century's medicines, airplanes, radio, computers, spacecraft, TV sets, and telecom gear.
Why? Albert Einstein, wondering about the issue in 1922, blamed Asia's high populations and low labor costs for slowing invention. ("In both India and China the low price of labor has stood in the way of the development of machinery.") A half-century later, British history-of-Chinese-science master Joseph Needham speculated that Europe had jumped ahead by inventing capitalism, which meant competition among businesses for customers and therefore innovation. The question remains interesting -- but only in an historical sense, because Asian science has roared back to life.
Asia's most sophisticated economies have been among the world's heaviest researchers for years. Japan's $130 billion in R&D spending amounted to 3.2 percent of Japanese GDP, far above the rich world's 2.1 percent average and topped only by Israel and Sweden. (The United States was at 2.7 percent, Australia 2.2 percent, Canada 2.0 percent, and Europe 1.7 percent.) Korea's $38 billion in research spending outstripped Britain's $35 billion, and made up 3.0 percent of GDP. Taiwan and Singapore are also well above the world's rich-country average.
Science is reviving in the two giants as well. Chinese research spending, relative to GDP, has doubled in a decade from 0.8 percent to 1.5 percent. In dollar terms, China's $85 billion spending ranks third or fourth in the world (depending on exchange rates), roughly at par with Germany. India's science spending is about $24 billion and about 0.8 percent of GDP. And within the last three or four years -- likely for the first time in four centuries -- Asia's research spending topped Europe's. The United States still tops the world, at $370 billion to Asia's $320 billion and Europe's $290 billion ... but for how long?
Further Reading:
Is Asia inventing, or just spending? In 1980, according to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, European researchers filed twice as many U.S. patent applications as Asians. By 2007, Japan's 79,000 applications alone outnumbered the 69,000 from all European countries combined, and Asia's total nearly doubled Europe. Korea's 23,000 applications were barely behind Germany's second-place 23,600; Taiwan, with 18,500, was above both Britain and France. India and China still file fewer patents than the top-tier Asian technological economies and the big European states, but are rising fast. Chinese and Indian researchers accounted for 30 patent applications in 1980, 900 in 2000, and 5,300 in 2007. The PTO patent records: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/appl_yr.pdf
Science in Asia links:
Tokyo-based Asia Science and Technology Seminar trains young Asian scientists:http://www.jistec.or.jp/ASTS/asts_e.html
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh speaks to the Science Congress in Shillong on India's high-tech future:http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=46369
The Robotic Association of Japan insists that soft, weak, vulnerable humans have nothing to fear from its metallic, computerized and remorseless creations:http://www.rsj.or.jp/index_e.html
Korea's Ministry of Knowledge Economy (until last year the Min. of Commerce & Industry), perhaps missing the real threat, proposes an ethics charter meant to prevent human abuse of androids:http://www.korea.net/news/news/newsView.asp?part=100&serial_no=20080228018
China's Science and Technology Ministry:http://www.most.gov.cn/eng/
Taiwan's National Science Council announces bio-tech parks, cryptography, license-plate recognition, and more:http://web1.nsc.gov.tw/mp.aspx?mp=7 ASEAN's Science and Technology Network:http://www.astnet.org/
And San Diego's school system instructs America's youth on classical Chinese technology:
www.sdcoe.k12.ca.us/score/chinin/chinintg.htm
R&D around the world:
High end -- Israel is the world's most science-intensive economy, devoting 4.7 percent of GDP to R&D. Sweden is next at 3.7 percent, followed by Japan and Finland at 3.4 percent. South Korea ranks fifth 3.2 percent, with Switzerland sixth. Japan's commitment has risen from 2.0 percent in 1980, and 2.7 percent in the mid-1990s. America's 2.7 percent remains high on international rankings, but -- in contrast to Asian economies -- has not grown since the mid-1980s. American businesses spend heavily on R&D, and U.S. government investment in life sciences and medicine is high. The lag comes from low public funding for research on physics, aerospace, chemistry, and other hard sciences. The National Science Foundation has data on American research spending and other science matters over time:http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08317/
And the OECD counts research totals by country for its members plus Argentina, China, Israel, the EU, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, Romania, Russia, and Taiwan:
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/9/44/41850733.pdf
Can do better -- The luminaries of European science would not be pleased. Galileo would blush to see Italy's low 1.1 percent of GDP; Archimedes would likewise fume to see Greece spending only 0.6 percent. Newton would be startled to learn that Korea spends more on research than Britain. (The U.K. government research budget is high, but British companies apparently do less research than some of their rivals.) Copernicus might feel worst of all, with Poland the only advanced country to have cut its R&D budgets in this decade. The highest research commitments are in Scandinavia and Germany. The European Science Agency:
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/area/index.cfm?fareaid=1
Developing world -- Latin America, the Middle East apart from Israel, Africa, and Southeast Asia are well behind East Asia as research powers. The World Bank's 2008 Development Indicators book finds the Latin average at 0.6 percent, led by Brazil's 0.9 percent. Tunisia is the Muslim world's most research-intensive state at 1.0 percent of GDP, followed by Malaysia, Morocco, and Turkey at 0.7 percent; Uganda's 0.8 percent and South Africa 0.9 percent are Africa's highest rates. Singapore tops Southeast Asia at a rich-world 2.3 percent, but larger ASEAN members could be doing more: the Philippines and Indonesia are at 0.1 percent, Thailand 0.3 percent and Vietnam 0.2 percent. Brazil's 0.9 percent is Latin America's highest rate, with Chile, Argentina, and Mexico next at 0.5 percent.
Voicing optimism, Ban congratulates US President on inauguration
Voicing optimism, Ban congratulates US President on inauguration
New York, Jan 21 2009 3:10PM
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today, “with great optimism,” congratulated Barack Obama on his inauguration as the new President of the United States, stressing that America and the Organization share a number of common goals.
Challenges – such as economic turmoil, climate change, peace and security issues such as disarmament and non-proliferation, and the food, energy and development crises – are global in scope and “require strong and collective responses,” Mr. Ban said in a statement.
In Mr. Obama’s inaugural address yesterday, he “was explicit in committing his administration to tackling all of these problems, urgently and decisively,” speaking of the need to tackle global warming, promote clean energy and cooperate with developing nations.
“This is also the work of the United Nations. Our goals are shared,” the Secretary-General stated. “Together, America and the United Nations can look forward to a new era of strong and effective partnership, delivering the results and the change we need.”
The UN Environment Programme also welcomed the swearing-in of the 44th US President, voicing hope in the new leader’s ‘green’ strategy.
One of Mr. Obama’s main election promises was an energy policy to address climate change, spur job growth and curb US dependence on foreign oil and gas. He also said he planned to slash greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 and create five million new environmentally friendly jobs.
“Obama’s green jobs strategy could deliver a ‘quadruple win’ – dealing simultaneously with the economic recession, energy security, job creation and emissions,” said UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner.
The incoming US administration is being hailed as “unprecedentedly green,” with the creation of the post of Energy and Environment Coordinator who will serve as Mr. Obama’s ‘Climate Czar.’
Other appointments include Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Chu as Secretary of Energy and John P. Holdren, a professor of environmental policy at Harvard University, as the President’s Science Adviser.
“These are not political figures [who came] to this issue yesterday,” Mr. Steiner said. “They are some of the most authoritative, competent and knowledgeable people.”
New York, Jan 21 2009 3:10PM
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today, “with great optimism,” congratulated Barack Obama on his inauguration as the new President of the United States, stressing that America and the Organization share a number of common goals.
Challenges – such as economic turmoil, climate change, peace and security issues such as disarmament and non-proliferation, and the food, energy and development crises – are global in scope and “require strong and collective responses,” Mr. Ban said in a statement.
In Mr. Obama’s inaugural address yesterday, he “was explicit in committing his administration to tackling all of these problems, urgently and decisively,” speaking of the need to tackle global warming, promote clean energy and cooperate with developing nations.
“This is also the work of the United Nations. Our goals are shared,” the Secretary-General stated. “Together, America and the United Nations can look forward to a new era of strong and effective partnership, delivering the results and the change we need.”
The UN Environment Programme also welcomed the swearing-in of the 44th US President, voicing hope in the new leader’s ‘green’ strategy.
One of Mr. Obama’s main election promises was an energy policy to address climate change, spur job growth and curb US dependence on foreign oil and gas. He also said he planned to slash greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 and create five million new environmentally friendly jobs.
“Obama’s green jobs strategy could deliver a ‘quadruple win’ – dealing simultaneously with the economic recession, energy security, job creation and emissions,” said UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner.
The incoming US administration is being hailed as “unprecedentedly green,” with the creation of the post of Energy and Environment Coordinator who will serve as Mr. Obama’s ‘Climate Czar.’
Other appointments include Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Chu as Secretary of Energy and John P. Holdren, a professor of environmental policy at Harvard University, as the President’s Science Adviser.
“These are not political figures [who came] to this issue yesterday,” Mr. Steiner said. “They are some of the most authoritative, competent and knowledgeable people.”
Conservative Views: Waiving green requirements previously imposed because they would create jobs and grow the economy
Reality, One Step at a Time, by Chris Horner
Benny Peiser’s invaluable CCNet circulates an Financial Times article today assessing the chances of some mandatory climate package as being very low: “[g]iven the short-term contractionary effects of imposing an indirect tax on carbon, it will now almost certainly be shelved.”
Never mind the long-term problems associated with doing something that harmful to yourself that the vast majority of the world, including our rapidly modernizing competitors who would love to host fleeing businesses, refuse.The update includes a particular comment, of which we hear a lot, but which really does deserve some perspective. That is:
If a climate regime isn't established until 2012 or 2013, how do you bridge paying for the work that's under way in the meantime? What do you tell to a big weatherization industry when everything dries up in 2011? 'Thank you very much and have a nice day?' — Steve Nadel, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, 20 January 2009
Well, yes. Or you tell them to consider making a better (or different) mousetrap.
When you hear these plaintive wails—and you will hear much more of them in coming months—be aware that this is no different from the starving performance artist insisting that he cannot make it without taxpayer subsidies in the form of NEA grants.
That is, there’s no market for what I have chosen to do for a living, so you need to tax people to pay for it. It is simply couched in ever-so-slightly less embarrassing language.
Finally, and speaking of embarrassing, Benny also circulates a piece in something called Business Green quoting Gov. Schwarzenegger saying that, in order to create jobs and help the economy grow, he needs to waive all of those green requirements that he previously imposed because he claimed that they would create jobs and grow the economy. It is entertaining when these folks are reduced to such babble—if also sad, given the human consequences they engineer with all of their peacocking in the first place. We will continue to get the government we deserve until such rhetoric and irresponsibility are no longer rewarded
Benny Peiser’s invaluable CCNet circulates an Financial Times article today assessing the chances of some mandatory climate package as being very low: “[g]iven the short-term contractionary effects of imposing an indirect tax on carbon, it will now almost certainly be shelved.”
Never mind the long-term problems associated with doing something that harmful to yourself that the vast majority of the world, including our rapidly modernizing competitors who would love to host fleeing businesses, refuse.The update includes a particular comment, of which we hear a lot, but which really does deserve some perspective. That is:
If a climate regime isn't established until 2012 or 2013, how do you bridge paying for the work that's under way in the meantime? What do you tell to a big weatherization industry when everything dries up in 2011? 'Thank you very much and have a nice day?' — Steve Nadel, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, 20 January 2009
Well, yes. Or you tell them to consider making a better (or different) mousetrap.
When you hear these plaintive wails—and you will hear much more of them in coming months—be aware that this is no different from the starving performance artist insisting that he cannot make it without taxpayer subsidies in the form of NEA grants.
That is, there’s no market for what I have chosen to do for a living, so you need to tax people to pay for it. It is simply couched in ever-so-slightly less embarrassing language.
Finally, and speaking of embarrassing, Benny also circulates a piece in something called Business Green quoting Gov. Schwarzenegger saying that, in order to create jobs and help the economy grow, he needs to waive all of those green requirements that he previously imposed because he claimed that they would create jobs and grow the economy. It is entertaining when these folks are reduced to such babble—if also sad, given the human consequences they engineer with all of their peacocking in the first place. We will continue to get the government we deserve until such rhetoric and irresponsibility are no longer rewarded
On Doran & Zimmerman's “Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change”
An Obvious Double Standard Adopted By The AGU Publication EOS. By Roger Pielke SrClimate Science, Jan 21, 2009
In the January 20, 2009 issue of the AGU publication EOS, there is Feature article by P.T. Doran and M. K. Zimmerman titled “Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change”.
This paper is a polling paper that specifically reported in the EOS article on the two questions:
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
The conclusion in the article is that
“It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.”
However, EOS rejected our polling study last year, as we reported on in Climate Science in the weblogs
Is There Agreement Amongst Climate Scientists on the IPCC AR4 WG1?
Follow Up By Fergus Brown To “Is There Agreement Amongst Climate Scientists on the IPCC AR4 WG1?”
In the first weblog, I wrote
“After the survey was completed last summer and the article written, it was submitted to the AGU publication EOS as a “Forum piece. The EOS description of a Forum is that it
”contains thought-provoking contributions expected to stimulate further discussion, within the newspaper or as part of Eos Online Discussions. Appropriate Forum topics include current or proposed science policy, discussion related to current research in our fields especially scientific controversies, the relationship of our science to society, or practices that affect our fields, science in general, or AGU as an organization. Commentary solely on the science reported in research journals is not appropriate.”
Our article certainly fits this description. However, after 4 months without a decision, our contribution was summarily rejected by Fred Spilhous without review. He said our article did not fit EOS policy. We disagreed, of course, based on the explicit EOS policy given above, but our follow request for an appeal was ignored.”
Thus, EOS accepts a poll P.T. Doran and M. K. Zimmerman (as a Feature), yet rejected our contribution which was submitted as a Forum contribution. This is an obvious double standard, and raises serious questions on the role of EOS as an objective vehicle to communicate climate science issues.
