George C. Marshall Institute Letter to Congress

September 27, 2006

Dear Member of Congress:

On September 20th the British newspaper, The Guardian, published an article on a letter from the Royal Society, Britain’s equivalent of the National Academy of Sciences, calling for the silencing of groups, organizations, and individuals who do not conform to their views on climate change science and policy.

The Royal Society’s letter is truly disturbing and I write to you to inform you about it and the dangers the views expressed in the letter raise. As the Marshall Institute wrote in our reply to the Society, “That such a call comes from such a venerable scientific society is disturbing and should raise concerns worldwide about the intentions of those seeking to silence honest debate and discussion of our most challenging environmental issue– climate change.”

Simply put, the scientific process can not function if debate and discussion is denied and discouraged. A recent letter to the Royal Society from a group of eleven scientists makes this point most eloquently: “Dissent makes science stronger; diversity of viewpoint is essentially to learning. Even if our hypotheses are ultimately proven wrong, our scrutiny of these issues is a service to the body of science and will contribute, even by counterexample, to our understanding of nature.”

The Royal Society contends that the purpose of its letter is to check the spread of misinformation and inaccurate or misleading impressions. Yet, the proof they offer shows that the debate is really about how different interpretations can arise from the same set of data and studies when different assumptions and models are used.

Copies of the Marshall Institute’s reply to the Royal Society are available at http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=454 or by contacting the Institute at 202.296.9655 or info@marshall.org. The letter from the eleven scientists that I reference is attached.

Respectfully submitted,
Jeffrey Kueter
President

September 26, 2006

The Royal Society
6-9 Carlton House Terrace
London SW1Y 5AG

Dear Sirs:
We write today in order to express our grave concern regarding the Royal Society’s recent attempt to politicize the private funding of science and to censor scientific debate. We feel this unprecedented action is wildly inappropriate and in contradiction with the esteemed history and principles of the Society as an objective and neutral body dedicated to the free exchange of ideas.

It is essential that we remind you that the Society’s Latin motto “Nullis in Verba” translated informs us that scientific inquiry relies “on the words of no one.” Accordingly, the Society has been known for its commitment to gaining knowledge through experimentation rather than citation of authority. But now, in this its 346th year of existence, the Society seems to have made an extraordinary shift that it should be the one tyrannical authority which trumps experimentation.

It’s important to remember that the Society has its roots in controversy. Many respected members were at one time considered on the fringes of science; even Sir Isaac Newton was a practicing alchemist. The Society’s heritage lies with intellectual rebels, but today it seems to only have room for those who agree with its leadership.

Karl Popper, who is among the most influential philosophers of science in the 20th century and was a member of the Royal Society, advises us that scientific inquiry is unique because it requires falsifiability. We can only advance our understanding of the natural world by questioning our conclusions. The beauty of science is that no issue is ever “settled”, that no question is beyond being more fully understood, that no conclusion is immune to further experimentation.

And yet for the first time in history, the Royal Society is shamelessly using the media to say emphatically: “case closed” on all issues related to climate change. With all due respect, how can this be?

Think of the far-reaching implications of your actions. To begin with, this letter takes the Society down a slippery slope of engaging third parties for public reprimand. This could have a chilling effect in the future investment of all private funding, without which much of the knowledge we have gained today would not have been possible.

Furthermore, such bullying by the world’s leading scientific body will intimidate young students from thinking outside the mainstream. Innovation will be crushed before it has even been conceived. The leaking of your letter to a media outlet compromises your integrity and creates a new model where science is not communicated through academic literature.

The very nature of scientific inquiry is based on questioning and debate, yet the perpetuation of this practice will increasingly discourage these exchanges among colleagues.

Lastly, many of us find Mr. Ward’s comments particularly mean-spirited and unbecoming of the Society and the scientific community. It is personally and professionally insulting to imply as Mr. Ward clearly does that those of us that have worked on projects funded by private or corporate means have falsified, omitted, or manipulated research data and evidence in order to satisfy our patrons. Good people can arrive at different conclusions, Mr. Ward. Is there even a single member within the Royal Society that at one time during their careers has not accepted a scholarship, grant or other source of funding to advance their own intellectual pursuits? Are we to assume that they have altered their findings to meet the whims of their funders?

Dissent makes science stronger; diversity of viewpoint is essentially to learning. Even if our hypotheses are ultimately proven wrong, our scrutiny of these issues is a service to the body of science and will contribute, even by counterexample, to our understanding of nature. Colleagues who have devoted their lives to science deserve your respect even if you cannot give your endorsement. We ask the Royal Society for a public apology regarding this regrettable episode.

