«
»

Minimum wage laws

December 16th, 2009 | Author: USAFIRST

Minimum wage laws set legal minimums for the hourly wages paid to certain groups of workers. In the United States, amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act have increased the federal minimum wage from $.25 per hour in 1938 to $5.15 in 1997. Minimum wage laws were invented in Australia and New Zealand with the purpose of guaranteeing a minimum standard of living for unskilled workers. Most noneconomists believe that minimum wage laws protect workers from exploitation by employers and reduce poverty. Most economists believe that minimum wage laws cause unnecessary hardship for the very people they are supposed to help.
The reason is simple: although minimum wage laws can set wages, they cannot guarantee jobs. In practice they often price low-skilled workers out of the labor market. Employers typically are not willing to pay a worker more than the value of the additional product that he produces. This means that an unskilled youth who produces $4.00 worth of goods in an hour will have a very difficult time finding a job if he must, by law, be paid $5.15 an hour. As Princeton economist David F. Bradford wrote, “The minimum wage law can be described as saying to the potential worker: ‘Unless you can find a job paying at least the minimum wage, you may not accept employment.’”

Several decades of studies using aggregate time-series data from a variety of countries have found that minimum wage laws reduce employment. At current U.S. wage levels, estimates of job losses suggest that a 10 percent in crease in the minimum wage would decrease employment of low-skilled workers by 1 or 2 percent. The job losses for black U.S. teenagers have been found to be even greater, presumably because, on average, they have fewer skills. As liberal economist Paul A. Samuelson wrote in 1973, “What good does it do a black youth to know that an employer must pay him $2.00 per hour if the fact that he must be paid that amount is what keeps him from getting a job?” In a 1997 response to a request from the Irish National Minimum Wage Commission, economists for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) summarized economic research results on the minimum wage: “If the wage floor set by statutory minimum wages is too high, this may have detrimental effects on employment, especially among young people.” This agreement over the general effect of minimum wages is long-standing. According to a 1978 article in American Economic Review, 90 percent of the economists surveyed agreed that the minimum wage increases unemployment among low-skilled workers.

Australia provided one of the earliest practical demonstrations of the harmful effects of minimum wage laws when the federal court created a minimum wage for unskilled men in 1921. The court set the wage at what it thought employees needed for a decent living, independent of what employers would willingly pay. Laborers whose productivity was worth less than the mandated wage could find work only in occupations not covered by the law or with employers willing to break it. Aggressive reporting of violations by vigilant unions made evasion difficult. The historical record shows that unemployment remained a particular problem for unskilled laborers for the rest of the decade.

At about the same time, a hospital in the United States fired a group of women after the Minimum Wage Board in the District of Columbia ordered that their wages be raised to the legal minimum. The women sued to halt enforcement of the minimum wage law. In 1923, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, ruled that the minimum wage law was price fixing and that it represented an unreasonable infringement on individuals’ freedom to determine the price at which they would sell their services.

In addition to making jobs hard to find, minimum wage laws may also harm workers by changing how they are compensated. Fringe benefits—such as paid vacation, free room and board, inexpensive insurance, subsidized child care, and on-the-job training—are an important part of the total compensation package for many low-wage workers. When minimum wages rise, employers can control total compensation costs by cutting benefits. In extreme cases, employers convert low-wage full-time jobs with benefits to high-wage part-time jobs with no benefits and fewer hours. David Neumark and William Wascher found that a 10 percent increase in minimum wages decreased on-the-job training for young people by 1.5–1.8 percent. Since on-the-job training is the way most people build their salable skills, these findings suggest that minimum wage laws also reduce future opportunities for the unskilled.

A particularly graphic example of benefits reduction occurred in 1990, when the U.S. Department of Labor ordered the Salvation Army to pay the minimum wage to voluntary participants in its work therapy programs. In exchange for processing donated goods, the programs provided participants, many of whom were homeless alcoholics and drug addicts, with a small weekly stipend and up to ninety days of food, shelter, and counseling. The Salvation Army said that the expense of complying with the minimum wage order would force it to close the programs. Ignoring both the fact that the beneficiaries of the program could leave to take higher-paying jobs at any time and the cash value of the food, shelter, and supervision, the Labor Department insisted that it was protecting workers’ rights by enforcing the minimum wage. After a public outcry, the Labor Department backed down. Its Wage and Hour Division Field Operations Handbook now contains a special section on minimum wage enforcement and the Salvation Army.