In the January 20, 2009 issue of the AGU publication EOS, there is Feature article by P.T. Doran and M. K. Zimmerman titled “Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change”.
This paper is a polling paper that specifically reported in the EOS article on the two questions:
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
The conclusion in the article is that
“It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.”
However, EOS rejected our polling study last year, as we reported on in Climate Science in the weblogs
Is There Agreement Amongst Climate Scientists on the IPCC AR4 WG1?
Follow Up By Fergus Brown To “Is There Agreement Amongst Climate Scientists on the IPCC AR4 WG1?”
In the first weblog, I wrote
“After the survey was completed last summer and the article written, it was submitted to the AGU publication EOS as a “Forum piece. The EOS description of a Forum is that it
”contains thought-provoking contributions expected to stimulate further discussion, within the newspaper or as part of Eos Online Discussions. Appropriate Forum topics include current or proposed science policy, discussion related to current research in our fields especially scientific controversies, the relationship of our science to society, or practices that affect our fields, science in general, or AGU as an organization. Commentary solely on the science reported in research journals is not appropriate.”
Our article certainly fits this description. However, after 4 months without a decision, our contribution was summarily rejected by Fred Spilhous without review. He said our article did not fit EOS policy. We disagreed, of course, based on the explicit EOS policy given above, but our follow request for an appeal was ignored.”
Thus, EOS accepts a poll P.T. Doran and M. K. Zimmerman (as a Feature), yet rejected our contribution which was submitted as a Forum contribution. This is an obvious double standard, and raises serious questions on the role of EOS as an objective vehicle to communicate climate science issues.
European Antitrust Officials Target Microsoft over Internet Explorer
European Antitrust Officials Target Microsoft over Internet Explorer. By Ryan Radia
CEI, January 20, 2009
Washington, D.C., January 20, 2009—The European Commission may order Microsoft to strip Internet Explorer (IE) from certain versions of Windows, according to a preliminary ruling against Microsoft stemming from a complaint brought by Opera. Opera claims that Microsoft is “abusing its dominant position” by bundling IE with Windows, and consequently denying consumers “genuine choice” among web browsers.
If the European Commission upholds Opera’s complaint against Microsoft, it wouldn’t be the first time Microsoft has been found guilty of antitrust violations stemming from applications bundled with Windows.
Back in 2004, the Commission ruled that it was illegal for Microsoft to bundle its Windows Media Player with Windows and ordered Microsoft to offer a Media Player-less version of the operating system. Microsoft responded by unveiling the wryly named “Windows XP Reduced Media Edition.” Unsurprisingly, the European Commission rejected the name, so Microsoft renamed the OS “Windows N.”
Despite Windows N’s fairly neutral-sounding name, consumers showed little interest in Windows N when it hit the shelves. It’s quite obvious why Windows N was a flop–why would anybody want to run an operating system lacking useful components, especially when plenty of alternatives are available online at the click of a button?
The same reasoning is sure to relegate a browserless Windows (Windows: Reduced Internet Edition, perhaps?) to commercial irrelevance. Such a product would be placed on shelves solely to satisfy regulators convinced that they’re somehow “protecting” consumers by ensuring inferior products can be had.
How would the average user even select a preferred browser in the first place without a pre-installed browser? While OEMs could always pre-install a browser, anyone who wanted to install (or reinstall) a browserless version of Windows from scratch would need to jump through hoops just to get online.
More to the point, Opera’s claim against Microsoft looks downright absurd given the reality of today’s increasingly competitive browser marketplace. Despite IE being bundled with Windows, Firefox has gained significant ground on IE in recent years. Four years ago, IE had 91% global market share, while Firefox hovered around 3.5%. Now, Firefox is almost at 21% market share, and IE recently dropped below 70%.
Firefox’s ascent did not happen because of a mass exodus of users from Windows to other operating systems. To be sure, Windows has faltered a bit as of late, but Firefox has gained the following of a massive number of Windows users who elected to download and install Firefox as a replacement for Internet Explorer. This illustrates that users are perfectly willing to pick their favorite application for a given task, even if that means downloading a third-party app on the Internet. Plenty of other programs, like VLC and Google Desktop, have taken off among Windows users even though these apps largely duplicate the functionality of bundled Windows components.
Where does all this leave Opera? Unlike Firefox, Opera is still a laggard in terms of market share. Blaming Opera’s inability to gain a large user base on the bundling of IE with Windows, however, is entirely misplaced. The folks at Opera may feel that going after Microsoft might help them peel off a few users - or, at least, get Opera’s name out there in the press - but Opera’s biggest enemy is certainly not Internet Explorer.
CEI, January 20, 2009
Washington, D.C., January 20, 2009—The European Commission may order Microsoft to strip Internet Explorer (IE) from certain versions of Windows, according to a preliminary ruling against Microsoft stemming from a complaint brought by Opera. Opera claims that Microsoft is “abusing its dominant position” by bundling IE with Windows, and consequently denying consumers “genuine choice” among web browsers.
If the European Commission upholds Opera’s complaint against Microsoft, it wouldn’t be the first time Microsoft has been found guilty of antitrust violations stemming from applications bundled with Windows.
Back in 2004, the Commission ruled that it was illegal for Microsoft to bundle its Windows Media Player with Windows and ordered Microsoft to offer a Media Player-less version of the operating system. Microsoft responded by unveiling the wryly named “Windows XP Reduced Media Edition.” Unsurprisingly, the European Commission rejected the name, so Microsoft renamed the OS “Windows N.”
Despite Windows N’s fairly neutral-sounding name, consumers showed little interest in Windows N when it hit the shelves. It’s quite obvious why Windows N was a flop–why would anybody want to run an operating system lacking useful components, especially when plenty of alternatives are available online at the click of a button?
The same reasoning is sure to relegate a browserless Windows (Windows: Reduced Internet Edition, perhaps?) to commercial irrelevance. Such a product would be placed on shelves solely to satisfy regulators convinced that they’re somehow “protecting” consumers by ensuring inferior products can be had.
How would the average user even select a preferred browser in the first place without a pre-installed browser? While OEMs could always pre-install a browser, anyone who wanted to install (or reinstall) a browserless version of Windows from scratch would need to jump through hoops just to get online.
More to the point, Opera’s claim against Microsoft looks downright absurd given the reality of today’s increasingly competitive browser marketplace. Despite IE being bundled with Windows, Firefox has gained significant ground on IE in recent years. Four years ago, IE had 91% global market share, while Firefox hovered around 3.5%. Now, Firefox is almost at 21% market share, and IE recently dropped below 70%.
Firefox’s ascent did not happen because of a mass exodus of users from Windows to other operating systems. To be sure, Windows has faltered a bit as of late, but Firefox has gained the following of a massive number of Windows users who elected to download and install Firefox as a replacement for Internet Explorer. This illustrates that users are perfectly willing to pick their favorite application for a given task, even if that means downloading a third-party app on the Internet. Plenty of other programs, like VLC and Google Desktop, have taken off among Windows users even though these apps largely duplicate the functionality of bundled Windows components.
Where does all this leave Opera? Unlike Firefox, Opera is still a laggard in terms of market share. Blaming Opera’s inability to gain a large user base on the bundling of IE with Windows, however, is entirely misplaced. The folks at Opera may feel that going after Microsoft might help them peel off a few users - or, at least, get Opera’s name out there in the press - but Opera’s biggest enemy is certainly not Internet Explorer.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
President Obama's Inaugural Address
President Obama's Inaugural Address
January 20, 2009
Remarks as Prepared for Delivery
My fellow citizens:
I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition. Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.
So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.
These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.
Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America - they will be met.On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.
On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics. We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.
In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted - for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things - some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.
For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.
For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.
For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.
This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions - that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.
For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.
Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.
What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.
Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control - and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart - not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.
Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.
We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort - even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.
To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West - know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.
To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.
As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us today, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment - a moment that will define a generation - it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.
For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.
Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends - hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism - these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.
This is the price and the promise of citizenship.
This is the source of our confidence - the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.
This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed - why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.
So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:
"Let it be told to the future world...that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it]."
America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.
January 20, 2009
Remarks as Prepared for Delivery
My fellow citizens:
I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition. Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.
So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.
These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.
Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America - they will be met.On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.
On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics. We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.
In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted - for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things - some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.
For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.
For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.
For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.
This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions - that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.
For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.
Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.
What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.
Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control - and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart - not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.
Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.
We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort - even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.
To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West - know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.
To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.
As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us today, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment - a moment that will define a generation - it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.
For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.
Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends - hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism - these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.
This is the price and the promise of citizenship.
This is the source of our confidence - the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.
This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed - why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.
So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:
"Let it be told to the future world...that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it]."
America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.
Tribute to President Obama
Celebrities pay powerful, heartfelt tribute to President Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E-mwYEDIz4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E-mwYEDIz4
Next AG Eric Holder, Wiretaps, and FISA
Holder for Wiretaps. WSJ Editorial
The AG nominee bows on Presidential power
WSJ, Jan 20, 2009
First it was the special surveillance court that we learned last week has affirmed the President's constitutional power to undertake warrantless wiretaps. Now comes Attorney General nominee Eric Holder, who endorsed this executive authority during his confirmation hearing late last week.
During Thursday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Utah's Orrin Hatch read Mr. Holder a passage from a speech the nominee gave to the American Constitution Society in June of last year. Mr. Holder had said, "I never thought I would see that a President would act in direct defiance of federal law by authorizing warrantless NSA surveillance of American citizens," referring to the National Security Agency program. "This disrespect for the law is not only wrong. It is destructive in our struggle against terrorism."
The Republican Senator was sniffing out Mr. Holder's views on executive power under the Constitution and whether Congress can pass laws, such as the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, that limit it. "Do you believe," asked Mr. Hatch, "that the President has -- that whoever is President has -- inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution to engage in warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance? Or, in your opinion, does FISA trump Article II?"
Mr. Holder answered with some political tap dancing. "There's an exclusivity provision in the FISA act that essentially says, as Congress has expressed, this is the exclusive way in which that surveillance should occur," he said. "My speech was taking the Administration to task for not following the dictates of FISA. As I indicated -- I think in response to a previous question -- I think that had the Administration worked with Congress, as we are pledging to do, that tool, a very valuable tool, a very valuable tool, could have been in the arsenal of the Administration without any question about its legality."
Senator Hatch pressed him on this point, resulting in the following exchange:
Mr. Hatch: "Back to my prior point, the President's inherent authority under the Constitution. Can that be limited by a statute? You're relying on a statute as though that's binding on Article II of the Constitution."
Mr. Holder: "Well, the President obviously has powers under the Constitution that cannot be infringed by the legislative branch. That's what I was saying earlier. There are powers that the President has delegated to him -- that he has -- and Congress does not have the ability to say, with regard to those powers, you cannot exercise them. There's always a tension in trying to decide where that balance is struck. And I think we see the best result when we see Congress interacting with the President, the executive branch interacting with the legislative branch and coming up with solutions . . ."
Mr. Hatch: "That still doesn't negate the fact that the President may have inherent powers under Article II that even a statute cannot vary."
Mr. Holder: "Sure."
Mr. Hatch: "Do you agree with that statement?"
Holder: "Yeah. There are certain things that a President has the constitutional right, authority to do, that the legislative branch cannot impinge upon."
Hatch: "Okay."
[More faithfully reproduced questioning in Eric Posner's post at Volokh Conspiracy. See at the end]
So let's see. Mr. Holder now concedes that Presidents have inherent powers that even a statute can't abridge, notwithstanding his campaign speeches. That makes us feel better about a General Holder on national security. But his concession is further evidence that the liberal accusations about "breaking the law" and "illegal wiretaps" of the last several years were mostly about naked partisanship. Mr. Holder's objection turns out to be merely the tactical political one that the Bush Administration would have been better off negotiating with Congress for wiretap approval, not that it was breaking the law. Now he tells us.
---
[Eric Posner's post at Volokh Conspiracy, picking from the NYT transcript]
LEAHY: Do you believe that the president of the United States has authority to exercise a commander-in-chief override and immunize acts of torture? I ask that because we did not get a satisfactory answer from Former Attorney General Gonzales on that.
HOLDER: Mr. Chairman, no one is above the law. The president has a constitutional obligation to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. There are obligations that we have as a result of treaties that we have signed — obligations, obviously, in the Constitution. Where Congress has passed a law, it is the obligation of the president, or the commander-in-chief, to follow those laws.
…
FEINGOLD: … First, what is your view of the president's constitutional authority to authorize violation of the criminal law, duly enact the statutes that may have been on the books for many years when acting as commander-in- chief?
HOLDER: The president, as I've said, is not above the law, has a constitutional obligation to follow the law and execute the laws that this Congress passes. If you look at the Steel Seizure concurrence of Justice Jackson that, I think, sets out in really wonderful form the power that the president has and where the president's power is strongest and where it is weakest.
It is weakest in Category 3 where Congress has indicated something contrary to what the president wants to do. That is where Justice Jackson says the president's power is at its lowest level. And I think — I'm not a constitutional scholar — but I think that there has never been a president who's been upheld when he's tried to act in Category 3. I think, but I'm not sure.
FEINGOLD: I believe that's right. And I want to follow that. Using the construct of Justice Jackson, more specifically, does the president, in your opinion, have the authority, acting as commander- in-chief, to authorize warrantless searches of Americans homes and wiretaps of their conversations in violation of the criminal and foreign intelligence statutes of this country?
HOLDER: I think you're then getting into Category 3 behavior by the president. Justice Jackson did not say that the president did not have any ability to act in Category 3. Although, as I said, I'm not sure there's ever been an instance where (inaudible) courts have said that the president did act appropriately in that category.