Sincerely,
Dr. Tim Ball
Retired Professor of Geography (1971 -1996)
University of Winnipeg

Dr. William Gray
Director, Tropical Meteorology Project
Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University

Dr. Gary Sharp
Scientific Director
Center for Climate/ Ocean Resources Study

Dr. Ian Clark
Department of Earth Sciences
University of Ottawa

Dr. Patrick J. Michaels
Professor of Environmental Sciences
University of Virginia
Past-President, American Association of State Climatologists

Dr. Anthony Lupo
Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science
Department of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Sciences
University of Missouri

Dr. Robert Balling
Former Director, Office of Climatology
Arizona State University

Dr. James J. O’Brien
Florida State Climatologist Emeritus
Director Emeritus, Center for Ocean and Atmospheric Prediction Studies
Robert 0. Lawton Distinguished Professor, Meteorology & Oceanography
Florida State University

Joseph D’Aleo
Certified Consultant Meteorologist

Dr. Madhav Khandekar
Retired Meteorologist
Formerly with Environment Canada

Dr. Tim Patterson
Professor of Geology
Department of Earth Sciences
Carleton University in Ottawa

The Parliamentary Process to Stop a Broad Based Tax

By Marshall Cobleigh

Step 1: Vote down or amend the leadership's proposed joint rules to allow the elected legislators to propose constitutional amendments or a process to leave lawmaking to elected officials answerable to the people of New Hampshire rather than the courts.

Step 2: Vote for a Constitutional Amendment (60 percent vote required) Justice Douglas' plan or Gatsas' Plan.

Step 3: If Step 2 fails to get 60 percent vote, have both the House and Senate adopt a resolution calling for a convention (simple majority vote required by both branches - NH Constitution Part 2 Article 100(b)). This Resolution could spell out details as to: o timing of the convention o when the election to select delegates would be held (could specify Presidential Primary date or town meeting date) o and when the question to amend would appear on the ballot.

This could provide a vehicle to ask the Supreme Court to delay their effective date deadline so the people's voice may be heard.

Step 4: Request the Supreme Court for an advisory opinion on the constitutionality of Governor Lynch's plan (majority vote required).

STATEMENT OF MARSHALL COBLEIGH

I believe strongly that if New Hampshire elected leaders do not act this coming Tuesday to pass a constitutional amendment removing the courts from education funding and taxing issues, we will lose the New Hampshire advantage.

Part I Article 10 of the New Hampshire Constitution spells out that ?whenever the ends of government are perverted, "and all other means of redress are ineffectual the people may and of right ought to reform the old or establish a new government." We believe that the recent New Hampshire Supreme Court decision so endangers New Hampshire traditions such as local control of education and the closer to the people a spending decision is made, the more efficient that decision will be. The time to act is now.

Time is quickly running out on the state's ability to stop a massive court-imposed spending increase and the taxes that go along with it. It is our firm belief that you do not increase the quality of education by willy-nilly spending increases to satisfy mandates from non-elected officials. History has taught us that the quality of education has little correlation with educational funding. This point was reinforced by the recent John Stossel education program entitled, "Stupid in America."

Fortunately, the legislature is reconvening in a special session next Tuesday. Unfortunately the governor and the legislative leaders have proposed to limit the agenda and ignore the Supreme Court's ruling on school funding. A simple majority of the membership of either branch can kill these proposed joint rules or amend them to allow the legislature to deal with this problem and put a constitutional question on the November 7^th ballot that if adopted by the people would forestall the court?s decision. And allow our elected officials to deal with the biggest problem facing the state in decades.

The way to reverse the Supreme Court decision is to pass a constitutional amendment. If Governor John Lynch and the legislative leadership allow the voters to vote on a constitutional amendment that would be simple and clear in restoring our 1784 Constitution to where it was 13 years ago before the Claremont I decision. The amendment suggested by former Supreme Court Justice Charles G. Douglas, III, would simply say, "The definition of an adequate education and the funding of same by the state shall be exclusively decided by the legislative and executive branches of government."

The court ruled that the legislature must do something before July, 2007 or it will impose a plan itself. For an amendment to be considered by the people of New Hampshire before the court-imposed deadline, it would need to appear on the November 7^th ballot. Failure to take this step means the next legislature will return to face a billion dollar spending increase that comes due on the New Hampshire Supreme Court imposed deadline.

This amendment does not define what an adequate education means. It does not say how to fund it nor require new taxes. It simply says who will make these billion dollar a year decisions' our elected officials or five non-elected judges who are not answerable to the people. The New Hampshire Constitution has been amended over 100 times. It provides an appropriate check and balance to the recent judicial decision that will forever alter our government and take away the New Hampshire advantage. The question is simple. Should the court require the change of our tax structure of our state forever or let our elected officials make this decision?

