Archive for March, 2007

Edwardses Reject Sympathy Votes, Defend His Decision to Stay in Race

March 26, 2007

“John Edwards says voters should not throw him their support just because his wife has cancer.” Associated Press Monday, March 26, 2007; Page A02 Washington Post.

Comment

Edwards is in the top 1 percent getting 20 percent of national income. Before 1920’s immigration restriction the top 1 percent got 20 percent of each year’s national income. Then they got 10 percent and after the 1965 Immigraton Act are back to 20 percent.

Edwards is against the working class and middle class on immigration which is a main driver of income inequality. Labor can’t be moved if there is no immigration and so can’t be pauperized by immigration
if we have zero legal immigration.

Edwards says he is for the little guy but is against him on immigration. men’s median wages
are lower than in 1973. Edwards is for immigration to keep it that way. Did Edwards lie to juries like he lies to us about being for the working man?

Edwards is in the top 1 percent who get 20 percent of the income each year right now. He is for himself
on immigration to keep getting 20 percent of what we make. He doesn’t make it, we make it and he gets 20 percent of what we make. He wants that to continue. He lies when he says he is for us.

read more | digg story

Obstacle or Opportunity?

March 26, 2007

“How the Palestinian unity government offers a path to peace.” By Daoud Kuttab
Monday, March 26, 2007; Page A15 Washington Post.

Comment:

Christians and Jews have a moral, legal and historic right to live in the Middle East. But they have been cleansed in every Muslim land including Turkey. Christians and Jews each need a viable state. For Jews that is Greater Israel including the Golan Heights, West Bank and Gaza. Jews have already been swapped out of Muslim lands. Now those same Muslim lands must take all the Muslims in the West Bank and Gaza and Lebanon.

Lebanon and Israel are two small consolation prizes for Christians and Jews who once had almost the entire Muslim Arab world before they were attacked in 622 AD in pogroms on Jews by Muhammad.

read more | digg story

Bloomberg is Eyeing ’08, Observers Say

March 26, 2007

“New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a self-made billionaire, has told friends more than once that his definition of good financial planning is making sure the check to the undertaker bounces when it’s finally time to go.” from Michael D. Shear Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, March 26, 2007; Page A01

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007032501334&start=21

Comments below.

quote New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a self-made billionaire, has told friends more than once that his definition of good financial planning is making sure the check to the undertaker bounces when it’s finally time to go. end quote.

Isn’t this why we are in this problem? Mass extinction of species is going on, even if you are a skeptic that CO2 causes global warming. Earth is overpopulated.

After Clinton left, the Muslim immigrants he let in after the WTC 93 attack did 9-11 2001 on Bush’s watch. The WTC 93 attack was done by immigrants that Bush Sr. let in, and the attack came during Clinton’s presidency. This attitude is literally killing us.

We don’t need another president with that attitude. We need an Eisenhower, someone who makes the country work better after he left than before he got there.

read more | digg story

Re: Ted Kenndy No Retreat on School Reform

March 26, 2007

“We can improve No Child Left Behind by building on what we’ve learned over the past five years.”
from “No Retreat on School Reform” an article by By Edward M. Kennedy in the Washington Post, Monday, March 26, 2007; Page A15. Comments below.

==

Income inequality is U shaped in the 20th century as a function of time. The top 1 percent got 20 percent of each year’s income before 1920’s restriction on immigration. From then to a few years after 1965 they got 10 percent. Now its back up to 20 percent from legal immigration from Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act. Kennedy is the 8th richest senator. McCain is 7th. Of the top 8 richest senators all but one voted for McCain Kennedy S. 2611. Rockefeller didn’t vote. None of the top 8 voted against it, because they are in the top 1 percent that get 20 percent of the income.

==

Men’s median wages peaked in 1973. Search p60-231.pdf graph on page 18. It is on census.gov. It shows that men’s median wages have been flat since 1973. This is caused by immigration. Also search on census income inequality graph to see links to the U shaped graphs on income inequality.

==

The reason schools don’t work is we don’t have 2 parent families that are stable, i.e. the man has a stable job with benefits. Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act took that away. In 1960, 1 in 2 lived in a married household with a steady job. The top 1 percent got only 10 percent of income. Today 1 in 4 live in a married household. The top 1 percent get 20 percent.

The reason schools don’t work is because we don’t have stable married couples with long term job stability. Teens see this. They see men getting laid off from good jobs and having no good job with dignity.

Teens see computer programmers have their jobs taken from people from India, or nurses, or the rest. They see they don’t have a good stable job to move into, get married, have kids. So they realize they don’t have to learn, pick a mate and move into an adult world. Kennedy killed the adult world of 1960 which is why kids don’t see a future for themselves. That’s why they don’t learn.

==

Iraqi refugees: the new Hmong?
[Patrick Cleburne] quote U.K. School Kids Strap on Stab-Proof Vests as Knife Crime Soars

By Nick Allen

March 22 (Bloomberg) — Ashgar Jilow used to sell stab-proof vests to nightclub bouncers and security guards at his London military surplus store. Now his clients are kids as young as 10 who fear they’re going to be knifed at school or on the street.

… Every week in London 52 teenagers are victims of knife crime, according to the Metropolitan Police. A child is stabbed to death in Britain every two weeks and knife killings outnumber gun homicides three to one, said Norman Brennan, a police officer and director of the Victims of Crime Trust. end quote.

That’s what immigration is doing here and there. Kennedy wants to bring Iraqi refugees who include the Shiite and Sunni militia and al Qaeda here. More WTC 93 attacks. More 9-11 attacks. More Madrids. More London 7-7’s.

Kennedy surrogates call us the bigots while Kennedy takes away our air supply like he did to Mary Jo Kopechne. A vest wouldn’t have saved her from Kennedy leaving her to die in an air bubble.

==

==

quote OLD ATLANTIC, YOUR SO FULL OF S$$H$$I$$T,you have nothing better to do today then complain about how much Senators make???? dont you wish you made that much money, and to tell you the truth, the Senators that you mentioned, dont need to make money, they have money, again, i think your just jealous, maybe your not working?? or working mor minimum wage, well thats not the Senators problem or the readers problem, its your problem, grow up, GET OVER IT, THATS RIGHT, GET OVER IT, no one owes you a D$A$M$N thing, get off your lazy a$s$s and go to work.

By still_here45 | Mar 26, 2007 3:05:00 PM end quote See p60-231.pdf page 18 census.gov.  Men’s median wages peaked in 1973.  Income inequality is U shaped as a function of time.  The top 1 percent got 20 percent of income before immigration restriction in the 1920’s, 10 percent after, and then it rose to 20 percent today with legal immigration from the 1965 Immigration Act.  Search income inequality census graph for links at Old Atlantic Lighthouse.  51 percent of women live without a spouse. Female fertility is below replacement.  1 in 4 live in a married household today while it was 1 in 2 in 1960.  Marriage with children is now for the high income according to the Post.

==

quote As marriage with children becomes an exception rather than the norm, social scientists say it is also becoming the self-selected province of the college-educated and the affluent. end quote. quote thats not the Senators problem end quote.  That’s the problem.  They don’t think it is their problem. The reason schools don’t function is that 2 married adults with children is now 1 in 4 instead of 1 in 2.  And the adults may both be wage earners leaving them less time.  This is the reporting of WaPo.  Kennedy is pretending to care, but he doesn’t.  If he cared he would stop legal immigration, regardless of amnesty for illegals. Instead, Kennedy started legal immigration in 1965 when the top 1 percent, him only got 10 percent of income instead of the 20 percent they got before immigration restriction in the 1920’s and get now after Kennedy’s bill.

==

quote Farrar repeatedly expressed the opinion that Mary Jo Kopechne had lived for some time underwater by breathing a bubble of trapped air, and that she could have been saved if rescue personnel had been promptly called to the scene. He had equipment to administer air to a trapped person directly or to augment an air pocket inside a submerged automobile.
– “There was a great possibility that we could have saved Mary Jo’s life,” Farrar said. “There would have been an airlock in the car – there always is in such submersions – that would have kept her alive. If we had been called, I would have reached the scene in 45 minutes. I say 45 minutes because it was dark. ( The daylight recovery had taken 30 minutes ). The lack of light might have caused a delay of 15 minutes.” end quote Ytedk quote well thats not the Senators problem end quote Teddy Kennedy didn’t think it was his problem.

http://www.ytedk.com/chapter5.htm#farrar

==

quote well thats not the Senators problem end quote still_here45 Ytedk.com
quote  The Senator was silent during these discussions, but it was clear to Gargan that he did not want to report the accident at this time.
– Kennedy began expressing alternate ideas about the situation:
– “Why couldn’t Mary Jo have been driving the car? Why couldn’t she have let me off, and driven to the ferry herself and made a wrong turn?”
– Kennedy asked to be brought back to the cottage to establish the story. After a while he would leave.
– Kennedy suggested that when he was back at the Shiretown Inn, Gargan could “discover” the accident and report to police that Mary Jo had been alone in the car. quote well thats not the Senators problem end quote still_here45

http://www.ytedk.com/chapter4.htm

==

quote well thats not the Senators problem end quote still_here45 quote quote Farrar repeatedly expressed the opinion that Mary Jo Kopechne had lived for some time underwater by breathing a bubble of trapped air, and that she could have been saved if rescue personnel had been promptly called to the scene. end quote  quote well thats not the Senators problem end quote still_here45

read more | digg story

Al Gore Global Warming Testimony Congress

March 21, 2007

The mean temperature of the earth today is about 15 degrees C, 288 K according to some sources, although others say 12 to 14 degrees C. The measured change in the last 100 years or so is about 1 C or 1K. Projections for increase include a range that can increase 5C.