It seems to maybe it's difficult it imagine a set of circumstances given the hypothetical that you have used and given the statutes that you have referenced that the president would be acting in an appropriate way given the Jackson construct, when I think is a good one.
…
HATCH: … Now, do you believe that the president has — whoever is president of the United States — has inherent authority under Article 2 of the Constitution to engage in warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance? Or, in your opinion, does FISA trump Article 2?
HOLDER: Senator, no one is above the law. The president has the constitutional obligation to make sure that the laws are faithfully executed. In rare instances where Congress passes a law that is obviously unconstitutional — if, for instance, Congress were to pass a law that the secretary of defense should be the commander-in-chief, or that women would not have the right to vote — I think that the president in that instance would have the ability to act contrary to a congressional dictate.
…
OK. But back to our prior point, is the president's inherent authority under the Constitution — can that be limited by a statute?
HOLDER: The president's inherent authority. Well...
HATCH: Right.
HOLDER: ... it's...
HATCH: I mean, you're relying on the statute as though that's binding on Article 2 of the Constitution.
HOLDER: Well, the president obviously has powers under the Constitution that cannot be infringed by the legislative branch. That's what I was saying earlier.
There are powers that the president has, and that have been delegated to him that he has. And in the absence — Congress does not have the ability to say, with regard to those powers, you cannot exercise them. There's always the tension in trying to decide where that balance is struck. And I think we see the best result when we see Congress interacting with the president, the executive branch interacting with the legislative branch, and coming up with solutions...
HATCH: That still doesn't negate the fact that the president may have inherent powers under Article 2 that even a statute cannot vary.
HOLDER: Well, sure. The...
HATCH: Do you agree with that statement?
HOLDER: Yes, there are certain things that the president has the constitutional right, authority to do, that the legislative branch cannot impinge upon.
The AG nominee bows on Presidential power
WSJ, Jan 20, 2009
First it was the special surveillance court that we learned last week has affirmed the President's constitutional power to undertake warrantless wiretaps. Now comes Attorney General nominee Eric Holder, who endorsed this executive authority during his confirmation hearing late last week.
During Thursday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Utah's Orrin Hatch read Mr. Holder a passage from a speech the nominee gave to the American Constitution Society in June of last year. Mr. Holder had said, "I never thought I would see that a President would act in direct defiance of federal law by authorizing warrantless NSA surveillance of American citizens," referring to the National Security Agency program. "This disrespect for the law is not only wrong. It is destructive in our struggle against terrorism."
The Republican Senator was sniffing out Mr. Holder's views on executive power under the Constitution and whether Congress can pass laws, such as the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, that limit it. "Do you believe," asked Mr. Hatch, "that the President has -- that whoever is President has -- inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution to engage in warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance? Or, in your opinion, does FISA trump Article II?"
Mr. Holder answered with some political tap dancing. "There's an exclusivity provision in the FISA act that essentially says, as Congress has expressed, this is the exclusive way in which that surveillance should occur," he said. "My speech was taking the Administration to task for not following the dictates of FISA. As I indicated -- I think in response to a previous question -- I think that had the Administration worked with Congress, as we are pledging to do, that tool, a very valuable tool, a very valuable tool, could have been in the arsenal of the Administration without any question about its legality."
Senator Hatch pressed him on this point, resulting in the following exchange:
Mr. Hatch: "Back to my prior point, the President's inherent authority under the Constitution. Can that be limited by a statute? You're relying on a statute as though that's binding on Article II of the Constitution."
Mr. Holder: "Well, the President obviously has powers under the Constitution that cannot be infringed by the legislative branch. That's what I was saying earlier. There are powers that the President has delegated to him -- that he has -- and Congress does not have the ability to say, with regard to those powers, you cannot exercise them. There's always a tension in trying to decide where that balance is struck. And I think we see the best result when we see Congress interacting with the President, the executive branch interacting with the legislative branch and coming up with solutions . . ."
Mr. Hatch: "That still doesn't negate the fact that the President may have inherent powers under Article II that even a statute cannot vary."
Mr. Holder: "Sure."
Mr. Hatch: "Do you agree with that statement?"
Holder: "Yeah. There are certain things that a President has the constitutional right, authority to do, that the legislative branch cannot impinge upon."
Hatch: "Okay."
[More faithfully reproduced questioning in Eric Posner's post at Volokh Conspiracy. See at the end]
So let's see. Mr. Holder now concedes that Presidents have inherent powers that even a statute can't abridge, notwithstanding his campaign speeches. That makes us feel better about a General Holder on national security. But his concession is further evidence that the liberal accusations about "breaking the law" and "illegal wiretaps" of the last several years were mostly about naked partisanship. Mr. Holder's objection turns out to be merely the tactical political one that the Bush Administration would have been better off negotiating with Congress for wiretap approval, not that it was breaking the law. Now he tells us.
---
[Eric Posner's post at Volokh Conspiracy, picking from the NYT transcript]
LEAHY: Do you believe that the president of the United States has authority to exercise a commander-in-chief override and immunize acts of torture? I ask that because we did not get a satisfactory answer from Former Attorney General Gonzales on that.
HOLDER: Mr. Chairman, no one is above the law. The president has a constitutional obligation to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. There are obligations that we have as a result of treaties that we have signed — obligations, obviously, in the Constitution. Where Congress has passed a law, it is the obligation of the president, or the commander-in-chief, to follow those laws.
…
FEINGOLD: … First, what is your view of the president's constitutional authority to authorize violation of the criminal law, duly enact the statutes that may have been on the books for many years when acting as commander-in- chief?
HOLDER: The president, as I've said, is not above the law, has a constitutional obligation to follow the law and execute the laws that this Congress passes. If you look at the Steel Seizure concurrence of Justice Jackson that, I think, sets out in really wonderful form the power that the president has and where the president's power is strongest and where it is weakest.
It is weakest in Category 3 where Congress has indicated something contrary to what the president wants to do. That is where Justice Jackson says the president's power is at its lowest level. And I think — I'm not a constitutional scholar — but I think that there has never been a president who's been upheld when he's tried to act in Category 3. I think, but I'm not sure.
FEINGOLD: I believe that's right. And I want to follow that. Using the construct of Justice Jackson, more specifically, does the president, in your opinion, have the authority, acting as commander- in-chief, to authorize warrantless searches of Americans homes and wiretaps of their conversations in violation of the criminal and foreign intelligence statutes of this country?
HOLDER: I think you're then getting into Category 3 behavior by the president. Justice Jackson did not say that the president did not have any ability to act in Category 3. Although, as I said, I'm not sure there's ever been an instance where (inaudible) courts have said that the president did act appropriately in that category.
It seems to maybe it's difficult it imagine a set of circumstances given the hypothetical that you have used and given the statutes that you have referenced that the president would be acting in an appropriate way given the Jackson construct, when I think is a good one.
…
HATCH: … Now, do you believe that the president has — whoever is president of the United States — has inherent authority under Article 2 of the Constitution to engage in warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance? Or, in your opinion, does FISA trump Article 2?
HOLDER: Senator, no one is above the law. The president has the constitutional obligation to make sure that the laws are faithfully executed. In rare instances where Congress passes a law that is obviously unconstitutional — if, for instance, Congress were to pass a law that the secretary of defense should be the commander-in-chief, or that women would not have the right to vote — I think that the president in that instance would have the ability to act contrary to a congressional dictate.
…
OK. But back to our prior point, is the president's inherent authority under the Constitution — can that be limited by a statute?
HOLDER: The president's inherent authority. Well...
HATCH: Right.
HOLDER: ... it's...
HATCH: I mean, you're relying on the statute as though that's binding on Article 2 of the Constitution.
HOLDER: Well, the president obviously has powers under the Constitution that cannot be infringed by the legislative branch. That's what I was saying earlier.
There are powers that the president has, and that have been delegated to him that he has. And in the absence — Congress does not have the ability to say, with regard to those powers, you cannot exercise them. There's always the tension in trying to decide where that balance is struck. And I think we see the best result when we see Congress interacting with the president, the executive branch interacting with the legislative branch, and coming up with solutions...
HATCH: That still doesn't negate the fact that the president may have inherent powers under Article 2 that even a statute cannot vary.
HOLDER: Well, sure. The...
HATCH: Do you agree with that statement?
HOLDER: Yes, there are certain things that the president has the constitutional right, authority to do, that the legislative branch cannot impinge upon.
Bush's Real Sin Was Winning in Iraq
Bush's Real Sin Was Winning in Iraq, by William McGurn
WSJ, Jan 20, 2009
In a few hours, George W. Bush will walk out of the Oval Office for the last time as president. As he leaves, he carries with him the near-universal opprobrium of the permanent class that inhabits our nation's capital. Yet perhaps the most important reason for this unpopularity is the one least commented on.
Here's a hint: It's not because of his failures. To the contrary, Mr. Bush's disfavor in Washington owes more to his greatest success. Simply put, there are those who will never forgive Mr. Bush for not losing a war they had all declared unwinnable.
Here in the afterglow of the turnaround led by Gen. David Petraeus, it's easy to forget what the smart set was saying two years ago -- and how categorical they all were in their certainty. The president was a simpleton, it was agreed. Didn't he know that Iraq was a civil war, and the only answer was to get out as fast as we could?
The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- the man who will be sworn in as vice president today -- didn't limit himself to his own opinion. Days before the president announced the surge, Joe Biden suggested to the Washington Post he knew the president's people had also concluded the war was lost. They were, he said, just trying to "keep it from totally collapsing" until they could "hand it off to the next guy."
For his part, on the night Mr. Bush announced the surge, Barack Obama said he was "not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq are going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse."
Three months after that, before the surge had even started, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pronounced the war in Iraq "lost." These and similar comments, moreover, were amplified by a media echo chamber even more absolute in its sense of hopelessness about Iraq and its contempt for the president.
For many of these critics, the template for understanding Iraq was Vietnam -- especially after things started to get tough. In terms of the wars themselves, of course, there is almost no parallel between Vietnam and Iraq: The enemies are different, the fighting on the ground is different, the involvement of other powers is different, and so on.
Still, the operating metaphor of Vietnam has never been military. For the most part, it is political. And in this realm, we saw history repeat itself: a failure of nerve among the same class that endorsed the original action.
As with Vietnam, with Iraq the failure of nerve was most clear in Congress. For example, of the five active Democratic senators who sought the nomination, four voted in favor of the Iraqi intervention before discovering their antiwar selves.
As in Vietnam too, rather than finding their judgment questioned, those who flip-flopped on the war were held up as voices of reason. In a memorable editorial advocating a pullout, the New York Times gave voice to the chilling possibilities that this new realism was willing to accept in the name of bringing our soldiers home.
"Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave," read the editorial. "There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide." Even genocide. With no hint of irony, the Times nevertheless went on to conclude that it would be even worse if we stayed.
This is Vietnam thinking. And the president never accepted it. That was why his critics went ape when, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, he touched on the killing fields and exodus of boat people that followed America's humiliating exit off an embassy rooftop. As the Weekly Standard's Matthew Continetti noted, Mr. Bush had appropriated one of their most cherished analogies -- only he drew very different lessons from it.
Mr. Bush's success in Iraq is equally infuriating, because it showed he was right and they wrong. Many in Washington have not yet admitted that, even to themselves. Mr. Obama has. We know he has because he has elected to keep Mr. Bush's secretary of defense -- not something you do with a failure.
Mr. Obama seems aware that, at the end of the day, he will not be judged by his predecessor's approval ratings. Instead, he will soon find himself under pressure to measure up to two Bush achievements: a strategic victory in Iraq, and the prevention of another attack on America's home soil. As he rises to this challenge, our new president will learn that when you make a mistake, the keepers of the Beltway's received orthodoxies will make you pay dearly.
But it will not even be close to the price you pay for ignoring their advice and succeeding.
WSJ, Jan 20, 2009
In a few hours, George W. Bush will walk out of the Oval Office for the last time as president. As he leaves, he carries with him the near-universal opprobrium of the permanent class that inhabits our nation's capital. Yet perhaps the most important reason for this unpopularity is the one least commented on.
Here's a hint: It's not because of his failures. To the contrary, Mr. Bush's disfavor in Washington owes more to his greatest success. Simply put, there are those who will never forgive Mr. Bush for not losing a war they had all declared unwinnable.
Here in the afterglow of the turnaround led by Gen. David Petraeus, it's easy to forget what the smart set was saying two years ago -- and how categorical they all were in their certainty. The president was a simpleton, it was agreed. Didn't he know that Iraq was a civil war, and the only answer was to get out as fast as we could?
The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- the man who will be sworn in as vice president today -- didn't limit himself to his own opinion. Days before the president announced the surge, Joe Biden suggested to the Washington Post he knew the president's people had also concluded the war was lost. They were, he said, just trying to "keep it from totally collapsing" until they could "hand it off to the next guy."
For his part, on the night Mr. Bush announced the surge, Barack Obama said he was "not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq are going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse."
Three months after that, before the surge had even started, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pronounced the war in Iraq "lost." These and similar comments, moreover, were amplified by a media echo chamber even more absolute in its sense of hopelessness about Iraq and its contempt for the president.
For many of these critics, the template for understanding Iraq was Vietnam -- especially after things started to get tough. In terms of the wars themselves, of course, there is almost no parallel between Vietnam and Iraq: The enemies are different, the fighting on the ground is different, the involvement of other powers is different, and so on.
Still, the operating metaphor of Vietnam has never been military. For the most part, it is political. And in this realm, we saw history repeat itself: a failure of nerve among the same class that endorsed the original action.
As with Vietnam, with Iraq the failure of nerve was most clear in Congress. For example, of the five active Democratic senators who sought the nomination, four voted in favor of the Iraqi intervention before discovering their antiwar selves.
As in Vietnam too, rather than finding their judgment questioned, those who flip-flopped on the war were held up as voices of reason. In a memorable editorial advocating a pullout, the New York Times gave voice to the chilling possibilities that this new realism was willing to accept in the name of bringing our soldiers home.
"Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave," read the editorial. "There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide." Even genocide. With no hint of irony, the Times nevertheless went on to conclude that it would be even worse if we stayed.
This is Vietnam thinking. And the president never accepted it. That was why his critics went ape when, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, he touched on the killing fields and exodus of boat people that followed America's humiliating exit off an embassy rooftop. As the Weekly Standard's Matthew Continetti noted, Mr. Bush had appropriated one of their most cherished analogies -- only he drew very different lessons from it.
Mr. Bush's success in Iraq is equally infuriating, because it showed he was right and they wrong. Many in Washington have not yet admitted that, even to themselves. Mr. Obama has. We know he has because he has elected to keep Mr. Bush's secretary of defense -- not something you do with a failure.
Mr. Obama seems aware that, at the end of the day, he will not be judged by his predecessor's approval ratings. Instead, he will soon find himself under pressure to measure up to two Bush achievements: a strategic victory in Iraq, and the prevention of another attack on America's home soil. As he rises to this challenge, our new president will learn that when you make a mistake, the keepers of the Beltway's received orthodoxies will make you pay dearly.
But it will not even be close to the price you pay for ignoring their advice and succeeding.
TNYT: 70% of all contries are more energy efficient than the US
Massive Confusion in the New York Times, by Roger Pielke, Jr.
Prometheus, January 19th, 2009
Today’s New York Times has an editorial in which it claims that:
The plain truth is that the United States is an inefficient user of energy. For each dollar of economic product, the United States spews more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than 75 of 107 countries tracked in the indicators of the International Energy Agency. Those doing better include not only cutting-edge nations like Japan but low-tech countries like Thailand and Mexico.
The first problem with this set of claims is that the New York Times confuses energy efficiency with carbon dioxide intensity of the economy. The second error is that the New York Times uses market exchange rates as the basis for evaluating U.S. carbon dioxide per dollar of GDP against other countries, rather than the more appropriate metric of international GDP comparisons using purchasing power parities.
So the New York Times makes a muddle of reality when it suggests that the United States is an “inefficient user of energy” suggesting that 70% of all contries are more efficient than the United States.
This is just wrong.
Data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration on energy consumption (BTUs) per unit of GDP (PPP) shows that the United States is more efficient than about 68% of all countries. Similarly, the United States emissions of carbon dioxide per unit of GDP is better than 69% of countries.
To be sure, there are a number of countries that make excellent models for how the United States might become more efficient and reduce the carbon intensity of its economy, including Japan and Germany. However, as models to emulate, Mexico and Thailand, as suggested by the Times, are probably not the best examples.
Decarbonizing the economy will be an enormous task. It will be impossible if the problem is fundamentally misunderstood.
Prometheus, January 19th, 2009
Today’s New York Times has an editorial in which it claims that:
The plain truth is that the United States is an inefficient user of energy. For each dollar of economic product, the United States spews more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than 75 of 107 countries tracked in the indicators of the International Energy Agency. Those doing better include not only cutting-edge nations like Japan but low-tech countries like Thailand and Mexico.
The first problem with this set of claims is that the New York Times confuses energy efficiency with carbon dioxide intensity of the economy. The second error is that the New York Times uses market exchange rates as the basis for evaluating U.S. carbon dioxide per dollar of GDP against other countries, rather than the more appropriate metric of international GDP comparisons using purchasing power parities.
So the New York Times makes a muddle of reality when it suggests that the United States is an “inefficient user of energy” suggesting that 70% of all contries are more efficient than the United States.
This is just wrong.
Data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration on energy consumption (BTUs) per unit of GDP (PPP) shows that the United States is more efficient than about 68% of all countries. Similarly, the United States emissions of carbon dioxide per unit of GDP is better than 69% of countries.
To be sure, there are a number of countries that make excellent models for how the United States might become more efficient and reduce the carbon intensity of its economy, including Japan and Germany. However, as models to emulate, Mexico and Thailand, as suggested by the Times, are probably not the best examples.
Decarbonizing the economy will be an enormous task. It will be impossible if the problem is fundamentally misunderstood.
IPCC Teams Up with WorldWatch to Attack Obama
IPCC Teams Up with WorldWatch to Attack Obama, by Roger Pielke, Jr.
Prometheus, January 19th, 2009
The “policy neutral” IPCC is once again making a mockery of its role of an arbiter of scientific information, in favor of all out political advocacy. EurActiv reports the details:
If the world is to tackle the climate threat, the US President-elect must beef up his country’s emissions targets, the head of the leading intergovernmental organisation of climate scientists said last week (15 January).
“President-elect Obama’s goal of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 falls short of the response needed by world leaders to meet the challenge of reducing emissions to levels that will actually spare us the worst effects of climate change,” said Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), at a Worldwatch Institute event.
In a new study on the state of the world in 2009, the institute argues that global CO2 emissions must be reduced to negative figures by 2050 to avoid a looming climate catastrophe.
It calls on the US, a major polluter, to assume leadership by passing national climate legislation and engaging with the international community to achieve a new agreement on halting emissions at next December’s talks in Copenhagen.
“The world is desperately looking for US leadership to slow emissions and create a green economy,” said Christopher Flavin, president of the Worldwatch Institute. “With the Copenhagen climate conference rapidly approaching, this will be a crucial early test for President Obama.”
Pachauri warned that there may not be an “adequate global response” unless the US steps up to the plate. “He ran for the presidency of the United States, so he assumed the responsibility,” the Nobel Prize recipient commented as to the weight of Obama’s task.
Prometheus, January 19th, 2009
The “policy neutral” IPCC is once again making a mockery of its role of an arbiter of scientific information, in favor of all out political advocacy. EurActiv reports the details:
If the world is to tackle the climate threat, the US President-elect must beef up his country’s emissions targets, the head of the leading intergovernmental organisation of climate scientists said last week (15 January).
“President-elect Obama’s goal of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 falls short of the response needed by world leaders to meet the challenge of reducing emissions to levels that will actually spare us the worst effects of climate change,” said Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), at a Worldwatch Institute event.
In a new study on the state of the world in 2009, the institute argues that global CO2 emissions must be reduced to negative figures by 2050 to avoid a looming climate catastrophe.
It calls on the US, a major polluter, to assume leadership by passing national climate legislation and engaging with the international community to achieve a new agreement on halting emissions at next December’s talks in Copenhagen.
“The world is desperately looking for US leadership to slow emissions and create a green economy,” said Christopher Flavin, president of the Worldwatch Institute. “With the Copenhagen climate conference rapidly approaching, this will be a crucial early test for President Obama.”
Pachauri warned that there may not be an “adequate global response” unless the US steps up to the plate. “He ran for the presidency of the United States, so he assumed the responsibility,” the Nobel Prize recipient commented as to the weight of Obama’s task.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Dissident Notes on January 20
Dissident Notes on the Obama Coronation, by David Boaz
Cato at Liberty, January 19, 2009 @ 5:43 pm
It’s wall-to-wall Obama in the newspapers and on the airwaves, and I keep wondering, Was it quite so overwhelming in the run-up to previous inaugurations? I think not. Presumably the gushing media response is generated by some combination of Barack Obama’s being our first African-American president, his being the antidote to an epidemic of Bush Derangement Syndrome, and our growing cult of the presidency. I complained once about people who see the president as “a combination of Superman, Santa Claus, and Mother Teresa,” and this month journalists are leading the way. Even New York Times reporter Helene Cooper, writing the “pool report” for other journalists on Obama’s visit to the Washington Post, noted that “around 100 people–Post reporters perhaps?–awaited PEOTUS’s arrival, cheering and bobbing their coffee cups.” Post reporter Howard Kurtz assured readers that his fellow journalists did gawk, but they did not cheer or applaud.
The Washington Post banners Obama’s “centrist approach.” Even Blue Dog Democrat Jim Cooper says he’s showing “great centrism.” He’s promising to spend a trillion dollars more than the most spendthrift president in history. If he promised to spend two trillion dollars more, would the Post see his program as left-liberal?
For politicians everything is politics: “It has been more than three months since he sat through a Sunday church service and at least five years since he attended regularly, but during the transition, Obama has spoken to religious leaders almost daily. They said Obama calls to seek advice, but rarely is it spiritual. Instead, he asks how to mobilize faith-based communities behind his administration.”
“Nation’s Hopes High for Obama,” says the Washington Post-ABC News poll. Those polled say that they have high expectations for his administration, they think he has a mandate for major new programs, and they like his promise to give virtually everyone some money. Indeed, according to a graphic in the paper but apparently not online, 79 percent of respondents have a favorable impression of Barack Obama, much higher than the numbers for Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, or Bush II as they prepared to take office. In fact, the only modern president whose favorable ratings on the eve of inauguration matched Obama’s was Jimmy Carter. Hmmmmm.
Bob Woodward offers 10 lessons Obama could learn from the mistakes of the Bush administration. One of them is “Righteous motives are not enough for effective policy.” Woodward directs all his lessons at foreign and defense policy, but that’s a good rule for domestic policy too. The fact that a policy sounds right-minded — create jobs, raise the minimum wage, ban sweatshop products, mandate energy efficiency — doesn’t mean that it will work. Economic processes are dynamic, not static. Benefits have costs. Another of Woodward’s rules is “A president must do the homework to master the fundamental ideas and concepts behind his policies.” Again, that applies to economic as well as to foreign policy. Has Obama read any thoughtful criticisms of Keynesian economics or of “job creation” schemes or of renewable-energy mandates? He met with conservative pundits, but has he sat down and listened to any of the many economists who oppose his stimulus plans?
On a lighter note, former “Saturday Night Live” writer and Will Ferrell collaborator Adam McKay discussed Ferrell’s Broadway show, “You’re Welcome America: A Final Night with George W. Bush” with the Washington Post. Asked how he might make Obama-related comedy, McKay said it would be tough because “Obama’s an actual adult who knows how to work.” Let’s see . . . four years ago Obama was voting “present” in the state senate, and now he’s going to be president. His supporters range from journalists who compared him to “the New Testament” to actual voters who exult, “I won’t have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won’t have to worry about paying my mortgage. You know. If I help [Obama], he’s gonna help me.” He himself said that his capture of the Democratic nomination “was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow.” If humorists can’t find some humor there, we need better humorists.
And maybe it’s appropriate that a singer known as “The Boss” headlined the inaugural concert for a candidate whose wife promised, “Barack Obama will require you to work. . . . Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”
Cato at Liberty, January 19, 2009 @ 5:43 pm
It’s wall-to-wall Obama in the newspapers and on the airwaves, and I keep wondering, Was it quite so overwhelming in the run-up to previous inaugurations? I think not. Presumably the gushing media response is generated by some combination of Barack Obama’s being our first African-American president, his being the antidote to an epidemic of Bush Derangement Syndrome, and our growing cult of the presidency. I complained once about people who see the president as “a combination of Superman, Santa Claus, and Mother Teresa,” and this month journalists are leading the way. Even New York Times reporter Helene Cooper, writing the “pool report” for other journalists on Obama’s visit to the Washington Post, noted that “around 100 people–Post reporters perhaps?–awaited PEOTUS’s arrival, cheering and bobbing their coffee cups.” Post reporter Howard Kurtz assured readers that his fellow journalists did gawk, but they did not cheer or applaud.
The Washington Post banners Obama’s “centrist approach.” Even Blue Dog Democrat Jim Cooper says he’s showing “great centrism.” He’s promising to spend a trillion dollars more than the most spendthrift president in history. If he promised to spend two trillion dollars more, would the Post see his program as left-liberal?
For politicians everything is politics: “It has been more than three months since he sat through a Sunday church service and at least five years since he attended regularly, but during the transition, Obama has spoken to religious leaders almost daily. They said Obama calls to seek advice, but rarely is it spiritual. Instead, he asks how to mobilize faith-based communities behind his administration.”
“Nation’s Hopes High for Obama,” says the Washington Post-ABC News poll. Those polled say that they have high expectations for his administration, they think he has a mandate for major new programs, and they like his promise to give virtually everyone some money. Indeed, according to a graphic in the paper but apparently not online, 79 percent of respondents have a favorable impression of Barack Obama, much higher than the numbers for Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, or Bush II as they prepared to take office. In fact, the only modern president whose favorable ratings on the eve of inauguration matched Obama’s was Jimmy Carter. Hmmmmm.
Bob Woodward offers 10 lessons Obama could learn from the mistakes of the Bush administration. One of them is “Righteous motives are not enough for effective policy.” Woodward directs all his lessons at foreign and defense policy, but that’s a good rule for domestic policy too. The fact that a policy sounds right-minded — create jobs, raise the minimum wage, ban sweatshop products, mandate energy efficiency — doesn’t mean that it will work. Economic processes are dynamic, not static. Benefits have costs. Another of Woodward’s rules is “A president must do the homework to master the fundamental ideas and concepts behind his policies.” Again, that applies to economic as well as to foreign policy. Has Obama read any thoughtful criticisms of Keynesian economics or of “job creation” schemes or of renewable-energy mandates? He met with conservative pundits, but has he sat down and listened to any of the many economists who oppose his stimulus plans?
On a lighter note, former “Saturday Night Live” writer and Will Ferrell collaborator Adam McKay discussed Ferrell’s Broadway show, “You’re Welcome America: A Final Night with George W. Bush” with the Washington Post. Asked how he might make Obama-related comedy, McKay said it would be tough because “Obama’s an actual adult who knows how to work.” Let’s see . . . four years ago Obama was voting “present” in the state senate, and now he’s going to be president. His supporters range from journalists who compared him to “the New Testament” to actual voters who exult, “I won’t have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won’t have to worry about paying my mortgage. You know. If I help [Obama], he’s gonna help me.” He himself said that his capture of the Democratic nomination “was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow.” If humorists can’t find some humor there, we need better humorists.