Governor John Lynch is right. This is a time to set politics aside and for everyone to work together in a bipartisan manner. Jim Coburn is also right that this is a time that cries out for real leadership not simply waiting until after the election. This is an opportunity for John Lynch, Ted Gatsas, and Doug Scamman to lead on the issue.

As usual, Ronald Regan said it best when he said, "I will not stand by and watch this great country destroy itself under mediocre leadership that drifts from one crisis to the next."  Our current Governor John Lynch is a nice, pleasant man despite all of his rhetoric about non-partisanship. He is a specialist in avoiding courageous stands or even discussing controversial issues.

John Lynch, like most Mandy Grunwald clients, relies heavily on public opinion polls before taking any kind of stand on an issue. For instance, his first campaign ad shows him smiling prettily at disaster scenes and coming out firmly against sexual predators. Do you know any politician who ever came out for sexual predators? Of course not--they're at the bottom of the poll and thus it's safe to be against them.

As Fergus Cullen put it so well, "there is more to being an effective governor than showing concern at the scene of a local disaster or being a Portsmouth Little League groupie." But if push comes to shove and he's forced to take a position on an unpopular issue, John Lynch always does what his most partisan liberal advisors tell him to do.

Despite John Lynch's repeatedly telling us he is for bipartisanship, when the recent Supreme Court decision came down Lynch refused to join Senate President Ted Gatsas in the search for a bipartisan constitutional amendment to be put on the November 7^th ballot to let the taxpayers of New Hampshire rather than five lawyers make the spending and taxing decisions.

Tom Thomson, one of Mel's sons, asked his mother, Gale Thomson, former First Lady of New Hampshire, what Mel would have done under similar circumstances. They decided Mel probably would have called a statewide news conference on the steps of the State Supreme Court denouncing the court?s decision and announcing his full support for a special session to craft a bipartisan constitutional amendment to be on the ballot November 7^th so that the citizens of New Hampshire, once and for all, would decide whether they want the Justices of the Supreme Court or the people of New Hampshire, through their legislative representatives to set future education funding policy. Thomson went on to say, "Mel would have limited or foregone any reelection campaign to work on this important issue with the leaders of the House and Senate in order to allow the citizens to bring an end to the involvement of our judicial system in this matter."

If we fail to have a special session and a constitutional amendment ready for our citizens to vote on by November 7^th and the Supreme Court Justices are allowed to define an adequate education in New Hampshire, we will be guaranteed a sales or income tax and the New Hampshire advantage that we have all enjoyed for so long will be lost forever. You must act now. New Hampshire's future is at stake.

Marshall Cobleigh was former NH House Speaker , a Parliamentary expert who spent 10 years in the Legislature 6 six years as a Legislative Leader and 4 years as Speaker of the House and served as an Administrative Assistant to Governor Mel Thomson for 5 years and Congressman Bill Zeliff for 5 years.

Global Warnings from the Ivory Tower

by Dr. Roy W. Spencer
Weather Questions
September 22, 2006
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Royal-Society-letter.htm

The Royal Society of London, England's premier scientific society, has sent a letter to Exxon-Mobil asking that the energy giant stop funding organizations which have "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence." This unusual step seems strangely out of place for a scientific organization, and it belies a dogmatic adherence to a prevailing scientific theory that will, in the end, only make the Royal Society look a little foolish.

In the letter, Bob Ward, the official spokesman of the Royal Society says,

"It is now more crucial than ever that we have a debate which is properly informed by the science. For people to be still producing information that misleads people about climate change is unhelpful. The next IPCC report should give people the final push that they need to take action and we can't have people trying to undermine it."

So, while Mr. Ward states that it is "more crucial than ever that we have a debate," he apparently wants a certain group of scientists to decide which global warming information is misleading and which is not. I find that scientists on both sides of the issue have differing opinions on what kinds of evidence represent weak or strong support for their side.

The reason that a debate even exists is because it is so difficult to tie observed warming to human activities, versus other, natural causes of warming. Uniquely attributing some observed effect (e.g., warming) to a specific cause is the kind of conundrum that scientific research must continually struggle with. We might all agree on the observations, but what the observations mean is an entirely different matter.

This problem is particularly acute for global warming, where there is only one experiment, it is being conducted now, and it is not yet finished. We can't devise a laboratory experiment to see how the Earth will respond to slowly increasing levels of carbon dioxide. Certainly the current warming could be caused by manmade greenhouse gas emissions, but we know so little about natural climate variability that there is really no way to know whether a small part or a large part of our current warmth is manmade.