Global Warming as something happening is distinct from whether CO2 is driving it, although these are related.

Global warming and mass extinction of species are also distinct. Mass extinction is underway already. Human population itself can cause mass extinction even if temperature doesn’t rise further.

Temp rise based on recorded instruments including graphs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Global average air temperature near Earth’s surface rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °Celsius (1.3 ± 0.32 °Fahrenheit) in the last century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes, “most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations,”[1] which leads to warming of the surface and lower atmosphere by increasing the greenhouse effect. Other phenomena such as solar variation and volcanoes have had smaller but non-negligible effects on global mean temperature since 1950.[2] While this conclusion has been endorsed by numerous scientific societies and academies of science, a few scientists disagree about the primary causes of the observed warming.

Models referenced by the IPCC predict that global temperatures are likely to increase by 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) between 1990 and 2100.[1] The range of values reflects the use of differing scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions as well as uncertainties regarding climate sensitivity. Although most studies focus on the period up to 2100, warming and sea level rise are expected to continue for more than a millennium even if no further greenhouse gases are released after this date. This reflects the long average atmospheric lifetime of carbon dioxide (CO2).

== Ice Ages, CO2, Temp, last 450 thousand years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

CO2 now is going to new high levels compared to the range during this time period.

The last 2000 years have seen temp fluctuations of under 1 degree C until the recent period:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years

Estimates of CO2 levels over the last 500 million years graph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Extinction_Intensity.png

== Hundreds of Millions of Years Ago CO2 much higher,

but Solar activity much lower. Sun is putting out more radiation now.

http://www.bcheights.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=83e43704-9cbf-4fbf-afd0-1692c0c355a0

Prof: CO2 levels have been higher
Carbon dioxide not the only thing responsible for global warming
By: Chris Bone
Back then, Amy Frappier said, “the sun was 30 percent as bright – 70 percent dimmer.” The absence of complex life “to stabilize climate” also contributed to “rapid flips” when carbon dioxide levels would “lag between” temperature shifts.

As far as carbon dioxide itself is concerned, “at some point the heat-trapping capacity of [the gas] and its effect get saturated,” said Frappier, “and you don’t have increased heating.” In other words, the gas can’t trap heat indefinitely since its capacity to do so eventually plateaus.

== Saturation Issue

For he understood that even if the CO2 in the atmosphere did already absorb all the heat radiation passing through, adding more gas would change the height in the atmosphere where the absorption took place. That, he calculated, would make for warming.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Also what about Venus? CO2 is considered to cause its high temp together with other factors, so one can’t just claim saturation.

search CO2 saturate temperature “global warming”

http://www.applet-magic.com/radiativeff.htm

search “global warming” saturation

search “global warming” saturation CO2 absorption

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/

See point 15 of above for a good discussion of this issue.

== Establishment has to address saturation issue better

The critics bring up saturation in discussions in papers. The establishment acknowledges these as historical issues, but does not give quantitative discussions in white papers outside the model of the saturation issue and how they get around it. They say its the shoulder of the distribution that does the CO2 green house effect or upper atmosphere or a combination.

Since this is the whole green house effect from CO2 they need to have a quantitative discussion outside the model. Its not good enough to say its in the computer. For this to be the whole crux of the issue they need to have a quantitative discussion of the shoulder or whatever they claim is the mechanism in white papers. They need to link to the critics who have quantitative discussion with equations and show why the shoulders argument works.

This is not a time for the establishment to just say they are too arrogant to respond to critics on the internet. There are well written quantitative discussions of the saturation issue by critics and skeptics. The establishment needs to respond with white papers on the same level of readability that can be understood by someone with a basic calculus education, and that others can still get the gist of.

It can be expected that someone in the staff in Congress or the White House can follow an argument that uses a little calculus and can verify that the establishment claims make sense. If the establishment can’t explain how they get around the saturation issue at this level, then it has to be considered a major short coming. In that case, the government needs to put other people in charge who will deign to explain at this level the most critical element in the model.

Why doesn’t IPCC have entire computer codes on its webpage with detailed annotation? Why doesn’t it have a simplified spreadsheet?

Computer models have to be checked by little computer programs, spreadsheets, calculations on white papers, etc. Why are these not on the internet and documented? This is what the people maintaining the system think shows it works. Why is that not on the internet and pointed to by the IPCC or Gore or other advocates?

Saying its in the computer model full stop is not acceptable. Nor is it how such models are actually developed, checked or maintained. They don’t just take the output as given without trying to check it.

== IPCC the Establishment pro-warming position

http://www.ipcc.ch/

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

Note that their documents are poorly written compared to the skeptics like Gerald E. Marsh. They have a big committee that came up with documents that do a poor job explaining. They have an attitude of talking down, i.e. they don’t have the burden to explain. Their attitude is that anyone who doesn’t understand what they wrote is stupid and could never understand it. This is not the attitude of good writers even of technical books. The Feynman Lectures or even Halliday and Resnick have a much higher standard of writing than this committee.

4. Atmospheric Chemistry and Greenhouse Gases

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/127.htm

This is where the saturation issue should be discussed.

4.1.2 Atmospheric Chemistry and Feedbacks

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/131.htm

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

==excerpt AIP on saturation as key issue in history of

climate science and global warming:

Experts could dismiss the hypothesis because they found Arrhenius’s calculation implausible on many grounds. In the first place, he had grossly oversimplified the climate system. Among other things, he had failed to consider how cloudiness might change if the Earth got a little warmer and more humid.(6) A still weightier objection came from a simple laboratory measurement. A few years after Arrhenius published his hypothesis, Knut Ångström sent infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide. He put in as much of the gas in total as would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. The amount of radiation that got through the tube scarcely changed when he cut the quantity of gas in half or doubled it. The reason was that CO2 absorbed radiation only in specific bands of the spectrum, and it took only a trace of the gas to produce bands that were “saturated” — so thoroughly opaque that more gas could make little difference.(7*)
Still more persuasive was the fact that water vapor, which is far more abundant in the air than carbon dioxide, also intercepts infrared radiation. In the spectrographs of the time, the smeared-out bands of the two gases entirely overlapped one another. More CO2 could not affect radiation in bands of the spectrum that water vapor, as well as CO2 itself, were already blocking entirely.(8) After these conclusions were published in the early 1900s, even scientists who had been enthusiastic about Arrhenius’s work, like Chamberlin, now considered it plainly in error. Theoretical work on the question stagnated for decades, and so did measurement of the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.(9)

AIP, the American Insitute of Physics, identifies the saturation issue as key to the history of global warming. Yet IPCC ignores it. Why? This is the issue of mechanism.

== Continuation of AIP discussion

These measurements inspired the theoretical physicist Lewis D. Kaplan to grind through some extensive numerical computations. In 1952, he showed that in the upper atmosphere the saturation of CO2 lines should be weak. Thus adding more of the gas would make a difference in the high layers, changing the overall balance of the atmosphere. Meanwhile, precise laboratory measurements found that the most important CO2 absorption lines did not lie exactly on top of water vapor lines. Instead of two overlapping bands, there were two sets of narrow lines with spaces for radiation to slip through.(25)

Nobody could say anything more specific without far more extensive computations.

This is the whole issue of global warming by CO2. Yet IPCC ignores it in their report on the “science”.

AIP Footnote on saturation:

7. Ångström (1900); a leading expert dismissing CO2 because of saturation was Humphreys (1913), pp. 134-35; but while denying that doubling the amount in the atmosphere would “appreciably affect the total amount of radiation actually absorbed,” he did note that it would “affect the vertical distribution or location of the absorption,” Humphreys (1920), p. 58; on CO2 saturation, Schaefer (1905), p. 104. BACK

==

== IPCC ignores saturation issue?

IPCC ignores saturation issue? Saturation issue is that effect of CO2 diminishes because of water vapor or because a little CO2 achieves the same absorption as a lot. This has been a basic issue for decades in this field. See AIP history link.

search saturation site:ipcc.ch

http://www.ipcc.ch/IndexServer.asp?target=saturation


search “gerald e marsh” global warming primer site:ipcc.ch

“Your search – “gerald e marsh” global warming primer site:ipcc.ch – did not match any documents. ” March 22, 2007. So IPCC doesn’t respond to even well written papers skeptical of global warming.

Shouldn’t they respond to the critics before they ask us to make changes in our lives? They don’t respond to any critic or skeptic at all on their website?

search skeptics site:ipcc.ch

Results 11 of 1 from ipcc.ch for skeptics. (“

“Additionally, we pay attention to criticism directly and as a reaction on articles published (popular and scientific) by
climate skeptics.”

But where is it?