And maybe it’s appropriate that a singer known as “The Boss” headlined the inaugural concert for a candidate whose wife promised, “Barack Obama will require you to work. . . . Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”
Average real hourly wage, 2001-2008
CPI Falls 0.7 Percent in December, Up 0.1 Percent for Year. By Dean Baker
Real wages rose at a 23.4 percent annual rate over the last three months.
CEPR, January 16, 2009
The overall consumer price index fell by 0.7 percent in December, the third consecutive month of sharp declines. As in the prior two months, the main factor was a sharp decline in energy prices, which fell 8.3 percent last month. The core index also declined in December, falling 0.3 percent. Over the last quarter, the overall CPI has fallen at a 12.7 percent annual rate. The core index has fallen at a 0.3 percent annual rate during this period, compared with a 1.8 percent increase over the last year.
The sharp fall in prices over the last few months translates into a very rapid rate of real wage growth, since the rate of nominal wage growth has not been affected much by the downturn yet. Over the last three months, the average real hourly wage for production workers has increased at an incredible 23.4 percent annual rate. Over the last year, the average real hourly wage has risen by 4.5 percent.
Over the eight years of the Bush administration, the average real hourly wage increased by 7.1 percent, almost the exact same as the 7.3 percent increase over the eight years of the Clinton administration.
In addition to the sharp decline in energy prices, there were also sharp declines in the price of several core components. Hotel prices fell by 0.7 percent, new car prices fell by 0.4 percent, and used car prices fell by 0.8 percent. Over the last three months, the prices of these components have fallen at annual rates of 12.9 percent, 5.7 percent, and 19.5 percent.
These declines are being driven directly by oversupply. There was an enormous amount of hotel construction over the last two years. This increase, coupled with plunging demand, is leading to soaring vacancy rates. The collapse of car sales has received considerable attention. In addition to providing stiffer competition for new cars, the lower prices for used cars also mean that many people will lack the money necessary for a down payment on a new car purchase.
Medical care and education costs continued to rise at a moderate pace, with health care costs rising by 0.3 percent in December and education costs rising by 0.5 percent. Over the last three months, prices for these components have increased at a 2.8 percent and 5.2 percent annual rate, respectively. Prices continue to fall sharply at earlier phases of production. The overall finished goods index fell by 1.9 percent in December. It has now dropped at a 24.3 percent annual rate over the last quarter. The core finished goods index rose by 0.2 percent, driven in part by a 1.2 percent rise in car prices. This index increased at a 2.9 percent rate over the last three months.
The core finished goods index is virtually the only index that is showing inflation at the producer level. The overall intermediate goods index fell 4.2 percent in December, while the core index dropped 3.0 percent. Over the last three months these indexes have declined at a 39.7 percent and 24.6 percent annual rate, respectively. The overall crude goods index fell by 5.3 percent while the core index fell 2.2 percent. Over the last quarter these indexes have declined at a 79.4 and 82.5 percent annual rate, respectively.
The rate of price decline in the producer price indexes is truly extraordinary. The sharp pace of price decline primarily reflects the collapse of commodity prices last fall, which is being passed on in later phases of production. It is likely that that these declines will slow or be partially reversed in the near future as the prices of some commodities, most notably oil, have fallen to levels where it is no longer profitable to continue production in many areas. If this happens, there will be some modest price pressure coming from commodities later in the 2009. There is also likely to be some modest price pressure later in the year if the dollar reverses some of its recent gains as financial markets settle down. For these reasons, concerns about deflation are likely exaggerated.
Dean Baker is Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC. CEPR's Prices Byte is published each month upon release of the Bureau of Labor Statistics' reports on the consumer price and the producer price indexes.
Real wages rose at a 23.4 percent annual rate over the last three months.
CEPR, January 16, 2009
The overall consumer price index fell by 0.7 percent in December, the third consecutive month of sharp declines. As in the prior two months, the main factor was a sharp decline in energy prices, which fell 8.3 percent last month. The core index also declined in December, falling 0.3 percent. Over the last quarter, the overall CPI has fallen at a 12.7 percent annual rate. The core index has fallen at a 0.3 percent annual rate during this period, compared with a 1.8 percent increase over the last year.
The sharp fall in prices over the last few months translates into a very rapid rate of real wage growth, since the rate of nominal wage growth has not been affected much by the downturn yet. Over the last three months, the average real hourly wage for production workers has increased at an incredible 23.4 percent annual rate. Over the last year, the average real hourly wage has risen by 4.5 percent.
Over the eight years of the Bush administration, the average real hourly wage increased by 7.1 percent, almost the exact same as the 7.3 percent increase over the eight years of the Clinton administration.
In addition to the sharp decline in energy prices, there were also sharp declines in the price of several core components. Hotel prices fell by 0.7 percent, new car prices fell by 0.4 percent, and used car prices fell by 0.8 percent. Over the last three months, the prices of these components have fallen at annual rates of 12.9 percent, 5.7 percent, and 19.5 percent.
These declines are being driven directly by oversupply. There was an enormous amount of hotel construction over the last two years. This increase, coupled with plunging demand, is leading to soaring vacancy rates. The collapse of car sales has received considerable attention. In addition to providing stiffer competition for new cars, the lower prices for used cars also mean that many people will lack the money necessary for a down payment on a new car purchase.
Medical care and education costs continued to rise at a moderate pace, with health care costs rising by 0.3 percent in December and education costs rising by 0.5 percent. Over the last three months, prices for these components have increased at a 2.8 percent and 5.2 percent annual rate, respectively. Prices continue to fall sharply at earlier phases of production. The overall finished goods index fell by 1.9 percent in December. It has now dropped at a 24.3 percent annual rate over the last quarter. The core finished goods index rose by 0.2 percent, driven in part by a 1.2 percent rise in car prices. This index increased at a 2.9 percent rate over the last three months.
The core finished goods index is virtually the only index that is showing inflation at the producer level. The overall intermediate goods index fell 4.2 percent in December, while the core index dropped 3.0 percent. Over the last three months these indexes have declined at a 39.7 percent and 24.6 percent annual rate, respectively. The overall crude goods index fell by 5.3 percent while the core index fell 2.2 percent. Over the last quarter these indexes have declined at a 79.4 and 82.5 percent annual rate, respectively.
The rate of price decline in the producer price indexes is truly extraordinary. The sharp pace of price decline primarily reflects the collapse of commodity prices last fall, which is being passed on in later phases of production. It is likely that that these declines will slow or be partially reversed in the near future as the prices of some commodities, most notably oil, have fallen to levels where it is no longer profitable to continue production in many areas. If this happens, there will be some modest price pressure coming from commodities later in the 2009. There is also likely to be some modest price pressure later in the year if the dollar reverses some of its recent gains as financial markets settle down. For these reasons, concerns about deflation are likely exaggerated.
Dean Baker is Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC. CEPR's Prices Byte is published each month upon release of the Bureau of Labor Statistics' reports on the consumer price and the producer price indexes.
EPA/CCSP Sea Level Rise Report Already Outdated
Dead On Arrival: EPA/CCSP Sea Level Rise Report Already Outdated
WorldClimateReport, January 19, 2009
On Friday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a report on the implications of future sea level rise on the mid-Atlantic coast (from North Carolina to New York). The report was one of the series of 21-reports commissioned by the U.S. Climate Change Research Program (recall our less than favorable reviews of another recent CCSP product). As with most climate change “assessment reports” from large government and intergovernmental efforts, the science in the report is stale and out-of-date by the time the report is finally published (the EPA’s recent documents in support of its “Advanced Notice of Propsed Rulemaking: Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act” is a prime example).
Here is how the EPA describes the sea level rise scenarios considered in their latest report Coastal Sensitivity to Sea-Level Rise: A Focus on the Mid-Atlantic Region:
• Scenario 1: the twentieth century rate, which is generally 3 to 4 millimeters per year in the mid-Atlantic region (30 to 40 centimeters total by the year 2100);
• Scenario 2: the twentieth century rate plus 2 millimeters per year acceleration (up to 50 centimeters total by 2100);
• Scenario 3: the twentieth century rate plus 7 millimeters per year acceleration (up to 100 centimeters total by 2100).
The twentieth century rate of sea-level rise refers to the local long-term rate of relative sea-level rise [i.e., it includes geologic processes which has resulted in sinking land levels] that has been observed at NOAA National Ocean Service (NOS) tide gauges in the mid-Atlantic study region. Scenario 1 assesses the impacts if future sea level rise occurs at the same rate as was observed over the twentieth century at a particular location. Scenarios 1 and 2 are within the range of those reported in the recent IPCC Report Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, specifically in the chapter Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level, while Scenario 3 exceeds the IPCC scenario range by up to 40 centimeters by 2100. Higher estimates, as suggested by some recent publications, are the basis for Scenario 3. In addition to these three scenarios, some chapters refer to even higher sea-level rise scenarios, such as a 200 centimeter rise over the next few hundred years (a high but plausible estimate if ice sheet melting on Greenland and West Antarctica exceeds IPCC model estimates).
The “higher estimates, as suggested by recent publications” have in fact, been un-suggested by recent-er publications.
Perhaps the recent-est publication applicable to future sea level rise was published on-line last week in Nature Geosciences by researchers Faezeh Nick, Andreas Vieli, Ina Howat, and Ian Joughin—folks who have been examining the processes governing glacial flow rates across Greenland. After collecting observations on the behavior of Greenland’s glaciers as well as on recent climate, Nick and colleagues developed one of the first computer models of dynamic glacial flows. From this model, they could examine the impact that various processes had on flow rate. The primary processes which have been hypothesized to control the flow rate include:
1) basal lubrication—a process by which surface meltwater drains down to the glacier/bedrock interface and increases the flow rates by decreasing the friction at bottom of the glacier. This is a favorite of Al Gore (recall his picture of a moulin on a Greenland glacier with a “massive torrent of fresh meltwater tunneling straight down to the bedrock below the ice”);
2) surface thinning at the glacial margin—a process by which the glacial surface melts from above with leads to a thinning at the end of the glacier which decreases the back pressure and thus allows for faster flow;
3) basal thinning at the glacier margin—a process by which the bottom of a marine-terminating glacier is melted by warming ocean waters leading to a decrease in back pressure (or a release from the ocean floor) and an increase in flow rate and ice discharge.
After carefully working with their model, and relating the modeled glacier behavior to the observed behavior of glaciers for the past several years/decades, Nick et al. came to the conclusion that basal lubrication was not the reason of the increased glacial ice loss in recent years, “our modeling does not support enhanced basal lubrication as the governing process for the observed changes” (Sorry Al). Instead, they found “that the dynamics of outlet glaciers are highly sensitive to near-front conditions and that the recent years of atmospheric or oceanic warming are probably a direct forcing of synchronous dynamic changes observed for many Greenland outlet glaciers.”
So, global warming has apparently been responsible for the recent increase in ice loss from Greenland’s glaciers and contributing to sea level rise—perhaps even to a greater degree than included in the IPCC projections.
Is this a sign of worse things to come? Is the EPA justified in worrying about a sea level rise that far exceeds the IPCC’s upper range of guidance?
Don’t sell the beach house just yet. Nick and colleagues go on to find that short-term rapid increases in discharge rates (such as the ones currently observed) are not stable and that “such extreme mass loss cannot be dynamically maintained in the long term.” In fact, for the one glacier that they studied (Helheim glacier), their model predicts that over the next 50 years, dynamic discharge only exceeds steady-state discharge by about 2%” and that “we suggest that in the long term, non-dynamical processes, such as direct surface melt under a warming climate, may dominate the future mass loss of the Greenland ice sheet.”
For those keeping score, the IPCC estimates that “non-dynamical processes, such as direct surface melt under a warming climate” will be responsible for between 1 and 12 centimeters (0.4 to 4.7 inches) of sea level rise from the Greenland ice sheet this century.
Thus, pointing at Greenland an exclaiming “The sky is…” er, I mean “The sea is rising!” (to any scary degree) is not telling the whole story.
According to the latest recommendations in the scientific literature as given by Nick et al. “Our results imply that the recent rates of mass loss in Greenland’s outlet glaciers are transient and should not be extrapolated into the future.” [emphasis added]
Advice clearly not taken to heart by the EPA/CCSP.
Reference:
Nick, F.M., et al., 2009. Large-scale changes in Greenland outlet glacier dynamics triggered at the terminus. Nature Geoscience, doi:10.1038/NGEO394, published on-line January 11, 2009.
WorldClimateReport, January 19, 2009
On Friday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a report on the implications of future sea level rise on the mid-Atlantic coast (from North Carolina to New York). The report was one of the series of 21-reports commissioned by the U.S. Climate Change Research Program (recall our less than favorable reviews of another recent CCSP product). As with most climate change “assessment reports” from large government and intergovernmental efforts, the science in the report is stale and out-of-date by the time the report is finally published (the EPA’s recent documents in support of its “Advanced Notice of Propsed Rulemaking: Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act” is a prime example).
Here is how the EPA describes the sea level rise scenarios considered in their latest report Coastal Sensitivity to Sea-Level Rise: A Focus on the Mid-Atlantic Region:
• Scenario 1: the twentieth century rate, which is generally 3 to 4 millimeters per year in the mid-Atlantic region (30 to 40 centimeters total by the year 2100);
• Scenario 2: the twentieth century rate plus 2 millimeters per year acceleration (up to 50 centimeters total by 2100);
• Scenario 3: the twentieth century rate plus 7 millimeters per year acceleration (up to 100 centimeters total by 2100).