Minimum wage increases make unskilled workers more expensive relative to all other factors of production. If skilled workers make fifteen dollars an hour and unskilled workers make three dollars an hour, skilled workers are five times as expensive as the unskilled. Imposing a minimum wage of five dollars an hour makes skilled workers relatively more attractive by making them only three times as expensive as unskilled workers. This explains why unions, whose members have historically been highly skilled and seldom hold minimum wage jobs, invariably support legislation increasing minimum wages. As in the Australian case, unions also protect themselves against competitive threats by assiduously helping labor authorities find and prosecute suspected violators.

Many employers in the U.S. construction industry have found it less expensive to hire unskilled workers at low wages and train them on the job. By accepting lower wages in return for training, unskilled workers increase their expected future income. With high minimum wages like those specified for government construction by the Davis-Bacon Act, the cost of wages and training for the unskilled may rise enough to make employers prefer more productive union members. In effect, higher minimum wages reduce the competition faced by union members while leaving the unskilled unemployed. Of course, employers may also respond to minimum wage laws by decreasing overall employment, substituting machines for people, moving production abroad, or shutting down labor-intensive businesses.

While those rendered unemployed by a minimum wage increase are largely invisible, it is easy to calculate the increased income enjoyed by those who keep their jobs after an increase. This asymmetry has led many advocates to mistakenly assume that increasing the minimum wage is an effective way to fight poverty. Using 1997 Census data, D. Mark Wilson found that only 11.7 percent of minimum-wage workers were the sole breadwinners in their families, and that more than 40 percent of the sole breadwinners earning the minimum wage were voluntary part-time workers. Richard Burkhauser used 1996 U.S. Census data to identify the likely beneficiaries from the 1996 increase in the federal minimum wage. He concluded that the “20.9 percent of minimum wage workers who lived in poor families only received 16.8 percent of the benefits.”

Additional evidence on the distributional effect of minimum wages comes from David Neumark, Mark Schweitzer, and William Wascher. Raising the minimum wage increases both the probability that a poor family will escape poverty through higher wages and the probability that another nonpoor family will become poor as minimum wage increases price it out of the labor market. They found that the unemployment caused by minimum wage increases is concentrated among low-income families. This suggests that minimum wage increases generally redistribute income among low-income families rather than moving it from those with high incomes to those with low incomes. The authors found that although some families do benefit, minimum wage increases generally increase the proportion of families that are poor and near-poor. Minimum wage increases also decrease the proportion of families with incomes between one and a half and three times the poverty level, suggesting that they make it more difficult to escape poverty.

In the early 1990s, after a telephone survey of 410 fast-food restaurants in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, economists David Card and Alan B. Krueger challenged the consensus view that higher minimum wages shrink employment opportunities. Their results appeared to demonstrate that a minimum wage increase resulted in increased employment. Because telephone survey data are notoriously prone to measurement error, Neumark and Wascher repeated Card and Krueger’s analysis using payroll records from a similar sample of restaurants over the same time period. The results from the payroll data showed that “the minimum-wage increase led to a decline in employment in New Jersey fast food restaurants relative to the Pennsylvania control group.” After an extended academic debate, Card and Krueger retreated from their earlier position, writing that “the increase in New Jersey’s minimum wage probably had no effect on total employment in New Jersey’s fast-food industry, and possibly had a small positive effect.”

Even without the results from the payroll data, the contrary results from the Card and Krueger study would have had a limited impact on economists’ belief that increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment. As labor economist Finis Welch pointed out, the consensus theory does not predict how any one firm or industry is affected by minimum wage increases. Even if nationally recognized fast-food restaurants did not reduce hiring in response to higher minimum wages, Card and Krueger were silent about what happened at less-visible businesses, such as small retailers and local pizza and sandwich shops.

Furthermore, estimates of the overall effect of minimum wage increases often lead people to overlook the fact that regional and sectoral wage differentials average together to produce the national result. A federal minimum wage of $5.15 an hour may substantially reduce employment in rural areas, where it exceeds the prevailing wage, but have little effect on employment in large cities, where almost everyone earns more. Regional studies leave little doubt that substantial increases in the minimum wage can shrink local industries and inhibit job creation in areas with market wages below the new minimum. The growth of the textile industry in the southern United States, for example, was propelled by low wages. Had the federal minimum wage been set at the wage earned by northern workers, the migration of textile workers to the South might never have occurred.

