Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming | Fox News

Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday, Sept. 13, from the premier physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that "global warming is occurring."

The official position of the American Physical Society (APS) supports the theory that man's actions have inexorably led to the warming of the planet, through increased emissions of carbon dioxide.

Giaever does not agree -- and put it bluntly and succinctly in the subject line of his email, reprinted at Climate Depot, a website devoted to debunking the theory of man-made climate change.

"I resign from APS," Giaever wrote.

Giaever was cooled to the statement on warming theory by a line claiming that "the evidence is incontrovertible."

"In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?" he wrote in an email to Kate Kirby, executive officer of the physics society.

"The claim … is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period," his email message said.

A spokesman for the APS confirmed to FoxNews.com that the Nobel Laureate had declined to pay his annual dues in the society and had resigned. He also noted that the society had no plans to revise its statement.

The use of the word "incontrovertible" had already caused debate within the group, so much so that an addendum was added to the statement discussing its use in April, 2010.

"The word 'incontrovertible' ... is rarely used in science because by its very nature, science questions prevailing ideas. The observational data indicate a global surface warming of 0.74 °C (+/- 0.18 °C) since the late 19th century."

Giaever earned his Nobel for his experimental discoveries regarding tunneling phenomena in superconductors. He has since become a vocal dissenter from the alleged “consensus” regarding man-made climate fears, Climate Depot reported, noting that he was one of more than 100 co-signer of a 2009 letter to President Obama critical of his position on climate change.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/14/nobel-prize-winning-physicist-resigns-from-top-physics-group-over-global/#ixzz1Y24HK0Og

Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming | Fox News

Obama Puts Taxes on Table - WSJ.com

What he shows no awareness of is that it is people who have wealth who are the ones who invest it in business and thus create the jobs he says he wants.  By raising taxes on "the wealthy"--in fact the upper middle class--Obama's policies are anti-growth, anti-wealth, and hurt everyone, especially those at the bottom of the wage scale.  We need those investment dollars.  We need to know that we don't have a government that hates success, hates wealth, and is perfectly willing to sacrifice those who earn a lot for the benefit who live off the rest of us.

In a speech Wednesday, Mr. Obama will propose cuts to entitlement programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, and changes to Social Security, a discussion he has largely left to Democrats and Republicans in Congress. He also will call for tax increases for people making over $250,000 a year, a proposal contained in his 2012 budget, and changing parts of the tax code he thinks benefit the wealthy.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704366104576255282893680792.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

American Thinker: Regulatory Dysfunction

If we are to emerge from recession, America's business regulatory burden must be reassessed.

In a 2008 review of the cost of government regulations entitled Ten Thousand Commandments, Wayne Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute estimated that the cost of government regulations to businesses and, ultimately, to consumers was $1 trillion or more annually.  Regulations added 70,000 pages to the Federal Register.  Regulatory costs almost matched all corporate profits in 2007 and were seven times higher than the 2007 budget deficit.  Crews wrote that "Federal environmental, safety and health, and economic regulations cost hundreds of billions of dollars every year over and above the costs of official federal outlays."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/regulatory_dysfunction.html

Capitalism Magazine - Housing Will Remain a Government Program

As I have repeatedly predicted, the US will have a "double-dip" recession lead by the housing sector:

The widely-followed Case-Shiller Home Price Index fell 3.1% in January; prices are now at their lowest level since the housing market made its first bottom in April 2009. Sales of existing homes were off nearly 10% in February, and new homes sales were at a record low. As the economy worsens, there can be little doubt that housing is headed for a double-dip.

The government's "make housing affordable" approach to market intervention is the root of the entire problem. To a large extent, this intervention takes the form of mortgage purchases by government-sponsored Fannie and Freddie. Through these entities, nearly all new loans for homes are now destined for public ownership. When these entities buy a mortgage, they are doing so to help the borrower get the needed financing. They have only a casual interest in the investment quality of the transaction. This is very different motivation from the private investor, who is primarily concerned with getting paid back; and on that basis, wouldn't go anywhere near US housing.