The twentieth century rate of sea-level rise refers to the local long-term rate of relative sea-level rise [i.e., it includes geologic processes which has resulted in sinking land levels] that has been observed at NOAA National Ocean Service (NOS) tide gauges in the mid-Atlantic study region. Scenario 1 assesses the impacts if future sea level rise occurs at the same rate as was observed over the twentieth century at a particular location. Scenarios 1 and 2 are within the range of those reported in the recent IPCC Report Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, specifically in the chapter Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level, while Scenario 3 exceeds the IPCC scenario range by up to 40 centimeters by 2100. Higher estimates, as suggested by some recent publications, are the basis for Scenario 3. In addition to these three scenarios, some chapters refer to even higher sea-level rise scenarios, such as a 200 centimeter rise over the next few hundred years (a high but plausible estimate if ice sheet melting on Greenland and West Antarctica exceeds IPCC model estimates).
The “higher estimates, as suggested by recent publications” have in fact, been un-suggested by recent-er publications.
Perhaps the recent-est publication applicable to future sea level rise was published on-line last week in Nature Geosciences by researchers Faezeh Nick, Andreas Vieli, Ina Howat, and Ian Joughin—folks who have been examining the processes governing glacial flow rates across Greenland. After collecting observations on the behavior of Greenland’s glaciers as well as on recent climate, Nick and colleagues developed one of the first computer models of dynamic glacial flows. From this model, they could examine the impact that various processes had on flow rate. The primary processes which have been hypothesized to control the flow rate include:
1) basal lubrication—a process by which surface meltwater drains down to the glacier/bedrock interface and increases the flow rates by decreasing the friction at bottom of the glacier. This is a favorite of Al Gore (recall his picture of a moulin on a Greenland glacier with a “massive torrent of fresh meltwater tunneling straight down to the bedrock below the ice”);
2) surface thinning at the glacial margin—a process by which the glacial surface melts from above with leads to a thinning at the end of the glacier which decreases the back pressure and thus allows for faster flow;
3) basal thinning at the glacier margin—a process by which the bottom of a marine-terminating glacier is melted by warming ocean waters leading to a decrease in back pressure (or a release from the ocean floor) and an increase in flow rate and ice discharge.
After carefully working with their model, and relating the modeled glacier behavior to the observed behavior of glaciers for the past several years/decades, Nick et al. came to the conclusion that basal lubrication was not the reason of the increased glacial ice loss in recent years, “our modeling does not support enhanced basal lubrication as the governing process for the observed changes” (Sorry Al). Instead, they found “that the dynamics of outlet glaciers are highly sensitive to near-front conditions and that the recent years of atmospheric or oceanic warming are probably a direct forcing of synchronous dynamic changes observed for many Greenland outlet glaciers.”
So, global warming has apparently been responsible for the recent increase in ice loss from Greenland’s glaciers and contributing to sea level rise—perhaps even to a greater degree than included in the IPCC projections.
Is this a sign of worse things to come? Is the EPA justified in worrying about a sea level rise that far exceeds the IPCC’s upper range of guidance?
Don’t sell the beach house just yet. Nick and colleagues go on to find that short-term rapid increases in discharge rates (such as the ones currently observed) are not stable and that “such extreme mass loss cannot be dynamically maintained in the long term.” In fact, for the one glacier that they studied (Helheim glacier), their model predicts that over the next 50 years, dynamic discharge only exceeds steady-state discharge by about 2%” and that “we suggest that in the long term, non-dynamical processes, such as direct surface melt under a warming climate, may dominate the future mass loss of the Greenland ice sheet.”
For those keeping score, the IPCC estimates that “non-dynamical processes, such as direct surface melt under a warming climate” will be responsible for between 1 and 12 centimeters (0.4 to 4.7 inches) of sea level rise from the Greenland ice sheet this century.
Thus, pointing at Greenland an exclaiming “The sky is…” er, I mean “The sea is rising!” (to any scary degree) is not telling the whole story.
According to the latest recommendations in the scientific literature as given by Nick et al. “Our results imply that the recent rates of mass loss in Greenland’s outlet glaciers are transient and should not be extrapolated into the future.” [emphasis added]
Advice clearly not taken to heart by the EPA/CCSP.
Reference:
Nick, F.M., et al., 2009. Large-scale changes in Greenland outlet glacier dynamics triggered at the terminus. Nature Geoscience, doi:10.1038/NGEO394, published on-line January 11, 2009.
UN: Don't change Afghan strategy
UN to Obama: Don't change Afghan strategy. By Fisnik Abrashi
USAToday, Jan 16, 2009
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — The top U.N. official in Afghanistan said U.S. President-elect Barack Obama should resist calls to change strategy in Afghanistan, urging him instead to focus on implementing the one already being pursued.
Kai Eide said that the incoming U.S. administration "has a unique opportunity to gather strength, gather energy ... and build on the trends we have seen" toward building the Afghan security forces and propping up the country's economy.
"My appeal is not grand strategy discussion, my appeal is concrete implementation effort," Eide told The Associated Press in an interview Thursday inside the U.N. compound in Kabul.
Obama has pledged to withdraw American troops from Iraq and deploy more to Afghanistan, where Taliban and al-Qaida linked militants have made a comeback in recent years.
U.S. Vice President-elect Joe Biden, who toured the region earlier this month, said that "things are going to get tougher in Afghanistan before they're going to get better."
Insurgent attacks in Afghanistan increased in 2008 over the previous year and some 6,400 people — mostly militants — died last year as a result of the insurgency.
The deteriorating situation in Afghanistan has forced the U.S. to plan to rush as many as 30,000 more troops to the central Asian country this year.
They will be joining some 32,000 U.S. troops already there who serve alongside 32,000 other NATO-led and coalition troops — the highest number since the U.S.-led invasion that ousted the Taliban from power in 2001.
Obama has said Afghanistan is one of his top priorities, but his incoming team have not yet disclosed a concrete plan.
Eide, the Norwegian diplomat who has been heading the U.N. mission in Afghanistan for the last nine months, warned against any major change in direction.
"Our problem is not that we need a new strategy. ... What happens very often is that we agree on something, we do not implement it and we say something must therefore be wrong with the strategy," Eide said. "That is not the case. The problem is in the implementation."
Eide said that there have been major improvements in two important sectors — building of local security forces and the economy.
"Every month we are getting better at handling the security situation," he said. "There is a greater momentum in building the key parts of the economy."
Staying the course and implementing the priorities set up at an international conference over six months ago must remain the goal, Eide said.
[...]
USAToday, Jan 16, 2009
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — The top U.N. official in Afghanistan said U.S. President-elect Barack Obama should resist calls to change strategy in Afghanistan, urging him instead to focus on implementing the one already being pursued.
Kai Eide said that the incoming U.S. administration "has a unique opportunity to gather strength, gather energy ... and build on the trends we have seen" toward building the Afghan security forces and propping up the country's economy.
"My appeal is not grand strategy discussion, my appeal is concrete implementation effort," Eide told The Associated Press in an interview Thursday inside the U.N. compound in Kabul.
Obama has pledged to withdraw American troops from Iraq and deploy more to Afghanistan, where Taliban and al-Qaida linked militants have made a comeback in recent years.
U.S. Vice President-elect Joe Biden, who toured the region earlier this month, said that "things are going to get tougher in Afghanistan before they're going to get better."
Insurgent attacks in Afghanistan increased in 2008 over the previous year and some 6,400 people — mostly militants — died last year as a result of the insurgency.
The deteriorating situation in Afghanistan has forced the U.S. to plan to rush as many as 30,000 more troops to the central Asian country this year.
They will be joining some 32,000 U.S. troops already there who serve alongside 32,000 other NATO-led and coalition troops — the highest number since the U.S.-led invasion that ousted the Taliban from power in 2001.
Obama has said Afghanistan is one of his top priorities, but his incoming team have not yet disclosed a concrete plan.
Eide, the Norwegian diplomat who has been heading the U.N. mission in Afghanistan for the last nine months, warned against any major change in direction.
"Our problem is not that we need a new strategy. ... What happens very often is that we agree on something, we do not implement it and we say something must therefore be wrong with the strategy," Eide said. "That is not the case. The problem is in the implementation."
Eide said that there have been major improvements in two important sectors — building of local security forces and the economy.
"Every month we are getting better at handling the security situation," he said. "There is a greater momentum in building the key parts of the economy."
Staying the course and implementing the priorities set up at an international conference over six months ago must remain the goal, Eide said.
[...]
Change.gov: Technology, Innovation and Government Reform
Inside the Transition: Technology, Innovation and Government Reform. By Kate Albright-Hanna
change.gov, Monday, January 19, 2009 02:30pm EST
The Obama Administation’s commitment to reform and transparency is embodied by the one of the Transition’s most dynamic groups—the TIGR (Technology, Innovation and Government Reform) Team.
The experts who serve in TIGR advocated for some of our most innovative features on Change.gov—including the Citizen’s Briefing Book and Seat at the Table. Watch the video and get to know the people behind the ideas—and let us know your reaction to some of the initiatives they’re proposing.
change.gov, Monday, January 19, 2009 02:30pm EST
The Obama Administation’s commitment to reform and transparency is embodied by the one of the Transition’s most dynamic groups—the TIGR (Technology, Innovation and Government Reform) Team.
The experts who serve in TIGR advocated for some of our most innovative features on Change.gov—including the Citizen’s Briefing Book and Seat at the Table. Watch the video and get to know the people behind the ideas—and let us know your reaction to some of the initiatives they’re proposing.
Brit SecDef Derides 'Freeloading' on US/Brit FM criticizes 'George Bush's war on terror'
Weakness Seeks a Friend In Obama Presidency, by Steve Schippert
The Tank/NRO, Jan 16, 2009
Earlier today, I remarked briefly about President Bush's statement in his farewell address to the American people that "If America does not lead the cause of freedom, that cause will not be led." I also noted, in criticizing our NATO allies' military timidity in the face of darkness, that there are a few exceptions. Britain has clearly been one of those exceptions, and the British defense secretary, John Hutton, demonstrates this.
Hutton offered up a scathing rebuke of the timidity of some fellow European NATO allies, who have often committed forces to Afghanistan but deployed them with orders and requirements that they avoid actual combat. He point-blank accused them of "freeloading on the back of U.S. military security." That'll leave a mark. And the Washington Post left that pointed quote for the final paragraph of their story.
"The campaign in Afghanistan is evidence of the limited appetite amongst some European member states for supporting the most active operation NATO has ever been tasked with," he added. "It isn't good enough to always look to the U.S. for political, financial and military cover. . . . Freeloading on the back of U.S. military security is not an option if we wish to be equal partners in this trans-Atlantic alliance."
Meanwhile, typical of the standard fare between our own Departments of Defense and State, Britian's foreign minister, David Miliband, is visiting Pakistan and speaking an altogether different and damaging language, criticizing "George Bush's 'war on terror'" to a receptive and sensitive foreign audience at the heart of a conflict we neither sought nor welcomed. That, too, will leave a mark.
To demonstrate the value of timidity, Pakistan rounded up over one hundred members of Jamaat-ud-Dawa in the hours before his arrival. Jamaat-ud-Dawa is the name assumed by Lashkar-e-Taiba after it was 'banned' by Pakistan and is the group behind the recent Mumbai terrorist attacks in India. When Miliband departs Pakistan, they will be freed from their cells. We've seen this before.
That's not the half of it. From this morning's DailyBriefing, it is clear that the overall condition is rife with weakness; a weakness hoping to find a friend in Barack Obama.
3. New Gates-Petraeus strategy for Afghanistan is meeting stiff resistance from outside Washington, and the UN is pleading with President-elect Obama not to change the current strategy, one which has been roundly criticized in the past for being ineffective.
The march on Washington — and away from our enemies — has already begun. Consider the related stories for context.
AFGHANISTAN
NATO Nations Scolded by Brit SecDef for Shirking Duties In Afghanistan - Washington Post
UN to Obama: Don't change Afghan strategy - AP
Resistance to U.S. Plan for Afghanistan - Washington Post
Top Afghan general dies in helicopter crash - Los Angeles Times
Separate Incident: US: Helicopter crashed in Afghanistan, all survive - AP
PAKISTAN
Pakistan cracks down on Jamaat ud-Dawa in Mumbai probe? - Los Angeles Times
Pakistan crackdown on eve of UK Foreign Minister's visit - The Independent (UK)
UNITED KINGDOM
British FM David Miliband criticizes 'George Bush's war on terror' while in Pakistan - Telegraph
We must hope that such weakness finds no friend in our new president, because President Bush was unfortunately on the mark last night.
In the 21st century, security and prosperity at home depend on the expansion of liberty abroad. If America does not lead the cause of freedom, that cause will not be led.
This much can hardly be disputed. It's right before your eyes.
The Tank/NRO, Jan 16, 2009
Earlier today, I remarked briefly about President Bush's statement in his farewell address to the American people that "If America does not lead the cause of freedom, that cause will not be led." I also noted, in criticizing our NATO allies' military timidity in the face of darkness, that there are a few exceptions. Britain has clearly been one of those exceptions, and the British defense secretary, John Hutton, demonstrates this.
Hutton offered up a scathing rebuke of the timidity of some fellow European NATO allies, who have often committed forces to Afghanistan but deployed them with orders and requirements that they avoid actual combat. He point-blank accused them of "freeloading on the back of U.S. military security." That'll leave a mark. And the Washington Post left that pointed quote for the final paragraph of their story.
"The campaign in Afghanistan is evidence of the limited appetite amongst some European member states for supporting the most active operation NATO has ever been tasked with," he added. "It isn't good enough to always look to the U.S. for political, financial and military cover. . . . Freeloading on the back of U.S. military security is not an option if we wish to be equal partners in this trans-Atlantic alliance."
Meanwhile, typical of the standard fare between our own Departments of Defense and State, Britian's foreign minister, David Miliband, is visiting Pakistan and speaking an altogether different and damaging language, criticizing "George Bush's 'war on terror'" to a receptive and sensitive foreign audience at the heart of a conflict we neither sought nor welcomed. That, too, will leave a mark.