To confound scientists even further, a new study published in Geophysical Research Letters reveals that in only two years (2003-2005), over 20% of the globally averaged upper ocean warming that had occurred over the previous 48 years has now been cancelled out by a strong cooling trend. The reasons for this unexpected cooling are unknown. Computer models of the coupled ocean and atmosphere system do not produce such behavior. Are we to believe that warming is only caused by mankind, but that cooling is only caused by nature? Give me a break.

On the policy side, Mr. Ward's comments are even more surprising. Science has nothing to say about what policy actions should be taken on anything. The statement that "people...need to take action" and that "we can't have people trying to undermine it (action)" further suggests that he believes that the billions of dollars we are spending on new energy research is 'not taking action'.

The United Nations' orchestrated IPCC process that Mr. Ward refers to is, in my experience, led by some very opinionated scientists who are using the science to advance not only their own scientific views, but their political views as well. From what I have seen, these folks are misinformed on how economies work and the unintended negative consequences that their so-called 'solutions' to the global warming problem will cause.

How does the Royal Society explain scientists who do not buy into the global warming gloom-and-doom hype who have taken no money, directly or indirectly, from oil or coal companies? I wrote and spoke on my views as a so-called "skeptic" for over ten years for no fee. I have never been asked to write about something that I didn't believe in, and I know others who avoid any financial connection with non-governmental sources, if only to avoid any potential ad hominem accusations.

It should come as no surprise that there is no shortage of environmentalist exaggeration and half-truth that also "misleads people about climate change". After all, professional environmentalists and climate scientists might lose their jobs if the global warming problem was to ever go away.

As a result, everyone in the global warming debate is biased. People can expect that corporations will emphasize research that supports their opinions and goals, while environmental lobbying groups will do the same. Everyone has financial motives, and government-funded scientists and environmentalists acting as if they own the moral high ground is an increasingly tiresome pose.

Maybe the British dabbling in socialism has caused them to resort to this "government funded experts know best" mentality that has led to the Royal Society to resort to such a tactic. But here in the United States we still believe in a free flow of ideas, good and bad, all of which reflect biases. We let the people (and our elected representatives) decide what courses of action are best for the country. The Royal Society's letter is just one more example of why the public is so distrustful of scientists' pronouncements regarding environmental problems.

Dr. Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite.

Amend or Spend - Claremont revisited

By Charles M. Arlinghaus

Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy

Almost 20 years ago, Judd Gregg asked the famous political question: Which will it be, Joe, an income tax or a sales tax? Today, the state Supreme Court has presented New Hampshire lawmakers with a similar question: Which will it be, spend or amend?

New Hampshire schools spend about $2.3 billion on education. Since the landmark Claremont decision in 1997 threw out the system of education finance, lawmakers have argued about what the decision means and how to respond to it.

Broadly, there are three categories of response. One group has pushed for the state to take over most of education spending. Many in this group, but not all, support an income tax to pay for the huge increase. Many conservatives agreed that the court decision seemed to mandate a massive spending increase and new tax source, so they wanted to use a constitutional amendment to reverse the court decision or "take the courts out of" education finance.

But in recent years, a third option achieved wide support. This option suggests targeting state aid so towns with greater need get more money but some towns get none.

In the last session of the Legislature, the leadership of both parties, the leadership of both houses and the governor all supported targeted aid plans that had similar amounts of state grants to towns, approximately $500 million, or a little less than 25 percent of total education spending. Some plans added to that an amount that was state property tax kept by the towns, a sort of shell game that increases the nominal amount to $800 million.

Some lawmakers felt a basic targeted aid plan like the ones proposed by Democratic Gov. John Lynch and Republican Senate President Ted Gatsas were a good idea but assumed they would be struck down by the court.

The latest court case resolved that issue. The court said unambiguously what it had said before, that the state must determine a base level of acceptable funding called adequacy and pay for the

level of funding in each and every town without regard to a town's relative wealth or ability to pay.

Put another way, what the state does for a poor town like Berlin, it must do for a rich town like Bedford. This would require a significant increase in spending merely to maintain the current level of support for poorer towns.

The court pointed out that whatever the Legislature and governor come up with, the current $837 million, including the statewide property tax, seems unlikely to be an adequate amount. In fact, most observers assume that state aid will have to increase by $800 million or even a billion dollars to meet the court mandate.

That's option No. 1 - spend another billion dollars. As one of the Claremont lawyers suggested last week, it will require "a new revenue source." The Concord Monitor has suggested the Hager-Below income tax.

