Arizona “Clean elections” Law Challenge Goes to the Supreme Court

One philosophy holds that the best we can do for this imperfect world is set a few rules against force and fraud, and work to make it better as individuals. In practice, the world remains imperfect, but the aggregate of individual efforts creates a collection of benefits that is inconceivable by any one individual or committee.

Another philosophy holds that the world is imperfect, but with enough force and rules, the world can be ridded of most imperfections. In practice, the world remains imperfect—and many unforeseen and unintended consequences are created, most of which are bad.

A good example of the latter philosophy is Arizona’s Clean Elections Act, passed in 1998 by referendum. Many people thought that state elections were rife with imperfections, most of which centered around financing. It was thought that by controlling the money, the influence of “special interests” would be eliminated; voter participation would be increased; the field of candidates would be made larger; and that third-party participation would increase. These were the promises of the legislation.

In practice, of course, it turned out much differently. Voter participation has not changed, nor are there more candidates. The participation of third parties has remained the same. In the words of Sarah Fenske of the Phoenix New Times, “If the system’s not getting any cleaner, and the candidates aren’t getting any better, what’s the point?”

Yet it is not the failure (the “world remains imperfect”) that should give one pause; rather, it is the “unforeseen and unintended consequences” that assault some of our basic liberties, like the right to free speech.

The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that political contributions are a form of speech. So what happens to that right when it collides with “Clean Elections”? Well, let’s say that you wanted to express your support of Rano Singh Sidhu in his 2006 race against Dean Martin for state treasurer. You may consider cutting him a check, but wait—he signed up for “Clean Elections” (candidate welfare), and cannot accept your support. Instead, he’s getting $121,253 from the government; that’s not a lot of speech when you’re looking at 2.5 million voters.

So, next time, you say, “I will only support a traditional candidate, not a welfare candidate.” You cut a check to your favorite traditional candidate—and he returns it, explaining that he is already at the level of the welfare candidate’s funding, and any more money he receives will be “matched” by the state and given to his opponent.

It’s actually worse. The “matching” of funds not only applies to the traditional campaign, but to independent groups who speak in favor of the traditional candidate.

My favorite example is the traditional candidate who is in a race with two welfare candidates: Every contribution over the base amount goes to both candidates. So if you send your candidate $100, a total of $200 ($100 each) goes to your candidate’s opponents.

Is this nuts or what? Fortunately, the Institute for Justice just got a break from the U.S. Supreme Court regarding their suit against the matching-funds provision (McComish v. Bennett). After a favorable decision from the U.S. District Court, it was reversed by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals; then the U.S. Supreme Court not only agreed to hear the case, but reinstated an injunction against any matching-funds payments. As one of the lead attorneys in the case, Bill Maurer, said, “The purpose of this law was to limit individuals’ speech by limiting their spending. But the First Amendment does not permit the government to restrain Americans from robustly exercising the right of free speech.” Amen.

It’s often said that there is too much money in electoral politics. What does that mean—too much speech? Too much information? Too much engagement? How much is too much? As George Will pointed out when referring to the 2008 presidential election, “Americans volunteering to fund the dissemination of speech about candidates for the nation’s most consequential office will contribute $1 billion, which is about half the sum they spend annually on Easter candy.”

The whole notion of controlling speech, or that too much speech is bad, offends both our Constitution and our culture. “Clean Elections” should be sent to the ash bin of history.

Arizona Education, Is It All Just About the Money?

Arizona is part of a group of about eight states that are 49th out of 50 in education spending. Others include Florida, Illinois, Idaho, Louisiana, Utah, and Pennsylvania. How can that happen? It’s all in how you combine the data sets. Anyway, the point is that states are competing to be at the bottom. Why is being at the bottom better than being at the top? There are few better arguments for increasing spending than being at the bottom. It’s all about the money. The stated goal of increased spending is to improve the quality of education, but does quality vary concomitantly with spending?

Here is what the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) says in its Nation’s Report Card about 4th grade reading achievement, “In 2009, the average score of fourth-grade students in Arizona was 210. This was lower than the average score of 220 for public school students in the nation. The average score for students in Arizona in 2009 (210) was not significantly different from their average score in 2007 (210) and was not significantly different from their average score in 1992 (209).” 4th grade reading is critical because when the skill is substandard, students tend not to catch up, they can’t read their textbooks in middle and high school, they become frustrated, act out, and drop out.