To demonstrate the value of timidity, Pakistan rounded up over one hundred members of Jamaat-ud-Dawa in the hours before his arrival. Jamaat-ud-Dawa is the name assumed by Lashkar-e-Taiba after it was 'banned' by Pakistan and is the group behind the recent Mumbai terrorist attacks in India. When Miliband departs Pakistan, they will be freed from their cells. We've seen this before.
That's not the half of it. From this morning's DailyBriefing, it is clear that the overall condition is rife with weakness; a weakness hoping to find a friend in Barack Obama.
3. New Gates-Petraeus strategy for Afghanistan is meeting stiff resistance from outside Washington, and the UN is pleading with President-elect Obama not to change the current strategy, one which has been roundly criticized in the past for being ineffective.
The march on Washington — and away from our enemies — has already begun. Consider the related stories for context.
AFGHANISTAN
NATO Nations Scolded by Brit SecDef for Shirking Duties In Afghanistan - Washington Post
UN to Obama: Don't change Afghan strategy - AP
Resistance to U.S. Plan for Afghanistan - Washington Post
Top Afghan general dies in helicopter crash - Los Angeles Times
Separate Incident: US: Helicopter crashed in Afghanistan, all survive - AP
PAKISTAN
Pakistan cracks down on Jamaat ud-Dawa in Mumbai probe? - Los Angeles Times
Pakistan crackdown on eve of UK Foreign Minister's visit - The Independent (UK)
UNITED KINGDOM
British FM David Miliband criticizes 'George Bush's war on terror' while in Pakistan - Telegraph
We must hope that such weakness finds no friend in our new president, because President Bush was unfortunately on the mark last night.
In the 21st century, security and prosperity at home depend on the expansion of liberty abroad. If America does not lead the cause of freedom, that cause will not be led.
This much can hardly be disputed. It's right before your eyes.
How Energy Efficiency Can Ensure the Green Recovery Will Leave No One Behind
How Energy Efficiency Can Ensure the Green Recovery Will Leave No One Behind. By Charles K. Ebinger, Director, Energy Security Initiative
Brookings, Jan 16, 2009
Thirty two years ago this past October, Amory Lovins, in his Foreign Affairs article “Soft Energy Paths: The Road Not Taken,” alerted the world to how energy efficiency and conservation can transform the way the global economy wastes energy through over-reliance on centralized facilities requiring the movement of energy over long distances from where it is produced to where it is consumed. The potential of energy efficiency and conservation is demonstrated by the fact that since 1980, California has kept energy consumption flat – even as the state’s population doubled. Similarly, while the United States has dawdled in its promotion of energy efficiency, Europe has made its economy nearly twice as energy efficient as ours.
Despite notable advances in the efficiency of energy production, transportation and consumption, President-elect Obama needs to make energy efficiency and conservation the cornerstone of both his economic stimulus program, which is designed to revitalize the American economy and create American jobs, and his Energy Efficiency Plan, designed to address climate change while improving the security of the nation’s electricity grid. These programs, taken in tandem, will provide jobs, put more money in consumer wallets, reduce the need for additional expensive generating capacity to meet peak load electricity demand, and reduce carbon emissions.
While TARP 1, 2 and 3 were designed to stabilize financial markets and get our credit markets working again, to date they have been singular failures given Congress’ inability to force the Treasury to make the extension of credit to homeowners a mandatory obligation for receiving $360 billion in tax payer “investments.” Given that FERC Chairman Joseph Kelliher has stated that, with an investment of $220 billion over ten years, the nation’s electricity infrastructure could be rebuilt into a fully-integrated national grid, one has to query whether the American taxpayer got the “biggest bang for the buck.” A national electricity grid will provide thousands of construction jobs, allow the full utilization of the nation’s wind and solar resources, reduce the need for fossil fuel plants, and lower carbon emissions.
To insure that not only the middle class but also those making $50,000 or less benefit from the stimulus programs, President Obama’s economic revitalization plan should include the expenditure of $150 billion, supplemented by requisite state and municipal policies to affect the following policies:
Brookings, Jan 16, 2009
Thirty two years ago this past October, Amory Lovins, in his Foreign Affairs article “Soft Energy Paths: The Road Not Taken,” alerted the world to how energy efficiency and conservation can transform the way the global economy wastes energy through over-reliance on centralized facilities requiring the movement of energy over long distances from where it is produced to where it is consumed. The potential of energy efficiency and conservation is demonstrated by the fact that since 1980, California has kept energy consumption flat – even as the state’s population doubled. Similarly, while the United States has dawdled in its promotion of energy efficiency, Europe has made its economy nearly twice as energy efficient as ours.
Despite notable advances in the efficiency of energy production, transportation and consumption, President-elect Obama needs to make energy efficiency and conservation the cornerstone of both his economic stimulus program, which is designed to revitalize the American economy and create American jobs, and his Energy Efficiency Plan, designed to address climate change while improving the security of the nation’s electricity grid. These programs, taken in tandem, will provide jobs, put more money in consumer wallets, reduce the need for additional expensive generating capacity to meet peak load electricity demand, and reduce carbon emissions.
While TARP 1, 2 and 3 were designed to stabilize financial markets and get our credit markets working again, to date they have been singular failures given Congress’ inability to force the Treasury to make the extension of credit to homeowners a mandatory obligation for receiving $360 billion in tax payer “investments.” Given that FERC Chairman Joseph Kelliher has stated that, with an investment of $220 billion over ten years, the nation’s electricity infrastructure could be rebuilt into a fully-integrated national grid, one has to query whether the American taxpayer got the “biggest bang for the buck.” A national electricity grid will provide thousands of construction jobs, allow the full utilization of the nation’s wind and solar resources, reduce the need for fossil fuel plants, and lower carbon emissions.
To insure that not only the middle class but also those making $50,000 or less benefit from the stimulus programs, President Obama’s economic revitalization plan should include the expenditure of $150 billion, supplemented by requisite state and municipal policies to affect the following policies:
- Seize all abandoned buildings in the United States’ four poorest cities (Miami, Newark, Cleveland and Detroit) – on a pilot program basis and under a new eminent domain federal statute to be passed by Congress – and retrofit them with the most commercially cost-effective energy efficiency construction, lighting and appliance technologies. Upon completion, lease them for 40 years to credit-worthy families making under $50,000 per year at rates not to exceed 15% of after-tax family income indexed for inflation.
- Refine a model program in effect in Berkeley, California by enacting a low-interest (2%) 30-year loan for up to 100% of the cost of home and small business energy retrofits that will save at least 35% of total energy utilization against the average consumption of the previous 3 years. Such loans would lead to new technological innovations as local small business entrepreneurs respond to these incentives by creating jobs, putting money into consumers wallets from the energy savings achieved, and revitalizing work in communities across the nation.
- Enact a low-interest loan (5% indexed for inflation for a period of 30 years) under a new “Revitalize American Home and Hearth Act,” with the government fronting the capital cost for the installation of solar roofs on medium and large-scale commercial buildings that can obtain an energy savings of at least 25% based on the average consumption during the previous three years. The commercial firms would rebate to the government not only the interest, but 25% of the energy savings during the life of the loan.
- Issue on a one-time basis 14 million car purchase certificates (the average number projected for future demand for cars) for $10,000 and good for 7 years for the purchase of American-produced automobiles, including foreign brands, getting an average of 55 miles per gallon (based on highway and city driving). The creation of these permits would spark entrepreneurial innovation and create jobs.
- Accelerate spending on mass transit and rail in the transportation sector, modeled on a recent Federal Transit Report demonstrating that that low-income households in urban, walkable neighborhoods spend just 9% of their incomes on transportation, while those in car-oriented neighborhoods spend a whopping 25%.
- Enact a program to pay the “black book” value for any car ten years or older that can then be junked and the scrap recycled with payments to the Government.
Post mortem with President Bush's point man on science, John Marburger
After the Storm, by Adam Bly & TJ Kelleher
An exclusive and revealing post mortem with President Bush's point man on science, John Marburger.
Seed Magazine, January 13, 2009 08:33 AM
Excerpts:
Seed: So let's start big. What is the state of science in America?
[...]
JM: All right. America continues to lead the world in its investments in science, in virtually every field. Although we have about 5 percent of the world's population, we employ about 20 percent of the world's scientists and engineers. No large country other than Japan devotes as much of its GDP to research and development as the US. On the federal level, about half is in the Department of Defense. The other half is the nondefense research. Nondefense research is always a constant fraction of the nondefense discretionary budget, so as the discretionary budget grows or shrinks, the budget for nondefense science grows or shrinks along with it. That pattern has held for four decades, and I expect that to continue.
There are some imbalances in funding. When the Cold War ended, support for physical science, engineering, math, and computer science really flattened out. But with that leveling off, the support for biomedical research was growing steadily, as it had been during the Cold War. In recent years the NIH budget doubled; 60 percent of that money was provided by this administration. The president embraced it as he had a number of things, including nanotechnology and information technology initiatives, that actually had their seeds in the previous administration.
Seed: Could we take the budgetary dimension out of the equation for a moment?
JM: That's very hard to do. The health of science depends on having money for people and facilities and infrastructure that science needs to fly. It's a major aspect, probably the primary aspect of science health.
Seed: But would you acknowledge that another aspect of the state of science is a culture of science? Could you compare the culture of science in America eight years ago to today?
JM: Virtually unchanged, as far as I'm concerned. Science has its own culture. And it's a relatively nonpolitical, almost apolitical, culture. We've seen some increased visibility of the science community during the Bush administration. I think that was part of a political strategy of the Democratic Party, which was somewhat successful, to undermine the credibility of the Bush administration by fixing on these issues. His position on stem cells was attacked as a scientific position, when in fact it's an ethical position. He was attacked for his position on the Kyoto protocol, despite its serious flaws, and the fact that the Senate had already refused to ratify it. But the way it was handled gave an opportunity to the detractors of the president to use those issues to portray the administration as negative toward science.
Seed: So there's no merit to those criticisms?
JM: That image is an urban legend. He made federal money available for embryonic stem cell research for the first time. Furthermore, his State of the Union addresses as well as other speeches often emphasized technology and how important it was. When he unveiled his American Competitiveness Initiative, he stated clearly that it was important to double the budgets for the agencies that did the most critical basic research in physical science.
Seed: Is America still competitive with the rest of the world in science and technology?
JM: The concerns are not about the present. The concern is all about the future. And certainly, the longest term issue in competitiveness is the preparation of a technical workforce. The weakness is manifest in the first place by the rate at which young people choose to go into technical careers of any sort. The No Child Left Behind Act, like other initiatives in science and education that the president has launched, sought to address that lack of preparation. The main criticisms tend to be that it has not been enough.
The quality of science education is very poor because we don't have qualified teachers in the classrooms. Important components of No Child Left Behind and also the American Competitiveness Initiative were designed to address that. The quality of teaching in science and mathematics needs to be enhanced in the US, absolutely.
Seed: Okay. Let's compare that with the state of science in the world.
JM: About a third of the world's R&D is performed in North America, nearly all of it in the US. About a third in Europe and about a third in Asia. Asia is dominated by Japan and now China. North America is dominated by the US. In Europe it is more balanced. Europe is trying to forge coherence in its very fragmented system of education and research, and doing a pretty good job of it. Then there is this huge north/south split. There is emerging research in South Africa, Brazil, Indonesia, Southeast Asia, but it is tiny, and the infrastructure is growing slowly. The percentage of GDP devoted to research in those countries is very small.
Those are areas that we should be concerned about, because investments in science and technology are important stabilizing features for the economies, and they are important nucleations for development programs. You don't have to have people working on particle physics or cosmology in Africa, but you need people who understand them to act as role models and attract young people into technical studies.
Seed: Did America's strategy on science as a soft power change at all over the past eight years?
JM: Many countries pursue science as soft power, but America is unique among nations in this respect. After World War II, the US alone had the remaining economic capacity to develop the opportunities presented by science. Consequently, the world sent its aspiring scientists to us. Because of that, we haven't had to have a focused office of international science diplomacy. It is happening, and it is happening probably more powerfully than for any other country. Whenever I travel to other countries, I see colleagues and students of mine and other faculty. Now some of those students are getting a little old, and I'd like to see more and younger ones.
Seed: How does the US get more?
JM: It should be easier to get into the US as a student. And it should be easier to stay here and become a citizen if you want to, after you get an advanced degree. The president has some very interesting ideas about immigration, which are way out in front of his own party. I wish Democrats had supported them more strongly.
In any case, we've got soft diplomacy. We only have to avoid stepping on our own toes to let it work. By that I mean to be cautious about the post 9/11 provisions that we've made for homeland security. We really need to be careful about our openness to the world.
Seed: Has the US missed an opportunity to enhance American soft power by building something like the Large Hadron Collider?
JM: I don't think so. The US is actually — in a way, unfortunately — dominating the science community at CERN. And the CERN people are a little bit uncomfortable about that. And anyway, that's only one instrument. There are these lovely pictures of protein structures and glowing fish, for which two Americans just got the Nobel Prize. And you've got Hubble and the Mars rovers.
We have ongoing imaginative technological sagas that are capturing the world's attention. The world doesn't always connect them with the US, but the US is the primary player, even on questions like climate science. This is American science.
The biggest threat to that science is the inexorable growth of the mandatory budget for Social Security, Medicare, and other programs. The growth of the mandatory budget is squeezing everything. It is squeezing science, infrastructure, renewal. If not for that, we wouldn't have all these priority decisions to make. We could double NIH and NSF and NASA and everything else in reasonable amount of time. But the fact is that our discretionary budget is not increasing at the same rate as our economy or the needs and aspirations of our society. We have got to do something about it.
Seed: Our magazine has advanced the idea that we must consider science not simply as a thing that we fund, but as a lens through which we should look at the world. Does the structure of science advice to government correlate with the place of science in the world?
JM: Yes, it does. This is an area of vast ignorance because the majority of people motivated to understand science policy and the structure of science advice are government employees. Those are the people who are motivated to understand this stuff. What they know — what the science community at large does not — is that the structure of science advice reflects the full panoply of government activities in a very sophisticated way. Most of what we do here is to coordinate this vast machinery of science in government so that it produces a coherent science program.