==IPCC Global Warming claim is <b> Undocumented </b>

Without documenting the saturation mechanism and how they get around it, the IPCC’s claim of global warming from CO2 is an undocumented claim, at least on their website.

The computer programmers for the global warming systems, if they are professionals, may have a calculus type level of knowledge of math. Someone had to explain to them what to program. Even if Ph.D.’s did the programming, the system should be documentable to system programmers who have only a knowledge of calculus.

This system documentation needs to be provided. They also have to provide a white paper on the saturation issue and the mechanism of global warming by CO2. Until the IPCC does this, their claim of global warming should be considered insufficiently documented.

==IPCC needs to say what global mean temperature is and prove it.

One sees numbers from 12 to 15 degrees C. Which is right? Most charts use change in temperature. Why? Because they don’t know what the temperature is. If they used 15 and then its 14, the chart is wrong. By using change in temperature they avoid the problem that they don’t know the temperature to within an error of less than one degree. But that is the claimed change. This is a major problem. Also by using change in temperature to hide that they don’t know temperature they damage their credibility once this is exposed as the reason. They should footnote every chart using change in temperature that the reason is they don’t know the temperature of the earth to an accuracy less than the claimed change, i.e the error in the global mean temperature is bigger than the claimed change.

==Radiative Transfer

Saturation may be addressed under radiative transfer. We consider that here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

search “global warming” radiation transfer

–More Skeptics from this search

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/ci/31/special/may01_viewpoint.html

==Richard Linzen MIT Prof
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2j.html

The surface of the Earth is cooled in large measure by air currents (in various forms including deep clouds) that carry heat upward and poleward. One consequence of this picture is that it is the greenhouse gases well above the Earth’s surface that are of primary importance in determining the temperature of the Earth.

IPCC and other proponents of global warming thus need to document their calculations in the upper atmosphere. Gore said in his testimony on March 21, 2007 that it was undisputed that increased CO2 in the lower atmosphere causes global warming. Lindzen disputes that.
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/Testimony/Senate2001.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

In September 2003 Lindzen wrote an open letter to the mayor of Newton, Massachusetts (Lindzen’s home),[16] his views on global warming and the Kyoto Accord. He says “… [T]he impact of CO2 on the Earth’s heat budget is nonlinear. What this means is that although CO2 has only increased about 30% over its pre-industrial level, the impact on the heat budget of the Earth due to the increases in CO2 and other man influenced greenhouse substances has already reached about 75% of what one expects from a doubling of CO2, and that the temperature rise seen so far is much less (by a factor of 2-3) than models predict (assuming that all of the very irregular change in temperature over the past 120 years or so—about 1 degree F—is due to added greenhouse gases—a very implausible assumption).”.

Of the Kyoto Accord, he claims there is no “controversy over the fact that the Kyoto Protocol, itself, will do almost nothing to stabilize CO2. Capping CO2 emissions per unit of electricity generated will have a negligible impact on CO2 levels”

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm

search Richard S. Lindzen

–Fair and balanced? attack on Lindzen

http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Richard_S_Lindzen.html

–Lindzen: WSJ Editorial 2006

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.”

And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest.
Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming–not whether it would actually happen.
==Climate Sensitivity Parameter Dispute

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00095B0D-C331-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21&pageNumber=2&catID=2

Lindzen also says there is little cause for concern in the future. The key to his optimism is a parameter called “climate sensitivity.” This variable represents the increase in global temperature expected if the amount of carbon dioxide in the air doubles over preindustrial levels–a level the earth is already one third of the way toward reaching. Whereas the IPCC and the NAS calculate climate sensitivity to be somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees C, Lindzen insists that it is in the neighborhood of 0.4 degree.

The IPCC and the NAS derived the higher range after incorporating positive feedback mechanisms. For instance, warmer temperatures will most likely shrink the earth’s snow and ice cover, making the planet less reflective and thus hastening warming, and will also probably increase evaporation of water. Water vapor, in fact, is the main absorber of heat in the atmosphere.

But such positive feedbacks “have neither empirical nor theoretical foundations,” Lindzen told the U.S. Senate commerce committee this past May. The scientist says negative, not positive, feedback rules the day.

==Positive v. Negative Feedback Issue
The environment to be stable has to have primarily negative feedback. Thus negative feedback dominates. If positive dominated, then we would die quickly. 500 million years of stability tells us negative feedback is dominant. We live in a negative feedback system.

Can there be small positive feedbacks? This is the claim of the IPCC. They are saying that there are some small positive feedbacks, but then dominate feedbacks take over.

The claim of positive feedbacks that dominate has to be considered a claim that has to prove itself. In a system dominated by negative feedbacks, we don’t expect to see positive ones. In effect, the environment has searched for positive feedbacks and then evolved some mechanism to control them with dominant negative feedbacks. The species alive today have evolved to control positive feedbacks in the environment and make them negative instead.

==How to forecast on Wall Street.

The market will go down a little and then up a lot. This is the basic forecast to use. Then if it goes up, you say you were right on the main thing. If it goes down, you say you were right that it would go down. Then you issue your new forecast, up a little then down and then back up a lot.

==

Its strange that when we do searches on technical terms related to CO2 as a cause of global warming that get down to the real physics, what we find are skeptics. The skeptics get down to the real physics and the search engines find them. But we don’t find them repudiated by the main sites.

When we get an establishment site like AIP, American Institute of Physics, they tell us why people thought CO2 couldn’t cause global warming in words we can understand. Then at the end, they say but that was wrong and its in the model. At that point, intuitive explanations end and we are just told its in the computer. Well, if the programmers can check the computer, tell us what they were told to program and how they checked that it is in there.

==Hendrik Tennekes

search Hendrik Tennekes

==More Skeptics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus

==Science of atmosphere in more depth

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Gerald E. Marsh Skeptic http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA420.pdf

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/aboutus/article/aree_page3.html

http://groundtruthinvestigations.com/environment/climatelinks.html

http://www.john-daly.com/links.htm (skeptic links as well)
==Skepticism on Models

Gerald E. Marsh Skeptic http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA420.pdf

search “Gerald E Marsh” global warming primer

101 hits. The proponents of global warming don’t respond to even well done criticism and skepticism such that of Marsh it appears. The same applies to searches on Heinz Hug.

==

http://www.his.com/~sepp/

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

Regardless, climate models are made interesting by the inclusion of “positive feedbacks” (multiplier effects) so that a small temperature increment expected from increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide invokes large increases in water vapor, which seem to produce exponential rather than logarithmic temperature response in the models. It appears to have become something of a game to see who can add in the most creative feedback mechanisms to produce the scariest warming scenarios from their models but there remains no evidence the planet includes any such effects or behaves in a similar manner.

==Heinz Hug Skeptic

http://www.nov55.com/crunch.html

http://www.nov55.com/gbwm.html

http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm

==T J Nelson Skeptic “Cold Facts on Global Warming”
http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

==List of scientists said to be skeptics, Leipzig Declaration

http://www.sepp.org/policy%20declarations/home.html
http://newsbusters.org/node/8283

Debunking the list?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leipzig_Declaration

==

A set of graphs at following. Very informative.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/

==

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Phanerozoic_Biodiversity.png

Biodiversity is very high now compared to the last 500 million years. Its at an all time high. This may stabilize climiate itself. Mass extinction of species apart from climate change could erode this temp stability.

Atmospheric CO2 has been estimated in the remote past at many times current levels. But temp was only 6 to 8 deg C higher according to some estimates. Current CO2 has risen from 310 to 380 from 1960 to 2007. But in the past C02 has been many mutliples of 310.
http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/paleoclimate.htm

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/500millionfig.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_Time_Scale

==10C Temp Rise and Dead Ocean Scenario
One hypothesis is that if the bottom of the oceans rise by 5C this could release methane from there that would raise temperature another 5C. This 10C rise could be enough to take the oxygen out of the oceans. This happened in the past and resulted in an almost 90 percent extinction of species. This could happen in 100 years?

Siberia also has methane that could be released by a rise in temperature, and is already being released. This would not be as much as the oceans? This could be enough to get the 5C rise that might then trigger the 5C rise from releasing methane at the bottom of the oceans. However, it might be that even a 10C rise in temperature on the surface would not automatically trigger a melting of the methance at the sea bottom.

search mean temperature global 288 K

http://www.junkscience.com/GMT/index.html

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/earth_warm.html

==Graph CO2 Tracks Temp Rise 1850 to 2007 but sunspots

do not:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Temp-sunspot-co2.svg

The CO2 line is what is measured at those locations not what they emit at those locations.

== Solar Variation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation#Global_warming

The IPCC TAR view is that forcing from solar variations is considerably smaller than forcing from greenhouse gases. Measured as a difference from 1750, GHG forcing is estimated as 2.4 W/m2 compared to 0.3 W/m2 from solar [21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MODIS_ATM_solar_irradiance.jpg

==

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis

The release of this trapped methane is a potential major outcome of a rise in temperature; it is thought that this might increase the global temperature by an additional 5° in itself, as methane is much more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

Geologist Gerry Dickens suggested that the increased carbon-12 could have been rapidly released by upswellings of frozen methane hydrate from the seabeds. Experiments to assess how large a rise in deep sea temperature would be required to sublimate solid methane hydrate suggested that a rise of 5°C (10 F) would be sufficient.