A significant spending increase is the only option that will satisfy the court's ruling. So to pass a more targeted plan like Lynch's or Gatsas's, the only other choice is some form of an amendment.

Some conservatives would "take the issue from the court," but other amendments are possible. The most likely amendment will clarify the commonsense position that education funding, like most government functions, may be shared between state and local governments. The state may delegate to towns, as it does with so many functions, and target the state aid to areas where it is needed most.

In fact, this was the constitutional position of Justice Sherman Horton, who dissented from the Claremont II case that started this all.

The Legislature can and will debate many different funding proposals from the governor's $450 million targeted aid plan to income tax-based funding plans like the Monitor suggests. Some of those plans will require amending the constitution to one degree or another, some won't. But the governor and Legislature need to go into the debate with open eyes.

The court has made clear there are only two choices.

Which will it be, John, spend or amend?

(Charles M. Arlinghaus of Canterbury is president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, a free market think tank based in Concord.)

Carol Shea-Porter: Another Moonbat Insurgency?

by Patrick Hynes crossposted at Ankle Biting Pundits

Another New England state. Another Democratic frontrunner with all the trappings of a shoe-in campaign victory. Another liberal, anti-war insurgent who appears to be closing the gap at just the right moment.

The race for the Democratic nomination in New Hampshire’s first Congressional district is shaping up to look a lot like the Joe Lieberman-Ned Lamont primary in Connecticut from last month.

In the frontrunner role is state House Democratic Leader Jim Craig from Manchester. With an eight-year record of defying the majority GOP in the state legislature, a catalogue of state and national endorsements and the full backing to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Craig looked unbeatable only a couple of months ago.

But in recent weeks, liberals have grown restive over Craig’s incumbent-style approach to campaigning. As the Portsmouth Herald has opined, “It appears Craig has no intention of letting anyone know where he stands on any of the vital issues facing this state and country. His answers to questions are Democratic Party pabulum and appear to be consciously designed to give no hint as to where the candidate himself stands.”

And Craig’s biggest asset, his Washington, DC-based ATM machine, is becoming his biggest liability. Over the weekend, the liberal Concord Monitor lambasted the DCCC for endorsing Craig, and in the process appeared to disqualify Craig himself:

Money, money, money. Particularly at this time of the campaign, and particularly with little-known candidates, it is the lifeblood of politics. That is why it is reprehensible that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and its train of interest groups and big-name pols have given thousands of dollars to Jim Craig.

Enter the insurgent campaign of former Wes Clark volunteer Carol Shea-Porter. Despite her tremendous cash disadvantage and her caustic approach toward discussing controversial issues, Shea-Porter would appear to have the primary wind at her back a week from the primary. Shea-Porter is, of course, against the War in Iraq; she demands an immediate withdrawal of troops and wants to prosecute private firms for “war profiteering.” She also supports universal, single-payer health insurance.

Shea-Porter has been endorsed, so far, by the Nashua Telegraph and the Portsmouth Herald.

While no recent, relevant polling is available, one seasoned Democratic activist and former office holder, who supports Shea-Porter, told me that the campaign’s volunteer base is growing “exponentially” every week. Moreover, although “signs don’t vote,” there are almost no visual displays of support for Craig at the grassroots level, while Shea-Porter’s signs are everywhere.

The race is important because some see Republican incumbent Jeb Bradley as vulnerable. Early polls showed him below the treasured 50% re-elect benchmark, though his numbers have improved of late. Nevertheless, Bradley is the latest target of the Left’s “Culture of Corruption” witch hunt, and the Northeast as a whole is growing increasingly hostile to President Bush, with whom Bradley is perceived to be closely aligned.

Yet to be determined is how or even whether the recent revelations of an in-district University of New Hampshire professor who espouses and teaches a conspiracy theory that the federal government had foreknowledge of and was complicit in the 9/11 terror attacks will impact the political environment.

At first blush, it might appear that such quackery would damage the conspiracy-prone Shea-Porter. But as one state pundit has pointed out, such conspiracy theories are believed by 30% of the American public, virtually all, it is safe to say, are Democrats, are motivated to vote, and find a least some of their number in New Hampshire’s first CD. What is more, the overall reaction to Prof. Woodward’s conspiracy mongering has been of the glowing “academic freedom” variety.

Shea-Porter has one more week to convince Democrat primary voters that her take-no-enemy-combatants-prisoner, Bush-Lied-People-Died anger is their best hope to pick up this targeted Congressional seat. Or is it “frontrunner” Jim Craig who must play catch-up?