When I want to know what to tell the president, I go to NOAA, I go to NASA, I go to NSF, I go to the Department of Energy and bring the right guys in. If I want to learn about climate change, I go to Jim Hansen. Jim Hansen has his own personal point of view. He will tell you that it's his own personal point of view that there's a tipping point, that we can't go over a certain atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. That's fine. As long as he makes it clear that that's his opinion, it's fine with me. He's a controversial person because he's one of the few scientists who's willing to state his opinion. It makes me a little nervous because of his authority as a scientist. Whenever science is recruited in the service of opinion, it makes me very nervous. Everybody wants to use the credibility of science to bolster their opinions. And I don't like that. I try to avoid getting into that trap in this office.
Seed: Did you see President Bush ever change his mind based on the scientific evidence that you presented him?
JM: As far as I can tell, the president, as a matter of principle, doesn't think it's wise to defy nature. By the time I've arranged a presentation about something for the president, all science questions have been resolved. And he expects it. He would probably fire me if I permitted a science question to leak into his briefings. I'm there to make sure that his advisors and his agencies have consulted with the science community, and that all the science issues have been taken care of before anything gets to him.
Seed: Was there a dimension, an approach, or a philosophy held by the president's other advisors that most commonly confronted your advice?
JM: I only give advice about science. I don't give advice about politics or foreign affairs or economics or legal affairs. I stay out of those things. All of the issues that the president needs to decide are in those domains. They are not in my domain. The president doesn't need to make decisions about science. Science does not tell you how to implement policies, except in rare cases. And the real tough part of governing is implementing.
I mean, the tough issues, about climate, for example, are not about whether the Earth is warming or whether it is caused by humans; the real question is how do you go about addressing the problem at a scale that is significant enough to make a difference.
Seed: Except if it takes an extra day or year or term to accept those scientific conclusions as foundational to economic or political strategy, doesn't that seem to be in violation of the principles of science?
JM: The president has had a very practical approach to a response to climate change. In 2001, before I came to Washington, the president established the Federal Climate Science Program to punch up our knowledge and focus on the remaining uncertainties in the science, and he started an initiative in climate technology, which was the seed for lots of subsequent energy initiatives, including the most recent advanced energy initiative. The president reentered ITER, the international nuclear fusion program. He has encouraged the use of nuclear power. Those were decisions that were made by the president.
The president has not said that we have to wait until the certainties are resolved before we do something about climate change. He has actually said just the opposite. It is not easy for me to understand how the public discourse can get so off track as to hold that the president says, "Oh, let's do more research, so we don't have to take any action."
Seed: Why do you think the public holds the belief that it does?
JM: That's actually a science question. I've read a wonderful book called Predictably Irrational, by Daniel Ariely, that addresses this. This is something marketing people, political consultants, and politicians know about, almost instinctively: informational cascades. Scientists, I think, are particularly vulnerable to the informational cascade phenomenon. They know who the good scientists are, and when a good scientist says something, the others tend to say, "Gee, I know he is smart or she is smart, so what he's saying must be right." So it doesn't take too much to tilt a community like this toward a mythology or a mistaken impression. In the absence of some strong rebuttal, I think it is likely to take root in the media environment that we have today.
Seed: Have you ever been troubled by the degree to which science informed the decision about a nonscientific subject?
JM: My job is to make sure that the president understands the issues. I think he has understood every science issue that I have ever talked with him about. Actually, I think he's understood well, much better than people would imagine.
[...]
Seed: What challenges will President-elect Obama face? What advice would you give him and his science advisor?
JM: President-elect Obama, godspeed to him, will face similar difficulties. He ran such a perfect campaign, I hesitate to give him any advice. But, I would say, have respect for the science and for the structures that generations of his predecessors have labored to put in place to make science work for America.
An exclusive and revealing post mortem with President Bush's point man on science, John Marburger.
Seed Magazine, January 13, 2009 08:33 AM
Excerpts:
Seed: So let's start big. What is the state of science in America?
[...]
JM: All right. America continues to lead the world in its investments in science, in virtually every field. Although we have about 5 percent of the world's population, we employ about 20 percent of the world's scientists and engineers. No large country other than Japan devotes as much of its GDP to research and development as the US. On the federal level, about half is in the Department of Defense. The other half is the nondefense research. Nondefense research is always a constant fraction of the nondefense discretionary budget, so as the discretionary budget grows or shrinks, the budget for nondefense science grows or shrinks along with it. That pattern has held for four decades, and I expect that to continue.
There are some imbalances in funding. When the Cold War ended, support for physical science, engineering, math, and computer science really flattened out. But with that leveling off, the support for biomedical research was growing steadily, as it had been during the Cold War. In recent years the NIH budget doubled; 60 percent of that money was provided by this administration. The president embraced it as he had a number of things, including nanotechnology and information technology initiatives, that actually had their seeds in the previous administration.
Seed: Could we take the budgetary dimension out of the equation for a moment?
JM: That's very hard to do. The health of science depends on having money for people and facilities and infrastructure that science needs to fly. It's a major aspect, probably the primary aspect of science health.
Seed: But would you acknowledge that another aspect of the state of science is a culture of science? Could you compare the culture of science in America eight years ago to today?
JM: Virtually unchanged, as far as I'm concerned. Science has its own culture. And it's a relatively nonpolitical, almost apolitical, culture. We've seen some increased visibility of the science community during the Bush administration. I think that was part of a political strategy of the Democratic Party, which was somewhat successful, to undermine the credibility of the Bush administration by fixing on these issues. His position on stem cells was attacked as a scientific position, when in fact it's an ethical position. He was attacked for his position on the Kyoto protocol, despite its serious flaws, and the fact that the Senate had already refused to ratify it. But the way it was handled gave an opportunity to the detractors of the president to use those issues to portray the administration as negative toward science.
Seed: So there's no merit to those criticisms?
JM: That image is an urban legend. He made federal money available for embryonic stem cell research for the first time. Furthermore, his State of the Union addresses as well as other speeches often emphasized technology and how important it was. When he unveiled his American Competitiveness Initiative, he stated clearly that it was important to double the budgets for the agencies that did the most critical basic research in physical science.
Seed: Is America still competitive with the rest of the world in science and technology?
JM: The concerns are not about the present. The concern is all about the future. And certainly, the longest term issue in competitiveness is the preparation of a technical workforce. The weakness is manifest in the first place by the rate at which young people choose to go into technical careers of any sort. The No Child Left Behind Act, like other initiatives in science and education that the president has launched, sought to address that lack of preparation. The main criticisms tend to be that it has not been enough.
The quality of science education is very poor because we don't have qualified teachers in the classrooms. Important components of No Child Left Behind and also the American Competitiveness Initiative were designed to address that. The quality of teaching in science and mathematics needs to be enhanced in the US, absolutely.
Seed: Okay. Let's compare that with the state of science in the world.
JM: About a third of the world's R&D is performed in North America, nearly all of it in the US. About a third in Europe and about a third in Asia. Asia is dominated by Japan and now China. North America is dominated by the US. In Europe it is more balanced. Europe is trying to forge coherence in its very fragmented system of education and research, and doing a pretty good job of it. Then there is this huge north/south split. There is emerging research in South Africa, Brazil, Indonesia, Southeast Asia, but it is tiny, and the infrastructure is growing slowly. The percentage of GDP devoted to research in those countries is very small.
Those are areas that we should be concerned about, because investments in science and technology are important stabilizing features for the economies, and they are important nucleations for development programs. You don't have to have people working on particle physics or cosmology in Africa, but you need people who understand them to act as role models and attract young people into technical studies.
Seed: Did America's strategy on science as a soft power change at all over the past eight years?
JM: Many countries pursue science as soft power, but America is unique among nations in this respect. After World War II, the US alone had the remaining economic capacity to develop the opportunities presented by science. Consequently, the world sent its aspiring scientists to us. Because of that, we haven't had to have a focused office of international science diplomacy. It is happening, and it is happening probably more powerfully than for any other country. Whenever I travel to other countries, I see colleagues and students of mine and other faculty. Now some of those students are getting a little old, and I'd like to see more and younger ones.
Seed: How does the US get more?
JM: It should be easier to get into the US as a student. And it should be easier to stay here and become a citizen if you want to, after you get an advanced degree. The president has some very interesting ideas about immigration, which are way out in front of his own party. I wish Democrats had supported them more strongly.
In any case, we've got soft diplomacy. We only have to avoid stepping on our own toes to let it work. By that I mean to be cautious about the post 9/11 provisions that we've made for homeland security. We really need to be careful about our openness to the world.
Seed: Has the US missed an opportunity to enhance American soft power by building something like the Large Hadron Collider?
JM: I don't think so. The US is actually — in a way, unfortunately — dominating the science community at CERN. And the CERN people are a little bit uncomfortable about that. And anyway, that's only one instrument. There are these lovely pictures of protein structures and glowing fish, for which two Americans just got the Nobel Prize. And you've got Hubble and the Mars rovers.
We have ongoing imaginative technological sagas that are capturing the world's attention. The world doesn't always connect them with the US, but the US is the primary player, even on questions like climate science. This is American science.
The biggest threat to that science is the inexorable growth of the mandatory budget for Social Security, Medicare, and other programs. The growth of the mandatory budget is squeezing everything. It is squeezing science, infrastructure, renewal. If not for that, we wouldn't have all these priority decisions to make. We could double NIH and NSF and NASA and everything else in reasonable amount of time. But the fact is that our discretionary budget is not increasing at the same rate as our economy or the needs and aspirations of our society. We have got to do something about it.
Seed: Our magazine has advanced the idea that we must consider science not simply as a thing that we fund, but as a lens through which we should look at the world. Does the structure of science advice to government correlate with the place of science in the world?
JM: Yes, it does. This is an area of vast ignorance because the majority of people motivated to understand science policy and the structure of science advice are government employees. Those are the people who are motivated to understand this stuff. What they know — what the science community at large does not — is that the structure of science advice reflects the full panoply of government activities in a very sophisticated way. Most of what we do here is to coordinate this vast machinery of science in government so that it produces a coherent science program.
When I want to know what to tell the president, I go to NOAA, I go to NASA, I go to NSF, I go to the Department of Energy and bring the right guys in. If I want to learn about climate change, I go to Jim Hansen. Jim Hansen has his own personal point of view. He will tell you that it's his own personal point of view that there's a tipping point, that we can't go over a certain atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. That's fine. As long as he makes it clear that that's his opinion, it's fine with me. He's a controversial person because he's one of the few scientists who's willing to state his opinion. It makes me a little nervous because of his authority as a scientist. Whenever science is recruited in the service of opinion, it makes me very nervous. Everybody wants to use the credibility of science to bolster their opinions. And I don't like that. I try to avoid getting into that trap in this office.
Seed: Did you see President Bush ever change his mind based on the scientific evidence that you presented him?
JM: As far as I can tell, the president, as a matter of principle, doesn't think it's wise to defy nature. By the time I've arranged a presentation about something for the president, all science questions have been resolved. And he expects it. He would probably fire me if I permitted a science question to leak into his briefings. I'm there to make sure that his advisors and his agencies have consulted with the science community, and that all the science issues have been taken care of before anything gets to him.
Seed: Was there a dimension, an approach, or a philosophy held by the president's other advisors that most commonly confronted your advice?
JM: I only give advice about science. I don't give advice about politics or foreign affairs or economics or legal affairs. I stay out of those things. All of the issues that the president needs to decide are in those domains. They are not in my domain. The president doesn't need to make decisions about science. Science does not tell you how to implement policies, except in rare cases. And the real tough part of governing is implementing.
I mean, the tough issues, about climate, for example, are not about whether the Earth is warming or whether it is caused by humans; the real question is how do you go about addressing the problem at a scale that is significant enough to make a difference.
Seed: Except if it takes an extra day or year or term to accept those scientific conclusions as foundational to economic or political strategy, doesn't that seem to be in violation of the principles of science?
JM: The president has had a very practical approach to a response to climate change. In 2001, before I came to Washington, the president established the Federal Climate Science Program to punch up our knowledge and focus on the remaining uncertainties in the science, and he started an initiative in climate technology, which was the seed for lots of subsequent energy initiatives, including the most recent advanced energy initiative. The president reentered ITER, the international nuclear fusion program. He has encouraged the use of nuclear power. Those were decisions that were made by the president.
The president has not said that we have to wait until the certainties are resolved before we do something about climate change. He has actually said just the opposite. It is not easy for me to understand how the public discourse can get so off track as to hold that the president says, "Oh, let's do more research, so we don't have to take any action."
Seed: Why do you think the public holds the belief that it does?
JM: That's actually a science question. I've read a wonderful book called Predictably Irrational, by Daniel Ariely, that addresses this. This is something marketing people, political consultants, and politicians know about, almost instinctively: informational cascades. Scientists, I think, are particularly vulnerable to the informational cascade phenomenon. They know who the good scientists are, and when a good scientist says something, the others tend to say, "Gee, I know he is smart or she is smart, so what he's saying must be right." So it doesn't take too much to tilt a community like this toward a mythology or a mistaken impression. In the absence of some strong rebuttal, I think it is likely to take root in the media environment that we have today.
Seed: Have you ever been troubled by the degree to which science informed the decision about a nonscientific subject?
JM: My job is to make sure that the president understands the issues. I think he has understood every science issue that I have ever talked with him about. Actually, I think he's understood well, much better than people would imagine.
[...]
Seed: What challenges will President-elect Obama face? What advice would you give him and his science advisor?
JM: President-elect Obama, godspeed to him, will face similar difficulties. He ran such a perfect campaign, I hesitate to give him any advice. But, I would say, have respect for the science and for the structures that generations of his predecessors have labored to put in place to make science work for America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