It is also easy to overlook the fact that raising the minimum wage applicable to a relatively small proportion of occupations will not necessarily increase measured unemployment. Some people will lose their jobs in covered occupations and withdraw from the labor market entirely. They will not be included in the unemployment statistics. Others will seek jobs at lower pay in uncovered occupations. Though the labor influx reduces wages in the uncovered sector, people do have jobs, and unemployment may not change. As minimum wage laws cover more occupations, however, the shrinking uncovered sector may not be able to absorb all of the people thrown out of work. The 1989 U.S. minimum wage legislation brought us one step closer to this possibility by extending coverage to all workers engaged in interstate commerce, regardless of employer size.

The fact that gross unemployment statistics do not necessarily reflect the harm done by minimum wage laws with limited coverage probably explains the popularity of the living-wage ordinances now in vogue in American cities with strong union ties. Living-wage ordinances set minimum wages for businesses and nonprofits that receive contracts or subsidies from local government. To arrive at the appropriate minimum living wage, advocates calculate the amount required to pay for a basket of goods containing “decent” housing, child care, food, transportation, health insurance, clothing, and taxes for various family sizes. The minimum is then set at the rate that produces enough money to buy the basket when someone works forty hours a week for a year. Initial empirical studies by Neumark suggest that the trade-off between wages and employment is the same for living wages as for minimum wages.

In San Francisco in 2001, passage of a living-wage law raised the compensation of airport skycaps from $4.75 an hour to $10.00 an hour plus health insurance. By the end of 2002, the Economic Policy Institute, an advocacy group supported by labor unions and liberal foundations, reported that living-wage ordinances had set minimum wages ranging from $6.25 an hour in Milwaukee to $12.00 an hour in Santa Cruz, California. In September 2003, the California Assembly passed a $10 minimum-wage requirement for contractors doing business with the state.

By one reckoning, the total cost of the typical basket of worker necessities used to arrive at living-wage minimums exceeds the incomes of almost a third of all families in the United States.19 It will not be surprising, therefore, as the number of cities with “living-wage” laws expands, to see unskilled workers harmed by falling employment, fewer entry-level jobs, and a reduction in job-related training and educational opportunities.

——————————————————————————–

About the Author
Linda Gorman is a senior fellow with the Independence Institute in Golden, Colorado. She was previously an economics professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/MinimumWages.html

Posted in America's National Sovereignty is at Risk

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Must see

Zeitgeist, The Movie – Remastered / Final Edition

Zeitgeist: Addendum

RSS Info Wars RSS Feed
Guerilla Conservatism

And yes, I practice ‘guerilla conservatism’ on a daily basis. Thanks for noticing. I fight the Progressive/Socialist movement and its misguided minions with every legal weapon at my disposal.

Constitutionalism is descriptive of a complicated concept, deeply imbedded in historical experience, which subjects the officials who exercise governmental powers to the limitations of a higher law. Constitutionalism proclaims the desirability of the rule of law as opposed to rule by the arbitrary judgment or mere fiat of public officials…. Throughout the literature dealing with modern public law and the foundations of statecraft the central element of the concept of constitutionalism is that in political society government officials are not free to do anything they please in any manner they choose; they are bound to observe both the limitations on power and the procedures which are set out in the supreme, constitutional law of the community. It may therefore be said that the touchstone of constitutionalism is the concept of limited government under a higher law.
--
David Fellman
Political scientist and constitutional scholar

RSS Dave Kopel
Audit Passes
Audit the Fed Amendment Passes 43-26!

On Thursday, November 19, 2009, after several hours of heated debate, the Paul-Grayson “Audit the Fed” amendment passed 43-26 in the House Financial Services Committee. The amendment calls for a comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve and replaces the opposing “placebo” amendment proposed by Mel Watt.

Why Audit?

Why Audit The Federal Reserve?

Ron Paul’s legislation is aimed at pulling back the curtain from a secretive and unaccountable Federal Reserve. Congress and the American people have minimal, if any, oversight over trillions of dollars that the Fed controls.