Now let’s compare Arizona’s spending to our rather flat level of achievement. According to Arizona’s Joint Legislative Budget Committee, public school per student spending went from $6,497 in 2000 to $9,698 in 2009. After adjusting for inflation, the net increase is slightly over 20 per cent. Again, the increase is the per student rate – the total increase is much more. There is a bright side to this situation. Achievement levels are, after all, not going down; and we are not alone, California has also increased per student expenditures with virtually no change in outcomes. So, what is the money doing? Who knows. The important lesson is that something is stuck, and money is not shaking it loose.

If money does not have the desired affect, what will? Florida, which has many of the same demographic challenges as Arizona and California, has made some dramatic strides in education. NAEP scoring placed Florida comparable to Arizona in that critical area of 4th grade reading during most of the 1990’s. In 1998, Florida took off and is now scoring well above Arizona. The success has been disproportionally enjoyed by Hispanic and Afro-American students. Hispanic students went from a score of 192 in 1994 to 218 in 1996 while Arizona’s total students hovered around 205-210 during the same period. Florida’s Afro-American students went from 181 in 1994 to 208 in 2007, matching Arizona’s total students.

Yikes! What did Florida do? Florida took a two pronged approach. It instituted programs that allowed parental choice, and rated individual schools based on performance through a program of high-stakes testing. A synergy developed between the principles of choice and accountability. The performance data available to the parents helped them to make good choices which led to the better schools expanding, and the failing schools contracting. This improved the quality of education across the state, which is reflected in student performance.

Meanwhile, Arizona has made some modest gains in the area of choice. It has one of the best charter school laws in the country. Charter schools, along with magnet schools, fill the choice bill. They tend to be diverse, are over-represented in schools that excel, and are under-represented in schools that are failing. Parents tend to be much happier with charter schools since they can choose the one that matches their educational vision.

Alas, accountability is another story. Arizona developed the AIMS test to ensure that graduating students were educated to a high school level, and to comply with the federal No Child Left Behind program. The test was “dumbed-down” over time, primarily by continuously lowering the cut-score. The “cut-score” is the minimum score required to pass. In 2003, the cut-score for 8th grade reading was 73% for “proficient”, in 2004 it was lowered to 59%. In this way, the state was able to show improvement without actually having to achieve it.

Speaking of choices, Arizonans have a big one to make: do we want to continue spending more and more money for the same level of mediocrity, or do we want to fight the status quo, and those who appear willing to do anything to maintain it?

Prop 100 Sales Tax Increase

I forget exactly when it was. I think it may have been 1999, the last time the state sales tax was increased for education. There were a number of news stories reporting that teachers had to purchase pens and paper for their students with their own cash because the school districts were so starved for money. Such a cynical ploy cured me of any misplaced trust I may have had in the local school districts.

Now it is 2010, and state revenues have plummeted in excess of thirty per cent, taxes must be raised – in other words, it’s time to pimp the school children again. This time the legislature, at the request of the governor, put a proposition to add a “temporary” increase of eighteen per cent to the state sales tax – an additional penny on the dollar. It is called Prop 100, and will be on the May 18, 2010 special ballot. Here’s the official descriptive title:

Temporarily increases the state transaction privilege (sales) and use tax by one cent per dollar from June 1, 2010 through May 31, 2013 for the purpose of funding primary and secondary education, health and human services and public safety.

The amount of the increase is perfect because one can throw the terms “penny”, and “one cent increase” around a lot and it sounds very small indeed. Actually, it is estimated that around $900,000,000.00 will be drained from the job creating private sector in fiscal 2011.
What will this mean for schools? Perhaps nothing, there is nothing in Prop 100 that says the education budget must be increased, only that funds from the tax will be applied to education. They may very well be applied to education, which would free-up money that went to education from other sources, which can then be spent elsewhere. Prop 100 does not make the budget, the legislature does. Tom Jenney of Americans for Prosperity Arizona Chapter was one of the first people to notice this. He ran the idea past a lawyer who confirmed the possibility. This fact is tacitly admitted by proponents who warn that the university system will loose $100,000,000.00 in state contributions if Prop 100 does not pass. Note that the university system is not part of “primary and secondary education, health and human services and public safety.” The $100 mil would be part of that freed-up money I mentioned. So really, it is a general fund tax that is being promoted with imagined threats to children.