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/markets/housing/6354-housing-will-remain-a-government-program.html

Seeing Like a State - Mike Reid - Mises Daily

When I first read James C. Scott's Seeing Like a State, I was studying at a far-left Canadian university, and in one of its furthest-left graduate programs. I, like many of my instructors and peers, assumed that the proper goal of scholarly research was to help the state help its subjects — with everything from raising crops to raising children. I looked forward to a career as a wise academic providing the state with all the knowledge it needs to improve its subjects' condition. But my statist assumptions came to an end when I read, as Scott's subtitle puts it, How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed.

Through entertaining case studies of disastrous state projects, Scott argues that government planners in the 19th and 20th centuries developed a particular aesthetic obsession: they were frustrated by the untidy complexity of real human societies. And their attempts to "improve" human life usually boiled down to attempts to simplify it — to make it look nice from the point of view of the administrator.

http://mises.org/daily/5101/Seeing-Like-a-State

New Home Sales Plunge for Third Straight Month - FoxNews.com

Sales of new homes plunged in February to the slowest pace on records dating back nearly half a century, a dismal sign for an already-weak housing market.
New-home sales fell 16.9 percent last month to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 250,000 homes, the Commerce Department said Wednesday. It's the third straight monthly decline and far below the 700,000-a-year pace that economists view as healthy.
The median price of a new home dropped nearly 14 percent to $202,100, the lowest since December 2003. The median is now 30 percent higher than the median price of resold homes -- twice the markup typical in healthy housing markets.
Builders have struggled to compete with a wave of foreclosures that has lowered the price of previously occupied homes. High unemployment, tight credit and uncertainty over prices have also kept many potential buyers from making purchases.
Last year was the fifth straight year of declines for new-home sales after they reached record highs during the housing boom. Economists say it could take years before sales return to a healthy pace.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/23/new-home-sales-plunge-straight-month/#ixzz1HX8fjBbt

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/23/new-home-sales-plunge-straight-month/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fpolitics+%28Internal+-+Politics+-+Text%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

Former Clinton Official Paid $26 Million by Fannie Mae Before Taxpayer Bailout Now on Obama Shortlist to Run FBI | CNSnews.com

Previously, I have offered some explanations for the financial melt-down, primarily the corruption and incompetence at Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae in failing to see the predictable consequences of their irresponsible behavior.  Some on this List have doubted that the government could possibly act so irresponsibly, including myself at one time, or that Congress actually authorized offering loans to people who could not afford homes.  So for your edification, rather droll amusement, and general information, here is Ms. Gorelick's official explanation of what Congress and Fannie were up to, and how they justified their irresponsible actions:
 

In 2001, Gorelick announced that Fannie was buying subprime loans encouraged by the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and bundling them as securitized financial instruments. Securities made from bundles of guaranteed mortgages were to contribute to the banking crisis later in the decade.

"Fannie Mae will buy CRA loans from lenders' portfolios; we'll package them into securities; we'll purchase CRA mortgages at the point of origination; and we'll create customized CRA-targeted securities," she said in 2001. "This expanded approach has improved liquidity in the secondary market for CRA product, and has helped our lenders leverage even more CRA lending. Lenders now have the flexibility to use their own, customized loan products."

In remarks before the American Bankers Association on Oct. 30, 2000, Gorelick explicitly how the procress would work and what Fannie Mae would do to make it feasible for banks to lend to low-income applicants.

"We will take CRA loans off your hands--we will buy them from your portfolios, or package them into securities--so you have fresh cash to make more CRA loans," she said. "Some people have assumed we don't buy tough loans. Let me correct that misimpression right now. We want your CRA loans because they help us meet our housing goals."

Now, who do you supposed provided Fannie with its "housing goals"?  Yes, if you said Congress, then you score 100% on the test.  What more can I say?  These people convict themselves out of their own mouths.  Incidentally, instead of being put into jail, Ms. Gorelick happens to be on the Anointed One's "short list" for FBI Director.  Isn't that just the perfect place for her!  I couldn't make this shit up it's so far-fetched.  Unfortunately, it is the reality of the current administration and of the one just preceding it.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/clinton-official-embroiled-911-controver