==

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Triassic_extinction_event

The Permian-Triassic (P-Tr) extinction event, sometimes informally called the Great Dying, was an extinction event that occurred approximately 251 million years ago (mya), forming the boundary between the Permian and Triassic geologic periods. It was the Earth’s most severe extinction event, with about 96 percent of all marine species and 70 percent of terrestrial vertebrate species becoming extinct.
==

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming#Glacier_Retreat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_activity#Global_warming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Greenhouse_gases_in_the_atmosphere

==

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanic_anoxic_event

Oceanic anoxic events occur when the Earth‘s oceans become completely depleted of oxygen (O2) below the surface levels. Although anoxic events have not happened for millions of years, the geological record shows that they happened many times in the past, and may have caused mass extinctions.

Oceanic Anoxic Events occurred only during periods of very warm climate characterized by high levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) and mean surface temperatures probably in excess of 25 ° C.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Triassic_extinction_event

The sequence of events leading to the anoxic oceans would have been[citation needed]:

  • Global warming reduced the temperature gradient between the equator and the poles.
  • The reduction in the temperature gradient slowed or perhaps stopped the thermohaline circulation.
  • The slow-down or stoppage of the thermohaline circulation prevented the dispersal of nutrients washed from the land to the sea, causing eutrophication (excessive growth of algae), which reduced the oxygen level in the sea.
  • The slow-down or stoppage of the thermohaline circulation also caused oceanic overturn – surface water sank (it has more salinity than deep water because of evaporation caused by the sun) and was replaced by anoxic deep water.

==

Measured CO2

==

Glacial earthquakes rock Greenland ice sheet

A rapid increase in “glacial earthquakes” – caused by sudden large movements of glaciers – over the past few years indicates that warmer temperatures will destroy the Greenland ice sheet faster than expected, a new study warns.

Ekström reports that quakes ranged from six to 15 per year from 1993 to 2002, then jumped to 20 in 2003, 23 in 2004, and 32 in the first 10 months of 2005 – matching an increase in Greenland temperatures.

search earthquakes Greenland ice

==

http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

search mass extinction species

search solar radiation level global warming

==Models

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model

==

Gore Urges Congress to Act on Global Warming

By Debbi Wilgoren, Shailagh Murray and Bill Brubaker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, March 21, 2007; 6:02 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007032100709&start=101

An Inconvenient Truth:

http://www.climatecrisis.net/

==

search CO2 temperature millions years

http://www.junkscience.com/images/paleocarbon.gif

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4467420.stm

” CO2 ‘highest for 650,000 years'”

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

== Discussion/Debate on CO2 and Temp
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/26/224933/67

http://blog.mises.org/archives/005235.asp

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/the_temperature_also_rises.html

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-18/dioxide.htm

http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=could_global_warming_be_worse_than_you_t&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

Skepticism:

http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?p=154&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#more154

Gore at hearings discussion:

http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?cat=19

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html

== Issues and Answers

Lag or lead? or CO2 increases the effect once triggered, however triggered? One answer is that changes in earth’s orbit, tilt, triggered changes in albedo that then were reinforced by CO2 releases to cause warming episodes.

Humans could substitute for the trigger. So if we start it going, and then methane in Siberia or the oceans is released, it could pick up. Note that for the last 600,000 years or more, temperature has never been as high as now?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/04/historically-co2-never-causes.html

http://www.biocrawler.com/encyclopedia/Climate_change

==

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20060925/

==anti-Americanism Issue
Why does America’s global warming emissions produce huge condemnation, while China’s is ignored, often from the global warming community?

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article358583.ece

“Scientists condemn US as emissions of greenhouse gases hit record level”

By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Published: 19 April 2006

==

search Russian academy sciences global warming

== James Inhofe

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3183.html

http://inhofe.senate.gov/public/

==

http://services.alphaworks.ibm.com/manyeyes/view/S2fqLEsOtha64-EgR_rLE2-;jsessionid=9920ADF1C818E…

==Skepticism

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?ex=1174622400&en=e17ab12c4a56cc54&ei=5070

By WILLIAM J. BROAD
Published: March 13, 2007

== Economists

Kling global warming model dependent (but is it robust?)

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2006/06/global_warming_5.html

Arnold Kling, thinks warming masked by smoke.

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2006/06/global_warming_4.html

pj writes:

That’s no mystery. CO2 is a linear molecule with a small number of absorption lines in the infrared, and they are all saturated already. This means that adding more CO2 increases absorption only among molecules at the extreme edges of the velocity distribution, and that absorption increases as the log of CO2 abundance. This is exactly what is required to convert an exponential driving force to a linear response.

In any case it’s not obvious that the CO2 abundance will grow exponentially.

Posted June 4, 2006 02:43 PM”

==Quote on Saturation Issue:

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/

 

 

  1. A persistent argument used by proponents of solar climate forcing is supported by the
    physics of CO2 infrared opacity (band saturation) at wavelengths of the electromagnetic
    spectrum where CO2 atmospheric heating occurs.David Archer has written in “Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast, 2005”
    geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/PS134/ Chapter 3 that wavelengths, wings on either
    side of the 600 to 800 cycles/cm absorption band are modeled to be sufficient to
    continue trapping from 2ºC to 5ºC of heat.A counterpoint to this argument is exemplified by Gerald Marsh in his “Global
    Warming Primer” (www.nationalcenter.org/NPA420.pdf) where he claims…”additional
    carbon dioxide does have an influence at the edges of the 14.99 micron band. Because
    of this marginal effect, the change in forcing due to a change in carbon dioxide
    concentration is proportional to the natural logarithm of the fractional change in
    concentration of this gas.”
    “Specifically, the IPCC gives (change in forcing) dF = 6.3 ln (C/C0) W/m2 where dF
    is the change in forcing, and C0 and C are the initial and final carbon dioxide
    concentrations. […] The Earth’s temperature is therefore relatively insensitive to
    changes in carbon dioxide concentrations, a doubling leading to a dF of only
    4.4 W/m2.”Archer writes:
    “If the edges of the absorption bands were completely abrupt, as if CO2 absorbed 600
    cycles/cm light completely and 599 cycles/cm light not at all, then once an absorption
    band from a gas was saturated, that would it. Further increases in the concentration of the
    gas would have no impact on the radiation energy budget for the earth. CO2, the most
    saturated of the greenhouse gases, would stop changing climate after it exceeded some
    concentration. It turns out that this is not how it works. Even though the core of the CO2
    band is saturated, the edges of the band are not saturated. When we increase the CO2
    concentration, the bite that CO2 takes out of the spectrum doesn’t get deeper, but it gets a
    bit broader.”
    “The bottom line is that the energy intensity Iout in units of W/m2 goes up
    proportionally to the log of the CO2 concentration, rather than proportionally to the CO2
    concentration itself (we say linear in CO2 concentration). The logarithmic dependence
    means that you get the same Iout change in W/m2 from any doubling of the CO2
    concentration. The radiative effect of going from 10 to 20 µatm pCO2 is the same as
    going from 100 to 200 µatm, or 1000 to 2000 µatm. “They both seem to be saying the same thing. For Marsh “the Earth’s temperature is
    therefore relatively insensitive to changes in carbon dioxide concentrations.” For
    Archer the models predict a rise in temperature of 2ºC to 5ºC.
    Which is it?

    [Response: They are both saying the same thing. The only possible confusion would be in what Marsh is comparing the CO2 sensitivity with. From the context, it’s clear that he is comparing it to a gas with less (or no) saturation, and therefore the Earth is ‘relatively’ insensitive to CO2. i.e. for the other gas the absorption would go linearly or something with concentration. It is despite this ‘relative’ insensitivity that CO2 still gives a forcing of around 4W/m2 if it doubles. -gavin]

    Comment by Tim Jones — 18 Jul 2005 @ 7:07 am

=end of quote

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/bib.htm

Historic Human Population Equilibrium below 5 million?

March 21, 2007

A necessary but not sufficient condition for equilibrium is that the number of species that go extinct each year equals the number created each year. We can call this criterion, species equilibrium.

If more species go extinct than are created each year, eventually you get to zero. At that point, humans would be extinct as well.
What number of people can live on earth consistent with the criterion of species equilibrium? We are now in the midst of a human caused mass extinction of species. When in history were humans not causing extinction of species? What was the human population at that time?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

8000 BC World Population 5 million total.

By that point, humans had already contributed to the extinction of the wooly mammoth and other species?

While most woolly mammoths died out at the end of the Pleistocene (12,000 years ago), a small population survived on Wrangel Island, located in the Arctic Ocean, up until 1700 B.C..

So at 5 million people, the species equilibrium criterion was already violated.

Can technology raise the sustainable human population that meets the species equilibrium criterion?

Have humans caused extinction of other species and ecosystems or added so much CO2 or done other things that have already lowered the sustainable human population consistent with the species equilibrium criterion? We may have already put ourselves farther behind than we were in 8000 BC by extincting or near extincting other species.

== Stability comes from Diversity of Species or within them.