With recent bailouts and spending decisions shining a spotlight on the actions of the Federal Reserve, more and more pressure is bearing down on Congress to take action and demand accountability and transparency.

Auditing the Fed is only the first step towards exposing this antiquated insider-run creature to the powerful forces of free-market competition. Once there are viable alternatives to the monopolistic fiat dollar, the Federal Reserve will have to become honest and transparent if it wants to remain in business.

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/audit-the-federal-reserve-hr-1207/

Biggest Liars
The biggest liars are the ones making the most money on our planet
Privately Owned!

Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982)

John L. Lewis, Plaintiff/Appellant,

v.

United States of America, Defendant/Appellee.



The court ruled that the Federal Reserve Banks are "independent, privately
owned and locally controlled corporations", and there is not sufficient
"federal government control over 'detailed physical performance' and 'day to day
operation'" of the Federal Reserve Bank for it to be considered a federal
agency:





Federal reserve banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of a
Federal Tort Claims Act, but are independent, privately owned and locally
controlled corporations in light of fact that direct supervision and control of
each bank is exercised by board of directors, federal reserve banks, though
heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks, banks are
listed neither as "wholly owned" government corporations nor as "mixed
ownership" corporations; federal reserve banks receive no appropriated funds
from Congress and the banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own names.
. . .

 

Ron Paul

“I am very, very confident that the message of freedom and limited government and non-interventionist foreign policy is the right way to go, and I think people like to hear that,” Paul said.

A retired obstetrician, Paul practices what he preaches.
He refuses his
congressional pension and didn’t allow his five children to take federal student
loans.

Transparency a must

Transparency a must for Federal Reserve

Jon Kovaciny, Mankato

I strongly urge our senators, Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar, to follow the lead of Rep. Tim Walz in co-sponsoring a bill requiring more transparency for the Federal Reserve, our nation’s central bank.

The Fed, under chairman Ben Bernanke, played a significant role in engineering and executing the bailouts. Hundreds of billions of dollars were created and doled out to various banks, financial firms, and even foreign central banks, yet we have no legal way of seeing who or how much. The Fed also creates new money to secretly purchase assets on the open market.

This remarkable power is not something that one would expect to find in a representative government; indeed, the Federal Reserve is technically not part of government but rather a private banking cartel given special powers by Congress in 1913, under pressure from the banking industry. In its 96-year history, the Federal Reserve has never been subjected to a full audit of its operations.

Last May, Walz co-sponsored H.R. 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009. Since that time, support for the bill has grown to include 73 percent of the House. A recent Rasmussen poll found that 79 percent of Americans support a full audit. It is time for Franken and Klobuchar to co-sponsor the Senate version of the bill, S. 604.

Among the Fed’s stated goals are economic and monetary stability. Under the Fed, we’ve endured more than a dozen recessions and the Great Depression, and today’s dollar has less than a 20th of a 1913 dollar’s purchasing power. For an institution with so much unchecked power and such a dismal record, transparency is a must.

Accountability

Contact the white house, your Congressmen and Senators!

Tell our elected representatives in Washington DC to stop spending our future away liking drunken sailors!

Tell them we want Full Accountability from the Federal Reserve, Where have trillions of our tax dollars gone and why?

Tell Them we are done paying billions of dollars per year to the Federal Reserve banking cartel in interest on our own damn money!!!

War on the dollar

U.S. federal reserve chief Benjamin Bernanke has declared war on the dollar.

"The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost."

— Benjamin S. Bernanke,
Chairman, U.S. Federal Reserve

Word Cloud
Indefensible

It is primarily the FED (and government) who got us in this mess, and make no mistake it's going to get much worse. The lengths people go to defend the FED is just pathetic. The notion that the people don't have the right to know where their hard earned money goes is an indefensible stand to take. It defies reason. Most people who take this stand either don't understand the FED or have an agenda.