Proponents also claim that Arizona per pupil spending is near the bottom of state rankings. In fact, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, Arizona is 48th in per pupil state government expenditures at $6,472.00 as of 2006. That is a fact; it is also a deception. The number and rank refer to state government contributions only, not total expenditures. When you add in other sources of funds, like the federal government, you discover that the total expenditures are over $9,000,000.00 per pupil, and close to the middle of the national pack.

Speaking of rankings, here’s an interesting fact that appeared in a Goldwater Institute press release dated January 27, 2010, “Arizona has an unusually large share of non-teaching public school employees. Teachers make up slightly less than half of on-site staff in public schools, placing Arizona fourth worst among the 50 states and the District of Columbia in teachers as a share of on-site public school staff.” Maybe now is not such a bad time to make some staff reductions while keeping the teachers. Steve Voeller of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club reports, “According to the Department of Education, total state aid to education increased 40 percent from $3.2 billion in 2004 to $4.5 billion in 2008. Student population plus inflation increased 25 percent during that same time.”

Prop 100 is a general fund tax increase which will not balance the budget. It will not save schools from some imagined financial disaster. Propagandists waving signs that say “My Child is Worth a Penny”, and “One Cent Will Save a Teacher”, should be ashamed. Maybe the education establishment should try to deal with the recession like the rest of the adults.

The economy will recover, though that recovery may be delayed by increasing taxes now.

Individuals and States Gear Up to Fight Obamacare

America took a big lurch to the left in March with the passage of the U.S. Senate health care reform bill. The president and congressional leaders overcame broad bipartisan opposition, and overwhelming opposition by the people (a CNN poll showed 59% opposed, with 39% in favor), to get it on the books. Our country now looks less like America, and more like the countries of Europe.

Within minutes of the signing ceremony, no fewer than thirteen states filed suit in federal court challenging the new law on constitutional grounds. Most of these challenges involve the individual mandate, which requires everyone to purchase a government approved insurance plan.

There are two prongs to this challenge. One is to assert a limit on the tortured interpretation of the commerce clause – any individual has standing here. The other asserts the authority of existing state laws that protect the rights of individuals to make their own arrangements for medical treatment – in this case, the several states have stepped into the arena adding a claim of state jurisdiction. Good times!

The seeds of the state level resistance actually germinated right here in Arizona! Concerned over the expansion of government run medical programs, a Phoenician orthopedic surgeon named Eric Novack, and his colleague Dr. Stephen Singer, drafted an amendment to the state constitution that would guarantee two things, and two things only: 1, that all Arizonans have the right to spend their own money to obtain legal health care services; 2, that all Arizonans have the right to not participate in any health care system, of any type.

They drafted a referendum that appeared on the 2008 ballot. The effort was well outspent by special interests, and was defeated by a mere one half of one per cent of the vote. Now here is the interesting part. The same concern existed in other states, and the language of the Arizona referendum was used in thirty-six of them for similar laws. Some were constitutional amendments, as in Arizona; others were statute laws passed by state legislatures, as in Virginia.

Meanwhile, back in Arizona, Dr. Novack and his persistent team presented their idea to the Arizona legislature in 2009, which referred it to the 2010 ballot as an initiative. Some of the wording was modified to allay concerns held by objecting special interests, including the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS), Arizona’s Medicaid agency, which claimed that the referendum would somehow interfere with its ability to provide benefits.

The passage of the Senate health care bill, commonly known as “Obamacare”, will surely generate much enthusiasm for the initiative, known as the “Arizona Health Care Freedom Act.” In fact, If the Arizona constitution outlaws the forcing of citizens into unwanted contracts or purchases, it will pose a direct challenge to one of the more odious aspects of Obamacare. The issue will be resolved in court, probably in the Supreme Court of the United States since there may be as many thirty seven states challenging the mandate. When the federal circuit courts of appeal arrive at disparate opinions, the Supreme Court usually steps in to resolve the issue.

These cases could inspire court challenges to other aspects of Obamacare.