If we had one identical bee everywhere in the world, with identical DNA, and all other species that did the work of bees to pollinate plants were gone, would that be so bad? Well that would be a lot of identical bees. Viruses and bacteria would evolve to attack that specific bee, by random chance and natural selection. There are so many of these identical bees that viruses have more chances to evolve that can attack them. If the right virus evolves, one that can spread quickly and kill the bees slowly, e.g. stop reproduction of the queen, that virus might wipe out all of that specific bee species.

But without a variety of bees, with one bee with the same identical DNA, a single virus could wipe them all out. What happens to plants? What happens to what eats plants? This results in catastrophic loss.

So by losing diversity, we set up the possibility of a catastrophic loss of multiple species. Moreover, this becomes a probability that applies each year and eventually it happens.

== Market Morality for Human Extinction?

Is there market failure for extinction? Can extinction be a market equilibrium? If sellers of the future outnumber buyers, then extinction is morally right by market economics? Some people can own the future, and they can choose to have it end in the form of extinction of human life?

If morality and the future are determined by the market, and the market chooses our extinction is that moral? Can people who disagree with that outcome try to prevent it? Is that immoral?

==War on Equilibrium

In actuality, not the market but do-gooders may have done more harm.   The population of the third world has skyrocketed as choices are imposed on them by do-gooders.

If people in the third world were not the recipients of aid but bought what they chose, their population would be far less. Do gooders choose that what the 3rd world will consume is what increases population in the 3rd world.  This is a choice imposed by do-gooders on the 3rd world as the type of conssumption the 3rd world will have.

This also interferes with the ability of the 3rd world to make choices for itself of all kinds.  By creating this huge population expansion, do gooders have prevented the 3rd world having a middle class that controls itself and makes its own choices.

Buffet Gates are an example of this type of harm.  They are more harmful by far as aid givers than what they do as business people.   They are making war on equilibrium within the 3rd world and in the world. They are at war with equilibrium population, with equilibrium in species, and with equilibrium for the environment.

Buffet Gates have decided they own the future and are destroying it by their choices. Are we powerless to stop them? Do they have a moral right to destroy the future with the wealth they have managed to acquire?

McCain Fighting to Recapture Maverick Spirit of 2000 Bid

March 15, 2007

“In the seven years since John McCain and his ‘Straight Talk Express’ nearly derailed George W. Bush’s White House ambitions, the blunt-spoken senator from Arizona has become the very picture of the highly managed presidential candidate he once scorned.”

from McCain Fighting to Recapture Maverick Spirit of 2000 Bid By Michael D. Shear
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 15, 2007; Page A01

7th wealthiest Senator is John McCain (R-Ariz) $25,071,142 to $38,043,014
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/14/AR2007031402301.html
8th is Teddy Kennedy. 8 Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) $19,189,049 to $93,043,004.
Income inequality in the 20th century is U shaped curve. The top 1 percent got 20 percent before immigration restriction in the 1920’s, got 10 percent up to the 1965 Immigration Act and are back to 20 percent of each year’s income today. McCain and Kennedy are in that group. McCain married money and Kennedy inherited it.

=

7 of the top 8 wealthiest Senators voted for S. 2611, amnesty, affirmative action, non-deportable crime, and a pathway for the top 1 percent of households to continue to enjoy 20 percent of each year’s income, compared to 10 percent before Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act.  The only 1 of the top 8 who didn’t vote for S. 2611 didn’t vote, Jay Rockefeller.  McCain is 7th and Kennedy 8th in wealth.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.asp?type=W&cycle=2005&filter=S

Rank Name Minimum Net Worth Maximum Net Worth

1 Herb Kohl (D-Wis) $219,098,029 to $234,549,004 Voted Yes S. 2611

2 John Kerry (D-Mass) $165,741,511 to $235,262,100

Voted Yes S. 2611

3 Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa) $78,150,023 to $101,579,003 Not Voting S. 2611

4 Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) $43,343,464 to $98,660,021 Voted Yes S. 2611

5 Lincoln D. Chafee (R-RI) $41,153,105 to $64,096,019 Voted Yes S. 2611

6 Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) $38,198,170 to $90,733,019 Voted Yes S. 2611

7 John McCain (R-Ariz) $25,071,142 to $38,043,014

Voted Yes S. 2611

8 Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) $19,189,049 to $93,043,004 Voted Yes S. 2611

S 2611 Roll Call

http://www.sustainablemiddleclass.com/Income-inequality.html

McCain is for amnesty, a path to welfare, affirmative action and non-deportable crime. Illegals move to the head of the line for jobs and school above everyone else. McCain Kennedy also increases legal immigration. Men’s median wages peaked in 1973, see p60-231.pdf census.gov page 18 for the graph. Income inequality is a U shaped curve in the 20th century. The top 1 percent got 20 percent of each year’s income before immigration restriction in the 1920’s, got 10 percent after, and get 20 percent today after the 1965 Immigration Act. McCain married money. Kennedy inherited it. They are in the top 1 percent who get 20 percent of each year’s income.

==

quote McCain is the seventh-richest senator by net worth, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan, nonprofit group that tracks money spent in political campaigns.

The latest personal finances report, filed last May, shows assets worth a minimum of $27.5million for the McCains, with the company accounting for about half of that. end quote McCain, his wealth tied to wife’s family beer business

Dawn Gilbertson
The Arizona Republic
Jan. 23, 2007 12:29 PM

http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/special3/articles/0123biz-hensley.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_Hensley_McCain

==

The top 1 percent of households got 15 to 25 percent of all income before immigration was restricted in the 1920’s. That then fell to about 10 percent from the 50’s to 70’s and then climbed back up to the 20 percent range now. Immigration restriction lowered the share that Kennedy got and raised the share the Mary Jo Kopechnes got. Kennedy reversed that in 1965 just like he took Mary Jo Kopchene’s life in 1969.

“NEW DATA SHOW EXTRAORDINARY JUMP IN INCOME CONCENTRATION IN 2004″ By Aviva Aron-Dine and Isaac Shapiro for a graph of income share of top 1 percent from 1913 to 2004.

http://www.cbpp.org/7-10-06inc.htm

=

=

quote 51 percent of Women Are Now Living Without Spouse – New York Times
In 2005, 51 percent of women said they were living without a spouse, … preparing to live longer parts of their lives alone or with nonmarried partners. end quote. By SAM ROBERTS. Because men’s earnings are low, 51 percent of women live without a spouse. This is caused by Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act.

==

“Numbers Drop for the Married With Children
Institution Becoming The Choice of the Educated, Affluent”

By Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 4, 2007; Page A03

PORTLAND, Ore. — Punctuating a fundamental change in American family life, married couples with children now occupy fewer than one in every four households — a share that has been slashed in half since 1960 and is the lowest ever recorded by the census.

As marriage with children becomes an exception rather than the norm, social scientists say it is also becoming the self-selected province of the college-educated and the affluent.

“The culture is shifting, and marriage has almost become a luxury item, one that only the well educated and well paid are interested in,” said Isabel V. Sawhill, an expert on marriage and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Many demographers peg the rise of a class-based marriage gap to the erosion since 1970 of the broad-based economic prosperity that followed World War II.

The 1965 Immigration Act caused this. Men’s median wages are down from 1973. Search p60-229.pdf and go to page 14 on census.gov. 51 percent of women live alone. This is because men don’t make enough.Female fertility is then below replacement.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/incineq/p60204/fig1.html
This shows income inequality fell from the 1940’s to 1968 and then rose since. This is because of the 1965 Immigration Act.

Legal immigration takes away job security from men and so young adults don’t get married and have kids and stay married. Legal immigration must end completely and no amnesty.

==

Figure 1 – Change in Income Inequality for Families: 1947-1998 Census.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/incineq/p60204/fig1.html

The Census page on income inequality is:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/incineq/p60204.html

http://www.census.gov/acsd/www/sub_i.htm

http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf

See page 18 of above for graph of men’s median wages which shows it peaked in 1973 adjusted for inflation. It rose before then, while immigration was restricted and then the 1965 Immigration Act brought that to an end.

==Comments WaPo

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007031402301&start=21

| digg story

WaPo: “Russia Seeks More Control At Academy Of Sciences”

March 13, 2007

=Original WaPo Article:

“Russia Seeks More Control At Academy Of Sciences”

By Peter Finn
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, March 13, 2007; Page A01

“MOSCOW — The historic autonomy of the Russian Academy of Sciences, which has pioneered fundamental research in Russia since its founding by Peter the Great three centuries ago, is under threat from government proposals to bring the institution under much tighter state control and end its academic…”

“This is really a war,” Alexander Nekipelov, vice president of the academy, said in an interview at the institution’s august administrative headquarters, a czarist palace on Moscow’s Leninsky Prospekt. “I am sure we are going to win it, but of course we cannot help being worried by the situation.”

Members of the academy, which in 1980 defied Soviet demands that it expel dissident physicist Andrei Sakharov, view the plan as part of a broader trend of increased official control over key parts of Russian society.

==

The Academy of Sciences helps Russian intelligence analyze plagiarism and the interplay between academic and political corruption in the West. This started with Kapitza analyzing plagiarism by Dirac and Niels Bohr being made a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1926 to keep quiet about it. Rutherford was president of the Royal Society and his son-in law Fowler was helping Dirac.