RSS Letters to the editor
RSS Big Government
  • ‘Hope’ for a ‘Change’ Need Not Be Abandoned. 05/02/2012
    As Obama basks in the warm fuzzy glow of positive recent jobs numbers, all the while avoiding the pesky shadow of the soaring national debt, which now has so many zeros I can’t even input it on my calculator. And the negative campaigning for the GOP race has become as messy as a molting Wookie; [...] […]
    Donlyn Turnbull
  • Sundays with Sherrod: Planned Parenthood Pep Talk 05/02/2012
    Last April, Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) took a few minutes from his schedule to talk to a Planned Parenthood group from Cleveland about Ohio Republicans “going after women, and reproductive rights.” Sherrod went to great lengths to make abortion sound like a reason America needs bigger government. For pro-life Ohioans like myself, the “Hea […]
    Jason Hart
  • U.S. Park Service Moves in Against Occupy D.C. Encampment at McPherson Square 05/02/2012
    The U.S. Park Police descended upon the Occupy D.C. Encampment at McPherson Square early Saturday morning in an effort to remove the protesters ability to camp overnight in the park. Local media outlets report that U.S. Park Police Officers in riot gear and on horseback conducted a pre-dawn raid on the park (see the links below [...] […]
    Kevin L. Martin
  • WTO Says China Illegally Restricting Export of Metals 05/02/2012
    This week, the World Trade Organization (WTO) issued its much anticipated ruling on whether China’s export policies for critical metals violated the agreement it first entered in 2001 to be part of the WTO. The highest court within the WTO, known as the Appellate Body, found China was in violation of WTO requirements and had [...] […]
    Michael Silver
  • 3rd Time’s the Charm. 05/02/2012
    […]
    Chris Muir
  • For the GOP, Moderate Is the New Conservative 05/02/2012
    I've come to a cross roads, and I believe many of you are with me. I no longer have faith that members of the Grand Old Party can represent me as a classical liberal or more specifically as a Conservative-Libertarian, and neither do I believe the majority of the members of the party share true forms of those ideologies. […]
    Nick R. Brown
  • Should the United Nations Have the Power to Impose Global Taxes? 05/02/2012
    What’s the worst policy idea that would cause the most damage to society? I’m tempted to say the value-added tax since our hopes of restraining the federal government will be greatly undermined if we give the buffoons in Washington a new source of revenue. Indeed, this is one of the reasons why Mitt Romney may be [...] […]
    Dan Mitchell
Jefferson_ETF
Global Warming Fraud

Man-made global warming fraud highlights:

1. Prominent environmental scientists organize a boycott of scientific journals if those journals publish scholarly material from global warming dissidents.

2. The scientists then orchestrate attacks on the dissidents because of their lack of scholarly material published in scientific journals.

3. The scientists block from the UN’s report on global warming evidence that is harmful to the anthropogenic global warming consensus.

4. The scientists, when faced with a freedom of information act request for their correspondence and data, delete the correspondence and data lest it be used against them.

5. The scientists fabricate data when their data fails to prove the earth is warming. In fact, in more than one case, scientists engaged in lengthy emails on how to insert additional made up data that would in turn cause their claims to stand out as legitimate.

We’re dealing with fabricated and deleted data, and an orchestrated effort to undermine global warming dissidents. Faked data in particular is a big deal: many politicians are using eco-alarmism based on fear of global warming to assault American freedoms.

What does it mean for America if it turns out that a few scientists at the
top were actively involved in scientific fraud to promote their own agendas?

No Evidence!

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

“Climategate”

"Climategate" investigation, the stakes in the e-mail controversy are significant, "as it appears that the basis of federal programs, pending EPA rule makings and cap and trade legislation was contrived and fabricated."

12 of the 26 scientists who wrote the relevant section of a U.N. global warming report are "up to their necks in ClimateGate."

The professional association for physicists APS is facing internal pressure from some of its most distinguished members, who say the burgeoning ClimateGate scandal means the group should rescind its 2007 statement declaring that global warming represents a dire international emergency.

"By now everyone has heard of what has come to be known as ClimateGate, which was and is an international scientific fraud, the worst any of us have seen...

People do not believe

Public awareness reached a new high in the summer of 2006 with the publicity around Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth.”

The Pew Center for People and the Press conducted a telephone survey of 1,501 adults between June 14 and June 19, 2006, a period timed to coincide with the high point of the media’s interest in Gore’s movie. By far the biggest finding was that the movie had done virtually nothing to increase the saliency of global warming among voters.

Pew researchers noted that “out of a list of 19 issues, Republicans rank global warming 19th and Democrats and Independents rank it 13th.” By January 2007, global warming’s relative importance actually declined to 21st out of 21 issues for Republicans, 17th out of 21 issues for Democrats, and 19th out of 21 issues for independents.

Three Things

Three Things You Absolutely Must Know About Climategate!

They’re calling it “Climategate.” The scandal that the suffix –gate implies is the state of climate science over the past decade or so revealed by a thousand or so emails, documents, and computer code sets between various prominent scientists released following a leak from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the UK.

This may seem obscure, but the science involved is being used to justify the diversion of literally trillions of dollars of the world’s wealth in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by phasing out fossil fuels. The CRU is the Pentagon of global warming science, and these documents are its Pentagon Papers.
Here are three things everyone should know about the Climategate Papers. Links are provided so that the full context of every quote can be seen by anyone interested.

First, the scientists discuss manipulating data to get their preferred results.

Secondly, scientists on several occasions discussed methods of subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication.

Finally, the scientists worked to circumvent the Freedom of Information process of the United Kingdom.

Peer Review

Data fabrication and algorithm manipulation are not the only important issues here.

The travesty is that they were peer-reviewing each other's work! They had control of their own process. It was a closed-loop system comprised of several dozen researchers in an incestuous, self-affirming academic relationship.

Embarrassing

Embarrassing isn't it?

Show us a single piece of evidence that man's CO2 is causing warming.

Give us the page number in the IPCC reports that give such evidence.

Climategate will go down as unmasking the biggest science scandal of this century.

CO2

There are many pressing pollution problems that are real issues that should be solved first.

Isn’t it also true that there were equally dire predictions of global cooling only 35 years ago?

Isn’t it further true that these all-knowing climatologists can’t predict a season of hurricanes, drought, or snowstorms, or for that matter an accurate weather forecast for more than 10 days, except in a Southern California summer?

After all, climatology is little more than a soft-science duded up in jargon, self-made computer wizardry, and political pomp?

No, the science is not settled. What is settled is the AGW blind adherence to a very unscientific approach to natural phenomena. Since when are scientific principles and conclusions settled by consensus?

If these self-important Wizards continue their path, they will be routed out and forced into an honest living selling pencils & begging for spare change on the corner. Their hot air is the problem.

Copenhagen

The last thing America needs is misguided legislation that will raise
taxes and cost jobs — particularly when the push for such legislation rests on agenda-driven science.

Without trustworthy science and with so much at stake,
Americans should be wary about what comes out of this politicized conference.



--
Sarah Palin

Elites words

Here are the words of the elites, admitting they contrived this:

On manipulating America with environmental issues:
“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. …The real enemy then is humanity itself. Democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead.”

– Richard Haass, Club of Rome Document, 1991 p. 71,75 1993

Ice Melt Video


Global Sea Ice



Antarctic Sea Ice Video

Calendar
December 2009
M T W T F S S
« Nov   Jan »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  
About time

The Climategate e-mail release is a watershed moment in the history of hoaxes. But while it reveals just the tip of the fraudulent climate change iceberg, it is also at long last a victory for those who wish to be good stewards of the planet's environment without crippling human productivity.

It is time for a constructive debate about how to maintain the global economy in a responsible way that honors the planet and the needs of the people who live on it.

Scientific Consensus

In late 2009, the credibility of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) took a serious hit when email exchanges between some of its senior authors and editors revealed deliberate efforts to falsify data and silence dissenting scientists. The IPCC's reputation was already waning in the wake of scandals concerning Michael Mann's "hockey stick" temperature diagram and the role of government officials and environmental activists in its so-called "peer review" process. The IPCC Email Scandal of November 2009 meant the IPCC could no longer claim to represent the "scientific consensus" on global warming.

Emails exchanged by Phil Jones and other leading scientists who edit and control the content of the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reveal a conspiracy to falsify the actual temperature record and silence so-called "skeptics." Anyone who continues to cite the IPCC as representing the "consensus" on global warming is wrong. The IPCC has been totally discredited.

Prove It

It is not the responsibility of ‘climate realist’ scientists to prove that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening. Rather, it is those who propose that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the supposed ‘problem’, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that recent climate change is not of mostly natural origin and, if we do nothing, catastrophic change will ensue. To date, this they have utterly failed to do.

RSS Portland City Hall Watch

Contact Us | Terms of Use | Trademarks | Privacy Statement
Copyright © 2009 USA First. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by WordPress || Designed by free wordpress themes.