The next congress will no doubt address Obamacare. Though president Obama would veto a total repeal, as more of it comes to light, lawmakers could repeal the pieces that will be found particularly unpopular. This huge push-back, inspired by the huge overreach of the legislation, may turn the tide of increasing government size and control.

If president Obama and congressional leaders wanted a fuzzy-bunny bipartisan bill, they could have had one. There are many Republicans who would have gone along with anything short of handing over the industry, but they were shut out. Ironically, Democrat’s problem was not the Republicans, there were not enough of them to matter. Their problem was fellow Democrats who knew that a vote for the wildly unpopular bill would threaten their re-election chances, even in many of the “safe” districts. Eventually, through bribes, threats of primary challenges and ethics complaints, they got it done, and Nancy Pelosi giggled through media interviews.

Japanese military officers were giddy after the successful attack on Pearl Harbor. The great Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, who saw the big picture, said the following after the attack, “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.” Yep, the Americans are now awake. It’s not over.

University of Arizona Clings to an Archaic Understanding of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Though the University of Arizona is an institution of higher learning, it appears that the students and faculty are decades behind in regards to the cultural and legal progress of the right to keep and bear arms (RKBA).

It was back in 1987 that the state of Florida took the lead in passing a new type of concealed carry law. Concealed carry permitting laws that existed prior to that time were actually remnants from the Jim Crow era; permit applications had to be approved by either the local sheriff, judge, or magistrate with no provision for appeal – good luck if you were a man or woman of color. The new permit laws were written so that anyone who met the criteria, “shall” be issued a permit. When the word “shall” is used in the law, it means it must happen, no discretion here, no denying people of color, political adversaries, mother’s-in-law, etc.

Opponents of such laws warned of never seen before running gun battles up and down the streets, they never happened. The idea caught on, and Arizona passed a similar bill in 1994. Opponents of the law warned of never seen before running gun battles up and down the streets, you know the rest. The phenomenon swept the country, and now 45 of the 50 states have “shall issue” laws of some type.

Intrigued by this wave of new laws, research scientist John Lott (University of Maryland, College Park, University of Chicago, Yale University, and the Wharton School studied crime statistics from vitually all the counties in the United States. He published the results of this work in the book More Guns, Less Crime. According to Lott, enactment of such laws leads to a significant reduction in violent crime, with a slight increase in property crime. Oddly, Lott’s research received no serious challenged by opponents; rather, they generally chose to attack him personally. Ad hominem attacks are like shooting heroine, it feels really good when you’re doing it, but regular use makes you dull, frustrated, and hollow.

The next milestone was the 2008 United States Supreme Court case, District of Columbia v Heller. The court ruled that outright bans on firearms are unconstitutional because the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution is an individual right. The case was followed by a wave of challenges to onerous restrictions on gun ownership.

It is interesting to note that the Obama administration, and the Democrat controlled congress, have made no attempt – to my knowledge, not even a mention – of any “gun control” initiatives or goals. Actions not taken are as telling as those that are.

So, both the people, and current legal thought, have evoled into a much more liberal (in the classic sense) view of the right ot keep and bear arms. Consistent with this new enlightenment, the Arizona Senate introduced SB 1011. According to the fact sheet, the bill, “Allows a faculty member with a valid permit to carry a concealed weapon (CCW permit) to possess a concealed firearm on university or college grounds.” This seems like a rather mild adjustment in these enlightened times, particularly in light of the fact that the universities would still have a more oppressive environment that the state as a whole.

Alas, the University of Arizona is a couple of decades behind the progressive (in the literal sense) thought of today. It became a hot topic with the Associated Students of the University of Arizona (ASUA). At a regular meeting, one day after the bill’s introduction, members showed up ready to pass a resolution against the bill. The Arizona Daily Wildcat reported Senator Daniel Wallace saying, “The overwhelming majority of students I’ve talked to are against having guns on campus,” and, “The faculty shares that opinion.”

Really? From where did this archaic mindset come? I think that there is a clue in Wallace’s statement, “The faculty shares that opinion.” Could it be that, for many faculty members, time stopped somewhere back in the late 60’s or 70’s when they entered academia as a career? Are students learning to pay attention, apply thought and reason, or are they being indoctrinated in politically correct thought that has been long abandoned by everyone from the courts, to the politicians, to the people?

We are well into the 21st century. For the benefit of the students, I hope the universities will decide to join us.