==

Putin became head of FSB in July 1998 and may have gotten in on looting a 4.8 billion IMF loan. This may have involved kompromat on US econ profs Stanley Fischer at IMF and Larry Summers at US Treasury.

Russia may have had academic kompromat files on them for decades including possibly plagiarism by Fischer in his 1969 Ph.D. thesis at MIT in which Samuelson the uncle of Summers was involved.

Putin may want to control the academy because his money comes from it and because Berezovsky and Yeltsin were using this in the 1990’s to get IMF loans. Putin’s participation in this scheme is how he became President of Russia.

Thus the Academy is key to the truth about how he got his money and his power. They have reputation control to expose this and he wants control over them to keep them under control. The above is all speculation and a hypothesis.

==

quote During Soviet days, the academy also repeatedly denied membership to leading Communist Party members on grounds that they lacked scientific credentials. end quote.

quote In November 1945 refused to work on nuclear weapons development under Beria, and in 1946 was dismissed from his posts as director of the Institute for Physical Problems and head of Glavkislorod, and resided at his country house until after Stalin’s death and Beria’s arrest in 1953. He conducted there original research on high-power electronics. In January 1955 Kapitza returned to the post of director of the Institute. end quote RAS bio on Kapitza.

http://kapitza.ras.ru/history/PLKapitza/main.html

Beria sent him a shotgun as a present, but Stalin let Kapitza live and stay at his house. One book says Kapitza should have been killed for what he did. Kapitza lived a long time until 1984.

Kapitza’s was Rutherford’s assistant in 1925 and knew of the plagiarism and coverup including making Bohr a Fellow of the Royal Society.

This gave Kapitza and the Acad of Sci USSR independence of the Party. Even in the 1980’s, they had this as leverage over Teller and Bethe, both of whom didn’t tell this when Fuchs was arrested or at the Oppenheimer security hearings in April 1954. Born the victim got the Nobel in fall 1954.

==

c. 1994, Sudoplatov refers to Kapitza in his book as Rutherford’s assistant. This is what got Bethe and the others scared to denounce the Sudoplatov book, not just the accusations on Oppenheimer, Fermi, and Szilard.

It was in 1995, they got the big IMF loans from profs Fischer and Summers. They were using the accusations on the physicists to scare the econ profs into giving them money. In Russian physics journal(s), they also pushed Kapitza to remind the Americans.

Putin got in on this with Berezovsky and Yeltsin in 1998 as head of FSB when they got more IMF loans and stole them for themselves. Because the Academy has used its knowledge since 1946 to be independent, even against Stalin and Beria, Putin has to get control over them now before the presidential election where he turns over power.

Putin wants to keep his money and keep the Academy from using this as leverage for its own benefit, as it has in the past. Even in the 1930’s, during the purges, Kapitza used this to demand Landau be released from prison. So Putin is trying to control this independence that the Academy has used even under Stalin from its keeping the plagiarism files on US profs. The above is all speculation.

==
“Members of the academy, which in 1980 defied Soviet demands that it expel dissident physicist Andrei Sakharov,”

Kapitza was alive and still a witness against Bethe and Teller. Teller was a key person in SDI in the 1980’s which gave Kapitza leverage until 1984 to protect Sakharov.

==
Comments WaPo

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007031201603

read more | digg story

Above is all speculation and hypotheses.  All statements should be restated as questions.  All other disclaimes apply.

re Kennedy “What a Difference an Election Makes”

March 11, 2007

Comments on What a Difference an Election Makes By Edward M. Kennedy Sunday, March 11, 2007; Page B07 Every indicator, men’s median wages, marriage, and income inequality all got better before the 1965 Immigration Act and got worse after it. We review and link to these statistics below.

“In my 45 years in Congress, I have never seen the Senate turn so rapidly from stalemate toward real progress.” Teddy Kennedy.

==Real Progress for income inequality?

Income inequality went up from the Kennedy 1965 Immigration Act, legal immigration. The top 1/5 of households got 43.8 percent of all income in 1967 and got 50.1 percent in 2001. Men’s median wages have stayed the same since 1973. Search census income inequality graph.

Figure 1 – Change in Income Inequality for Families: 1947-1998 Census.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/incineq/p60204/fig1.html

The Census page on income inequality is:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/incineq/p60204.html

http://www.census.gov/acsd/www/sub_i.htm

http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf

See page 18 of above for graph of men’s median wages which shows it peaked in 1973 adjusted for inflation. It rose before then, while immigration was restricted and then the 1965 Immigration Act brought that to an end.

Income inequality fell from the 1940’s when the census first measured it to bottom out in the 1965 to 1968 period and then rise. What changes was legal immigration from the 1965 Immigration Act. That benefits the Kennedy family which is in the top 1 percent of households. That hurts the rest. Kennedy’s entire career has been a thrill kill of the middle class and lower class.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/p60191.html

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/ie1.html
==Real Progress for share of income of top 1 percent?

The top 1 percent of households got 15 to 25 percent of all income before immigration was restricted in the 1920’s. That then fell to about 10 percent from the 50’s to 70’s and then climbed back up to the 20 percent range now. Immigration restriction lowered the share that Kennedy got and raised the share the Mary Jo Kopechnes got. Kennedy reversed that in 1965 just like he took Mary Jo Kopchene’s life in 1969.

“NEW DATA SHOW EXTRAORDINARY JUMP IN INCOME CONCENTRATION IN 2004” By Aviva Aron-Dine and Isaac Shapiro for a graph of income share of top 1 percent from 1913 to 2004.

http://www.cbpp.org/7-10-06inc.htm

=

quote 51 percent of Women Are Now Living Without Spouse – New York Times
In 2005, 51 percent of women said they were living without a spouse, … preparing to live longer parts of their lives alone or with nonmarried partners. end quote. By SAM ROBERTS. Because men’s earnings are low, 51 percent of women live without a spouse. This is caused by Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act.

==

“Numbers Drop for the Married With Children
Institution Becoming The Choice of the Educated, Affluent”

By Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 4, 2007; Page A03

PORTLAND, Ore. — Punctuating a fundamental change in American family life, married couples with children now occupy fewer than one in every four households — a share that has been slashed in half since 1960 and is the lowest ever recorded by the census.

As marriage with children becomes an exception rather than the norm, social scientists say it is also becoming the self-selected province of the college-educated and the affluent.

“The culture is shifting, and marriage has almost become a luxury item, one that only the well educated and well paid are interested in,” said Isabel V. Sawhill, an expert on marriage and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Many demographers peg the rise of a class-based marriage gap to the erosion since 1970 of the broad-based economic prosperity that followed World War II.

The 1965 Immigration Act caused this. Men’s median wages are down from 1973. Search p60-229.pdf and go to page 14 on census.gov. 51 percent of women live alone. This is because men don’t make enough.Female fertility is then below replacement.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/incineq/p60204/fig1.html
This shows income inequality fell from the 1940’s to 1968 and then rose since. This is because of the 1965 Immigration Act.

Legal immigration takes away job security from men and so young adults don’t get married and have kids and stay married. Legal immigration must end completely and no amnesty.

=

“Many demographers peg the rise of a class-based marriage gap to the erosion since 1970 of the broad-based economic prosperity that followed World War II.” From WaPo above. This was caused by the 1965 Immigration Act. All the statistics, marriage, men’s median income, the share of the top 1 percent of gross income, all show that the timing of the change came from the 1965 Immigration Act, legal immigration. This was Ted Kennedy’s doing. The Kennedy share of national income went up, the rest can’t even get married anymore.
==Real Progress for Mary Jo Kopechne?

Leopold and Loeb did a thrill kill murder. Teddy Kennedy left Mary Jo Kopechne to die in an air pocket at Chappaquiddick while he went back to his hotel and didn’t call for help. This was a thrill kill for him. He let her slowly die while he enjoyed a drink in his hotel room and called friends.

This was rich boy Kennedy doing the same as rich boys Leopold and Loeb, killing someone below them for the fun of it. Kennedy got away with it.

His immigration plan is the same thing, killing our present and future for the thrill of it. The purpose of a thrill kill is to show the person is powerful and above morality that applies to others. See Ytedk Kennedy promised to call for help and stopped others from doing so. The diver the next morning said that he could have saved her if they had called her the previous night. Kennedy never called the police as he promised.

http://www.ytedk.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_and_Loeb

Kennedy showed he was smarter than Leopold and Loeb. He enjoyed his drink at his hotel while his victim died, and Kennedy went on to victimize us. In fact, the 1965 Immigration Act was preparatory in a sense to Kennedy leaving Mary Jo Kopechne to die.

=Teens see no future, Teddy took it from them in 1965.
Teens see that men of every age are losing good jobs and not getting them back. They see job and economic insecurity ahead of them. So instead of steadying down, they turn to drugs, crime, or drop out of school. Teens see they have no secure place.

In the 1950’s, teens realized they were about to become adults with families, lifetime employment, and houses. So they picked out mates instead of engaging in loose sex and crime. Teens see that men with good jobs lose them and don’t get them back. This tells them the old American bargain is gone. There is nothing to take its place.

Kennedy is the one who took away the American dream, just like he took Mary Jo Kopechne’s life. Kennedy sat in his hotel room having a drink while Mary Jo was breathing the last air in her air pocket. We are all Mary Jo Kopechnes to Teddy Kennedy, a rich boy who got away with a Leopold Loeb murder. He flunked out of Harvard but he showed he was the smart one.

Kennedy sits in his Senate office taking away the American dream by immigration just like he sat in his hotel room and took away Mary Jo Kopechne’s last moments of oxygen.

==

What a difference a trial would make. Kennedy should be tried for what he did at Chappaquiddick. Civil rights cases with less evidence from the 1960’s have been tried. So why not Kennedy?

==Comments at WaPo: “Old atlantic, what a blowhard you are!!!”

quote Old atlantic, what a blowhard you are!!! your ramblings are ridiculous and are arrived at with full blinders on! and your attack of kennedy and focus on the one point about the immigration act shows how meager your arguement really is. end quote
spookay66 | Mar 11, 2007 12:28:08 PM.

On immigration I have given search terms and information to go to census and CBO data which show that men’s median wages peaked in 1973, see p60-231.pdf page 18. Income inequality is a bowl that fell to its lowest from 1965 to 1968 and then has risen. Search on Census income inequality graph, go to my webpage and then follow link to census webpage.

The top 1 percent of households got 15 to 25 percent of all income before immigration was restricted in the 1920s. That then fell to about 10 percent from the 50s to 70s and then climbed back up to the 20 percent range now.
51 percent of women live without a spouse, the highest in history in the US. In 1960, 1/2 the people lived in a household of a married couple now its 1/4.

The Post reports: quote Many demographers peg the rise of a class-based marriage gap to the erosion since 1970 of the broad-based economic prosperity that followed World War II. end quote.

Sailer quoting Borjas quote the employment rate of black high school dropouts fell by 33 percentage points, from 88.6 to 55.7 percent, as compared to an 18 percentage point drop for white high school dropouts, from 94.1 to 76.0 percent. end quote. Both falls are bad.

quote As recently as 1980, only 0.8 percent of black men … were incarcerated. By 2000, 9.6 percent of black men … were incarcerated. For black male high school dropouts, the historic surge in imprisonment staggers the imagination: Among [black male] high school dropouts with 1 to 30 years of experience, for example, the incarceration rate was 1.4 percent in 1960, 1.3 percent in 1980, 14.3 percent in 1990, and an astounding 25.1 percent in 2000. end quote.

These statistics show that the 1965 Immigration Act destroyed our society and stole the promise of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Martin Luther King’s dream and what used to be called the American Dream.

Kennedy stole all the dreams by his 1965 Immigration Act. And he is better off because the top 1 percent of households now have 20 percent of national income as opposed to 10 percent in 1965. He restored it to the 20 percent or so before immigration restriction, i.e. before 1924. What in these statistics and data do you dispute? Why do you call this blowhard?

seanaids | Mar 11, 2007 6:04:12 PM is exactly right. Every sentence is right on. Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act has produced enormous harm to the people in the country, which is what counts, not the Economy. The Economy is to serve the people, and immigration serves to eradicate them.

1 out of 2 people lived in a married household in 1960, now its 1 out of 4. These are the statistics of ethnic cleansing. That is the result of Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act, a crime against humanity.

==”Try sticking to one comment. Nobody cares to read your ranting.”
quote Old Atlantic. Try sticking to one comment. Nobody cares to read your ranting. Staying on the topic would be good, too. By r_rothgeb | Mar 11, 2007 8:01:16 PM end quote.

Is Mary Jo Kopechne here to point out the truth about Teddy Kennedy? What about those killed by immigrants in crime? Where do they get their one comment? What about those never born because the birth rate is lower because of job insecurity from immigration and men’s median wages are lower than in 1973? 51 percent of women live without spouses.

1 in 2 were in households that were married in 1960, now its 1 in 4. This is because immigration took away men’s wages and without men as earners with stable good jobs with benefits, marriages don’t form or stay together.

So all those not born and who were replaced by Kennedy immigrants are not here to speak up. Each of them gets 1 comment. How about the black men in prison? They are there because they can’t get jobs from Kennedy’s immigration. Each of them should get a comment, but they don’t because they are in prison. You don’t want to hear from them too do you?

You don’t want to hear from any of them? Not even Mary Jo Kopechne. Nor her children who were never born because Kennedy took that opportunity from her. Kennedy took away the chance of many Americans to have children. You don’t want to hear from them, nor any of the living Americans Kennedy has harmed. According to you, none of them is on topic?

==”Can you imagine claiming Kennedy is responsible for the income inequality. You are nuts.”

quote OldAtlantic is very funny. Must be a deluded neo-con. Can you imagine claiming Kennedy is responsible for the income inequality. You are nuts. We need more truthful editorials like Senator Kennedys. Thank you for your service Mr. Kennedy. Keep up the good work. Please give us back our democracy. By jryan758 | Mar 11, 2007 11:28:19 PM end quote.

Did you look at the graphs on income inequality? They are bowl shaped. The top 1 percent got 20 percent of national income before 1920’s immigration restriction, got 10 percent during restriction and get 20 percent now after the 1965 Immigration Act.

In 1960 1 in 2 lived in a married household, now 1 in 4. Men’s median wages peaked in 1973. That’s at p60-231.pdf page 18. Search census income inequality graph for links to my webpage Old Atlantic Lighthouse for more links to census and other official data.

The numbers show that before 1965, things were good and getting better, men’s wages going up, and after got worse and are still getting even more worse.

==Is Immigration Causal to the U shape in income inequality?

Old Atlantic, you need to look up a logical fallacy called Post hoc ergo propter hoc. The fallacy is assuming that if one thing happens after another, the first caused the second. You cite a lot of statistics and then blame it on a 1965 law without considering any of the other changes in the last 40 years. Thats like saying, Before women got the vote, there were no nuclear weapons.

By presto668 | Mar 12, 2007 9:14:18 PM” reply to presto668 | Mar 12, 2007 9:14:18 PM

It isn’t one event.  We have the 1920’s restriction and then the 1965 increase.  Before the 1920’s restriction the top 1 percent got 20 percent of national income. After restriction that fell to 10 percent.  Then after the 1965 Act it rose to 20 percent.  We thus have a U shaped pattern.

For the U in the data to be Unrelated to Unequal income is Unlikely.
We also know from causality in markets that more supply lowers price, thus more labor lowers price.  This is observed in specific cases, e.g. Microsoft pays H-1B
programmers less than others.

Wages in industries like meat packing and construction taken over by immigrants have fallen sharply, even those these are local industries.  When theory and data agree you say, so much the worse for the theory and the facts.  That is PC brain washing and denial.

Risk says you don’t do something that will kill you if it has a 1 percent chance of happening.  You don’t continue immigration if it has a 1 percent chance to be the cause of men’s median wages being less than in 1973 when they rose under restriction, and of the income inequality stats.  Much other data supports this.

Unless you were 99.9 percent sure that immigration had no role, you would stop all immigration.

Math also shows that immigration when you have below replacement fertility results in genetic extinction.  That is a theorem, search on Unpleasant Immigration Arithmetic.
==Mary Jo Kopechne

Mary Jo Kopechne at wiki

Mary Jo Kopechne (July 26, 1940July 18, 1969) was an American teacher, secretary and administrator, notable for her death in a car accident on Chappaquiddick Island in a car driven by Senator Ted Kennedy.

read more | digg story

The Right Way to Manage U.S. Attorneys

March 10, 2007

“The actions of an appointed U.S. attorney must be totally off-limits to questions from the White House or anyone in Congress.” from Abbe David Lowell Saturday, March 10, 2007; Page A19.

A discussion of whether Bush is trying to influence the Tom Delay, Jack Abramoff, and Libby investigations or to intimidate Assistant US Attorney Sara Bloom at the USAO Mass from reopening the Harvard investigation follows. This are in response to the article by Abbe Lowell on the US Attorney firings.

==

The following is all hypotheses and speculation. All statements should be restated as questions. All other
disclaimes apply.
Comments at WaPo

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007030901752&start=1

==

Assistant US Attorney Sara Bloom of USAO Mass is the real target of intimidation? Because Russia used kompromat to get loans from Clinton admin and Bush knew thay by the time of Bush v. Gore? In July 1998, Putin became head of FSB and Russia got another 4.8 billion in IMF loans.

But the money was taken from the bank accounts of the Russian govt to the personal accounts of the leaders. (Note the IMF disputes this in part and had an audit done and claimed equivalent amounts of money from other Russian government controlled accounts were used.) So the Russian government defaulted on Russian govt debt in Aug 98 since the money was not in the govt bank accounts.

Russia 4.8 billion IMF site:imf.org

Russia 4.8 billion IMF

A discussion of some of the IMF Russia and Asia transactions that is more technical is here.

Two professors, Larry Summers and Stanley Fischer had control over the IMF loans to Russia. Putin and the oligarchs and FSB had decades of files on academic kompromat some of it linked to Fischer’s 1969 Ph.D. thesis and an NSF grant involving Paul Samuelson, Summers’ uncle.