True Charitable Giving

The devastation that is now Haiti has revealed the character of both people and nations. In particular, it reveals the economic and cultural superiority of America.

The Haitian situation is special in that there is no single problem that when cured will allow the country to move forward. There is no country left to move forward. The government has collapsed both figuratively and physically – most of the government buildings lie in rubble. President Obama got it right when he sent in the United States military to establish enough order for the relief services to function. He should be praised for acting unilaterally, without concern for the sensitivities of the United Nations, or anyone else for that matter. The world is not doing it. We are doing it, and the world is helping.

For the most part, members of the European Union are cutting checks. Cutting checks is helpful, but somebody has to go in and get it done. America is doing that collectively with hospital ships, cargo planes, and soldiers. America is also doing that privately with retired soldiers, some medical supplies, and private donations – I’m talking about Team Rubicon (http://blog.teamrubiconhaiti.org/). Team Rubicon is a group of retired soldiers, doctors, nurses, and others who organized themselves, flew to the Domincan Republic, crossed the border into Haiti, and is providing emergency medical treatment to people. Private citizens, privately funded, getting it done. It’s an American thing. Who else does this?

While I have none of the qualifications for Team Rubicon, I wanted to at least make my own monetary donation. I saw that the White House set up a site for donations to the federal government effort. That struck me as extremely odd. How will our donations make a difference in the government’s operation? Anyway, I picked Food for the Poor (http://www.foodforthepoor.org/), a Catholic charity that has been feeding people in the Caribbean for decades, and has a special Haitian donation stream. I prefer religious charities since they rarely receive government support, and often see their work as a calling. The problem with government support is that it almost always come with strings that have little to do with the mission, and everything to do with control.

I know that anti-Christian bigotry is fashionable these days, so if you can’t bring yourself to donate to a religious group, and you understand the futility of giving to the government, I have a solution! Richard Dawkins, an atheists’ champion, has started an online charity called Non-Believers Giving Aid (http://givingaid.richarddawkins.net/). All the relief money will go to organizations with no religious affiliation.

While I believe government has a role in catastrophic emergency response, I think that ongoing charity should been in private hands. Locally, I apply the same guidelines as I did for Haiti. I picked the Gospel Rescue Mission (no government support) for helping the homeless, and I’m looking at the affiliated Crisis Pregnancy Center for pregnant women who need help. Don’t worry, if you are a secular humanist, there are a number of organizations that are not religious and receive city government money.

The problem with having the government handle our charitable giving for us is the same as having the government handle any of our adult responsibilities. It destroys our character, makes us weak, and removes meaning from our lives. If a government picks a charity to support on our behalf, the charity benefits from the money, but you do not benefit from an act of giving, you do not participated in life. If, on the other hand, you voluntarily take the money your were about to spend on those Green Day concert tickets and give it instead to a local charity, you would benefit from making that choice. It would be a demonstration of your character through your actions, and an indication of your evolving taste in music.

The fertility rate in European social democracies varies from 1.6 to 1.8. In America, it is 2.1, about replacement rate. What does that mean? It means that Europeans have given up on the future, given up on life. Raising children is one more of life’s burdens that they can avoid. Why work hard, take risks, and sacrifice when you can sit in an outdoor cafe on the Left bank, drink coffee, smoke Gauloise cigarettes, and complain about those greedy, unsophisticated Americans?

Am I suggesting that you cancel your iPad order and give the money to charity? Heck no! Work hard, buy stuff, and give money away! This is America!

Tucson City Council moves meeting to Civic Center, bracing for big crowd

On Tuesday, January 5, the regular session of the Tucson City Council was move to the Civic Center in anticipation of large protest crowds. The agenda that day included the discussion of budget options, including cuts to public safety and a new “Landlord’s Tax”.

Many people from groups representing police, fire, and renters were there. Volunteers from Tucson Tea Party were selling T-shirts. Trent Humphries, of Tucson Tea Party, was there chatting with people. He said that during the study session earlier that day, Ward VI councilman Steve Kozachic, with budget book in hand, offered a number of specific items in the one to two million dollar category that could be cut from the budget immediately. Humphries also reported that both public safety cuts and the “Landlord’s Tax” were now “off the table.”

The abandonment of the public safety cuts and the new tax appeared to take much of the energy out of the crowd. While many people milled around outside the hall, there were few signs and little excitement among the protestors.

In related news, a committee was formed to recall mayor Bob Walkup and councilmen Regina Romero and Karin Uhlich. The committee includes Umberto Lopez, local developer and investor, and the Tucson Tea Party. Papers are to be filed January 6, 2010.

Tucson Celebrates Bill of Rights Day

As I am sure you all know, December 15 was Bill of Rights Day. In Tucson, it was celebrated in a manner reminiscent of colonial times.

The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The amendments were ratified on December 15, 1791, which would make December 15, 2009 the 218th anniversary of that ratification. The Bill of Rights was critical to the adoption of the United States Constitution itself. A number of states refused to vote for adoption of the constitution because it did not specifically guarantee the rights of individuals. There were others who did not want any enumeration of rights for fear of the list being misinterpreted to mean that rights were limited to those enumerated therein. A deal was struck, and the the United States Constitution was adopted with the condition that the amendments would be adopted. The constitution was adopted, and shortly thereafter, the Bill of Rights was adopted. It has been said that that was the last time a group of politicians kept it’s promise.

I attended an event honoring Bill of Rights Day on Fourth Avenue. It was styled after colonial Committees of Correspondence. These committees were formed by citizens to deal with problems as they arose, or by local governments or institutions to provide news reports for other governments or citizens outside the area. Some committees were ongoing, some were disbanded after the problems for which they were created were resolved. Our committee was not organized (those with libertarian streaks do not organize well); rather, it was an informal meeting of local citizens for the purpose of discussing the first ten amendments and how the current governments might be influenced to abide by the its principles.

Charles Heller, host of the “Swap Shop” and “Liberty Watch” radio shows heard on KVOI 1030 AM, and all around good guy, arranged the event and acted as the moderator. The food was catered by Fourth Avenue Delectables; it was fantastic. Folks volunteered to take turns reading the amendments, including the preamble. After each was read aloud, it was discussed.

At one point, Charles asked Ken Rineer to read the second amendment of the constitution. Ken recited from memory, “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize maintain or employ an armed body of men.” There was much smiling, and some chuckling, as the folks in the room recognized his recitation as not the second amendment of the United States constitution, but rather the equivalent in the State of Arizona constitution (Article II, Section 26) – as you can see, a much stronger statement than the federal version. Most states have there own version of a statement of rights in the their respective constitutions similar to the federal Bill of Rights.

The discussion touched on a broad range of topics from the affect of the fourteenth amendment on the application of the Bill of Rights, to state nullification of federal regulation, to the affect on checks and balances of the 17th amendment.

If as I described the discussion, you pictured in your mind’s eye a bunch of suits talking shop, or perhaps a few late middle-aged pony-tailed professorial types , guess again. Were you to line us up along the sidewalk, we would look no different then the folks waiting for the bus. The folks at the event were regular people – no celebrities, no movers, no shakers. They do, however, possess a depth of knowledge of American history and law rarely seen in modern citizenry. Most are engaged in the politics of their city, county, state, and country. This is American citizenship as God and James Madison intended. If this does not make you feel just a little choked-up, I pity you.

It is said that change does not happen from the top down, only from the bottom up. I do not believe that. As I write, we are getting hammered with change from the top down. I do believe that legitimate change only happens from the bottom up. If we all had the same love of America, and sense of civic duty as our neighbors who attended the informal Committee of Correspondence, imagine how much better our governments and institutions would be.

Senator Inhofe asks UofA’s Malcolm Hughes to not destroy “Climategate” records

Senator Jim InhofeTucson’s Arizona Daily Star reports that Sentor Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma has written a letter to Malcolm Hughes, and the University of Arizona Legal department, asking him to not destroy records regarding what has come to be known as the “Climategate” scandal. Professor Hughes is also one of the developers, along with Michael Mann and Raymond Bradley, of the controversial “hockey stick” graph.

The “Climategate” scandal involves over one thousand emails and other data that was downloaded from a University of East Anglia server by an unknown hacker. Some of the emails appear to show that researchers were manipulating data to achieve results that would support the theory of man-made global warming. Reports and publications based on these data are used by governments to support and shape international treaties, and “Cap and Trade” type legislation.

Here’s an email that suggests an admission that global temperatures have been dropping for the past ten years – and a prediction by at least one scientist that the cooling will continue until the year 2020:


From: Phil Jones

To: Tim Johns , “Folland, Chris”
Subject: Re: FW: Temperatures in 2009
Date: Mon Jan 5 16:18:24 2009
Cc: “Smith, Doug” , Tim Johns

Tim, Chris,
I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting
till about 2020. I’d rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office
press release with Doug’s paper that said something like –
half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on record, 1998!
Still a way to go before 2014.
I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying
where’s the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal
scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away

.

Here’s a humorous one from Michael Mann in which he diplays the “very thin skin” nature of which he is accused in the quoted text – note that Malcolm Hughes is one of the recipients:

From: “Michael E. Mann”
To: Ray Bradley , “Malcolm Hughes” , Mike MacCracken , Steve Schneider , tom crowley , Tom Wigley , Jonathan Overpeck , asocci@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Michael Oppenheimer , Keith Briffa , Phil Jones

, Tim Osborn , Tim_Profeta@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Ben Santer , Gabi Hegerl , Ellen Mosley-Thompson , “Lonnie G. Thompson” , Kevin Trenberth Subject: CONFIDENTIAL Fwd:
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 13:47:44 -0500
Cc: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Dear All,
This has been passed along to me by someone whose identity will remain in confidence.
Who knows what trickery has been pulled or selective use of data made. Its clear that
“Energy and Environment” is being run by the baddies–only a shill for industry would have
republished the original Soon and Baliunas paper as submitted to “Climate Research” without
even editing it. Now apparently they’re at it again…
My suggested response is:
1) to dismiss this as stunt, appearing in a so-called “journal” which is already known to
have defied standard practices of peer-review. It is clear, for example, that nobody we
know has been asked to “review” this so-called paper
2) to point out the claim is nonsense since the same basic result has been obtained by
numerous other researchers, using different data, elementary compositing techniques, etc.
Who knows what sleight of hand the authors of this thing have pulled. Of course, the usual
suspects are going to try to peddle this crap. The important thing is to deny that this has
any intellectual credibility whatsoever and, if contacted by any media, to dismiss this for
the stunt that it is..
Thanks for your help,
mike

two people have a forthcoming ‘Energy & Environment’ paper that’s being unveiled tomoro
(monday) that — in the words of one Cato / Marshall/ CEI type — “will claim that Mann
arbitrarily ignored paleo data within his own record and substituted other data for
missing values that dramatically affected his results.
When his exact analysis is rerun with all the data and with no data
substitutions, two very large warming spikes will appear that are greater than the 20th
century.
Personally, I’d offer that this was known by most people who understand Mann’s
methodology: it can be quite sensitive to the input data in the early centuries.
Anyway, there’s going to be a lot of noise on this one, and knowing Mann’s very thin
skin I am afraid he will react strongly, unless he has learned (as I hope he has) from
the past….”

Economic Benefits of the Rosemont Mine

The Augusta Mining Company’s plan to build an open pit mine in the Santa Rita Mountains south of Tucson has been controversial from the start. The Rosemont Mine project will cover 4,300 acres, about one third of which is privately owned by Augusta, the rest is U.S. Forest Service land. Many support the plan for economic reasons, while others see it as a bight on the landscape and an ecological disaster.

The Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources
(DMMR) released a describing the economic impact the mine would have. The data are based on a recent assessment conducted by the Arizona State University.

The DMMR included the following in a press release dated November 20, 2009, “During the projected 20-year production/post-production phase, the State of Arizona will see an average annual increase of $907 million per year in economic activity, $214 million in residents’ income, and $32 million in state revenues. The project will support 800 additional jobs for Arizona residents above the 2,100 added in the three-county area.” It also reports that during the twenty year production/post-production phase that “the total gains to the U.S. economy add up to $27 billion in output, $15 billion in gross domestic product, $8 billion in personal income and $3 billion in federal government revenues.”

Along with environmentalists and residents in the area, Pima County has taken an anti-mine position, even though it has no legal authority to participate in the decision process. The U.S. Forest Service has sole authority in that regard.

Ironically, Pima County had an opportunity to purchase the private land (approximately 1,000 acres) prior to Augusta, but turned it down.