The KGB in 1972 at an econ conference in Warsaw may have used this incident and others to try to pressure Samuelson and Arrow, also uncle of Summers to nominate Kantorovich of the USSR for the Nobel in econ.

This was all possibly hid from USAO Mass from 1997 to 2005 by Clinton admin and then Bush. Did Bush use it during Bush v. Gore to make Gore go away? Gore turned down the presidency of Harvard. Did Marc Rich know this? Libby and Wolfowitz? Jacob Wolfowitz likely knew of the 1969 and 1972 incidents.

The above is speculation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn//comments/display?contentID=AR2007030901752&start=1⊂=AR

Job Offer to Stanley Fischer from Putin in 2001:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/bwi-wto/imf/2001/russiaimf.htm

quote Russia Restores Ties with IMF BBC News June 19, 2001 For his part, Mr Putin complimented Mr Fischer, who plans to step down from his IMF role before the end of the year. He also offered him a job. We are always glad to see you in our country, said Mr Putin. If you would like to move from the IMF to Moscow, we can look at various options. end quote.

Putin likely got in on the July 1998 4.8 billion pot of money. So he was protecting his money at this point. After Fischer was hired by Israel in Jan 2005, Putin did an arms deal with Syria and then Iran. Israel and Bush kept quiet. The SVR and FSB are professionals at intimidation. Follow the money. Follow Putins money.
==
search “In Honor of Edmund S. Phelps ” plagiarism

quote Thus, my much-cited 1969 paper on optimal intertemporal portfolio programming opportunistically used the Bellman-Beckman-Phelps recursive techniques to analyze what defines the best qualitative asset-portfolio mix of the Phelps 1962 aggregate saving. It was not plagiarism but it was horning in on a created public good there for the taking. end quote Paul Samuelson.

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i1_7521.html

old link:

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i7521.html

from Preface Knowledge, Information, and Expectations in Modern Macroeconomics:
In Honor of Edmund S. Phelps
Edited by Philippe Aghion, Roman Frydman, Joseph Stiglitz, and Michael Woodford. Its on line.

Note the text was removed from above link after being posted with this link.

But it can be seen with Google inside:

http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0691094853

If you type the word plagiarism into the search, you get part of the passage quoted above.  Click on page 1 and scroll down.  This link brings it up:

http://books.google.com/books?id=5yC9Z5q6NmkC&pg=PA1&vq=plagiarism&sig=pyJGziu75ir5psgGewgQai61M1c

Fischer’s thesis was part of the same 1969 events. Samuelson and Merton got NSF grants for their 1969 papers. But it was already in part in the 1966 Nils Hakansson Ph.D. thesis that MIT had a copy of in 1966. Fischer got his US citizenship from his thesis. Above is speculation.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0691094853/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-8618326-6380625#reader-link
==
search Wolfowitz site:nobelprize.org

Engle Nobel autobio shows Jacob Wolfowitz, Paul’s father was part of this small world in 1969.quote I took Kiefer’s probability and Wolfowitz’s statistics. I was extremely happy. … We married on August 10, 1969. On that day, I turned in my dissertation, received my Ph.D. and we left Cornell for good to take my first academic job at MIT. …
… Many of my students from that time have gone on to do quite well themselves: Larry Summers, …
Frank Fisher, Bob Solow, and Jerry Rothenberg encouraged me to join them on a new project to build a model of the city of Boston. …end quote.
quote Robert M. Solow – Autobiography
So, in 1949-50, I spent a fellowship year at Columbia University, in the lectures of Abraham Wald, Jacob Wolfowitz and T.W. Anderson, along with my fellow … end quote. Solow Nobel Prize autobio.

Solow was on one of the Ph.D. committees of Merton and Stanley Fischer at that time. This was one little world and Russia knew this to use it at the 1972 Warsaw econ conference to pressure Arrow and Samuelson to nominate Kantorovich of the USSR for the 1975 Nobel Prize in economics. Above is speculation.

==

Paul Wolfowitz was Jacob Wolfowitz’s son and signed the 1998 PNAC letter to make regime change in Iraq part of US goals. Clinton was impeached in fall of 1998 and signed the Iraq Liberation Act in October 1998. At the same time there were hearings into IMF loans for Russia, LTCM bailout, etc.

Robert C. Merton was part of LTCM which bought Russian bonds in Aug 98 betting the IMF would have to bail Russia out. But the money was put into the personal bank accounts of the leaders so it wasn’t there to pay Russia’s bonds, so it defaulted. LTCM went belly up and Congress investigated why the Fed helped arrange a bailout.

The USAO Mass had already started investigating Harvard and Russia and Clinton profs like Larry Summers in spring 1997. If Jacob Wolfowitz had revealed this at that time, Clinton might have been removed from office and this would have become part of the ongoing investigations of Clinton more closely. This could be used again during Bush v. Gore, the USAO Mass was still investigating, in fact to August 2005. The above is all speculation.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2003/engle-autobio.html

==

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/30/AR2005123001480_pf.html

The DeLay-Abramoff Money Trail
Nonprofit Group Linked to Lawmaker Was Funded Mostly by Clients of Lobbyist

quote Two former Buckham associates said that he told them years ago not only that the $1 million donation was solicited from Russian oil and gas executives, but also that the initial plan was for the donation to be made via a delivery of cash to be picked up at a Washington area airport.

One of the former associates, a Frederick, Md., pastor named Christopher Geeslin who served as the U.S. Family Network’s director or president from 1998 to 2001, said Buckham further told him in 1999 that the payment was meant to influence DeLay’s vote in 1998 on legislation that helped make it possible for the IMF to bail out the faltering Russian economy and the wealthy investors there.

“Ed told me, ‘This is the way things work in Washington,’ ” Geeslin said. “He said the Russians wanted to give the money first in cash.” Buckham, he said, orchestrated all the group’s fundraising and spending and rarely informed the board about the details. Buckham and his attorney, Laura Miller, did not reply to repeated requests for comment on this article.

The IMF funding legislation was a contentious issue in 1998. The Russian stock market fell steeply in April and May, and the government in Moscow announced on June 18 — just a week before the $1 million check was sent by the London law firm — that it needed $10 billion to $15 billion in new international loans.

House Republican leaders had expressed opposition through that spring to giving the IMF the money it could use for new bailouts, decrying what they described as previous destabilizing loans to other countries. The IMF and its Western funders, meanwhile, were pressing Moscow, as a condition of any loan, to increase taxes on major domestic oil companies such as Gazprom, which had earlier defaulted on billions of dollars in tax payments.

On Aug. 18, 1998, the Russian government devalued the ruble and defaulted on its treasury bills. But DeLay, appearing on “Fox News Sunday” on Aug. 30 of that year, criticized the IMF financing bill, calling the replenishment of its funds “unfortunate” because the IMF was wrongly insisting on a Russian tax increase. “They are trying to force Russia to raise taxes at a time when they ought to be cutting taxes in order to get a loan from the IMF. That’s just outrageous,” DeLay said. end quote

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 31, 2005; A01

search Russia IMF july 1998 site:washingtonpost.com

http://www.nationalbanken.dk/C1256BE9004F6416/side/Report_and_Accounts_1998/$file/kap08_01.htm
==

If Russia was bribing Tom Delay, they weren’t using academic kompromat at the same time? This was a big time operation of the Russian goverment to get these IMF loans. They were bribing Tom Delay through Jack Abramoff and at the same time there were pressuing Larry Summers at US Treasury and Stanley Fischer at IMF based on the academic kompromat trail that stretches back to the 1920’s and includes the same methods used to help gain atomic know-how.

Putin was head of FSB in July 1998. This was partly his operation. That is why he became President of Russia, he was part of this. That’s why Berezovsky and Yeltsin trusted him.

They were pushing all buttons at once and that didn’t just include bribing Tom Delay but also pushing academic kompromat buttons. That was while USAO Mass was investigating Harvard from 1997 and questioning Summers on his relationship to Shleifer.

Paul Wolfowitz and the neocons knew the Clinton profs and Harvard were concealing this history from the USAO Mass investigation. They got the Iraq Liberation Act during the Clinton impeachment. Then used this during Bush v. Gore to influence Scalia and then make Gore go away. Scalia has had econ Ph.D./JD clerks from the schools involved from the 1990’s to now. The links are all over the place. The above is speculation.

==

Bush is trying to intimidate the investigation of Tom Delay and Jack Abramoff, of Marc Rich, and of other investigations that may link to this. Bush is trying to keep Assistant US Attorney Sara Bloom from reopening the Harvard investigation into whether Bush’s team knew this in 1998 and formed a conspiracy to keep this information from USAO Mass and use it to pressure Clinton admin figures for the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act and then later during Bush v. Gore. Above is speculation.

==

Bush was not a US government employee prior to Jan 20, 2001. Nor were the others during these incidents. If they formed an agreement as non US government employees to keep this information from the USAO Mass office, that was a conspiracy to obstruct justice and to conceal espionage by Russia against the United States. That is what this is about. That is why they put into the Patriot Act that they could appoint interim US Attorneys. They had this problem from before 9-11. The above is speculation.

read more | digg story

The above is all hypotheses and speculation. All statements should be restated as questions. All other disclaimes apply.

%d bloggers like this: