SavvySugar

Your Two Cents: Is There Room in Your Holiday Budget For Charity?

SavvySugar — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 06:00:58 -0800

The holiday season isn't just about gift-giving - even while the budget may be stretched, it's also the time of year to give to charity. It's no secret that things are tight this year. The recession is changing the way we holiday shop, but is it also changing our philanthropic spirit of giving for a good cause?

Apparently so. Charitable foundations and organizations throughout the country are suffering from a lack of funds - the size of charitable giving just isn't sizable enough. Nonprofits, especially on the local level, are dealing with some serious cutbacks in their budgets, thanks to an economic climate that makes giving to a cause more of a luxury than it used to be. Where organizations used to rely on the generosity of philanthropic donors, they are now turning to the government for aid.

It's unfortunate, but while philanthropy is still a valued cause for giving, there are many who just may not be able to offer support this year. Of course, there are other ways to help out - volunteering, for one - but I'm curious: Is writing a check for charity out of the question this holiday season? Or are you still making room in your budget for a charitable donation?

Your Two Cents: How Often Do You Feel Nervous at Work?

SavvySugar — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 06:00:28 -0800

A good friend recently admitted she gets nervous and clammy whenever her boss schedules a meeting with her, which is quite often. She's never been given a bad review or stern talking to, but there's something about being called into a one-on-one that makes her panic.

When I asked her why she couldn't explain her fears, except that, like most SavvySugar readers, the recession and layoffs at her company have left her particularly uneasy and chipped away at her confidence. Do you ever get shaking on the job or you stay steady and self-assured?

Time to end pelvic exams done without consent

Roarman — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:23:58 -0800

Imagine that you are undergoing a fairly routine surgery – say, removal of uterine fibroids or hysterectomy. During or right after the procedure, while you are still under anesthesia, a group of medical students parades into the operating room and they perform gynecological exams (unrelated to the surgery) without your knowledge.

Do you consider this okay, or an outrageous violation of your rights?

Regardless of your feelings, you should be aware that this is standard procedure in many Canadian teaching hospitals.

Medical students routinely practice doing internal pelvic examinations while surgery patients are unconscious, and without getting specific consent, at least in Canada.

Guidelines in the United States and Britain say specific consent is required but, by contrast, Canadian guidelines state that pelvic examination by trainees is “implicit.”

The practice – one of those dirty little secrets of medicine – has been exposed in a thoughtful, professional manner by a young doctor.

The story goes back to 2007 when Sara Wainberg was a medical student at McMaster University. Her younger brother Daniel, also studying to be a doctor, phoned for advice: As part of his rotation in obstetrics and gynecology, he had been asked to perform a pelvic exam on a woman who was under anesthetic. He refused, saying doing so without consent would be unethical.

“It got me thinking,” Sara Wainberg said. “I had done this numerous times in my training and it had never occurred to me that it might be unethical.”

She polled her fellow students and found 72 per cent had also done exams on unconscious patients, without consent, confirming that it is routine.

It is essential for medical students to learn basic techniques, including pelvic examination, in well supervised settings.

The long-standing argument in favour of allowing these exams to be done on surgery patients is that it provides a unique opportunity for students to practice the delicate, invasive examination without causing the woman pain or embarrassment.

There is also an assumption that women would never accept pelvic exams by students while conscious so sneaking them in, while not ideal, is acceptable.

When Dr. Wainberg took a position as a resident at Foothills Hospital in Calgary, she decided to study the issue further. She and fellow researchers polled 102 women who were patients at the Calgary Pelvic Floor Disorders Clinic.

The results – reported in The Medical Post and in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology – are as fascinating as they are troubling.

Dr. Wainberg and her team found that fewer than one in five women were aware that a student might do a pelvic exam in the operating room. At the same time, 72 per cent expected to be asked for consent before such an exam was done.

The patients – unlike medical educators – seem to be quite clear on the concept of informed consent.

You don't probe, poke or otherwise invade the orifices of a patient without their permission, regardless of how educational it might be. Period.

The most intriguing part of the survey, though, is that it showed that women are quite willing to undergo these gynecological exams – if they're asked.

Sixty-two per cent of respondents said they would consent to medical students doing pelvic exams, and an additional 5 per cent said “yes” but only if a female student was doing the exam.

This lays to rest the notion that it would be impossible for medical students to get this training unless they were doing it in the current surreptitious, unethical manner.

But let's be clear: Even if all the women surveyed had rejected exams by medical students, the current approach would still be wrong.

There are other ways to do this training, using simulation models, paid volunteers and consenting patients in other settings such as clinics.

Patients have a right to say “No.” They are not merely a collection of body parts to be practised on. Patients are due respect and ethical treatment, whether they are awake or anesthetized, and no matter how potentially embarrassing the procedure may be.

The research done by Dr. Wainberg and her colleagues, in passing, exposed something else important: Patients have very little idea what goes on in the operating room. Most have no idea that, in addition to the surgeon and nurses, medical residents or medical students may be present and may even participate actively.

This is the result of a failure to communicate. It is also a striking example of a lingering bit of paternalism that is still all-too-present in medical culture – this notion that “we do the surgery and the details are none of your business.”

“It's definitely the patient's business who does what to them,” Dr. Wainberg said. “They have to be informed and they have to give consent.”

In fact, if she was starting over again as a medical student and was asked to perform a pelvic exam, Dr. Wainberg has no doubt she would refuse.

So too should every medical student and every teacher.

A good doctor does not merely possess good technical skills, she or he must behave ethically and treat patients with the utmost respect.

Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/time-to-end-pelvic-exams-done...

Kristen and Anna: Too Good for Twilight?

huntedvampire — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 20:59:53 -0800

Today 6:30 AM PST by Ted Casablanca and Taryn Ryder

Kevin Winter/Getty Images; Dave Hogan/Getty Images

Twilight darlings Kirsten Stewart and Anna Kendrick are quickly breaking out of their vampire coffins. We're all aware by now that Anna has received tons of acclaim for her performance alongside George Clooney in Up in the Air, and Kristen was the talk of Sundance town.
Got it?
That's why we think yesterday's item about Kristen and Robert Pattinson was totally fair game. We're not "pitting them against each other," as so many Twi-screamers say, but pointing out R and K both have the opportunities with their upcoming flicks to become major players in this entertainment biz.
Heck, while Ashley Greene is shooting some horror movie in Germany and Kellan Lutz is losing Barbarian roles, Kendrick is picking out her Oscar gown! And According to people who have worked with Kristen, she, too is already headed for Oscar's stage-and we don't mean as a presenter:

"Kristen's got this innate quality, that gift, that not everyone has," Welcome to the Rileys director Jake Scott told us. "She's magic. I can see it happening. I can see her becoming a major star. She's grounded, which is important to say about her. She's really grounded. She's a cool chick."
Oscar-nominated actress Melissa Leo, who costars with K.Stew in Welcome, was eager to throw in her experienced two cents on Kristen's potential.
"I'm sure she'll be up there on that stage one day, I'm positive."
Leo, whose performance in Frozen River last year put her in a gown alongside Meryl Streep and Kate Winslet, says she sees a lot of herself in young K.Stew.
"Something happens with actors who are committed to what they do. We enjoyed each other because we were so serious about work; we adored each other."
Dang, if we were Kristen, we'd not only have suck faced with R.Pattz in public 232 years ago, we'd be nervous about acting out possibly two more of Melissa Rosenberg's movies. After what seems like a lot of successful reviews post-New Moon, it doesn't sound too fun to go back to your not-very-well-written roots.
We all know Anna Kendrick's thinking the same damn thing, right?
Everyone in town is expecting A.K. to get a nomination for Best Supporting Actress.
Now that she's been catapulted to the major leagues, we bet this petite cutie is counting her blessings that she has maybe two lines in all the Twilight flicks. It actually wouldn't surprise us if Annie wanted to finagle her way out of the franchise, seeing as movie offers are pouring in for her now, but she strikes us as the type to stay loyal to her fans, à la Kristen.
Stewart would never leaver her Twi-fans high and dry (as if Summit would let her), but it'll be interesting to see if K.Stew is as eager about two Breaking Dawn flicks as she might have once been.
Come on, Stephenie Meyer, let's do one more movie. For all our sake, yeah?

How to Avoid Disaster Donation Scams

PinkNC — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 09:01:17 -0800

Contributor By: Z. Padmore

Don Hankins: Be wary of donation scams

The earthquake in Haiti on Jan. 12 created a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions. Two million of Haiti's 9 million residents were affected by the earthquake, which struck just 10 miles away from the capital city of Port-au-Prince.

Governments around the world have offered their support. China and the United States quickly delivered airplanes full of supplies with other countries are joining to pledge their support during this humanitarian disaster, along with millions of individuals through large and small donations.

Unscrupulous people can take advantage of this generosity, as seen in the weeks after the 2004 tsunami with reports of rampant donation scams. Criminals tried to capitalize on the disaster by creating fraudulent web sites, addresses, and even paraphernalia for their fabricated charity organizations.

For individuals who feel helpless or overwhelmed by images of the disaster, making a donation is one way to assist in relief efforts, but the key is to make sure your money gets to the right people.

Instructions

Step 1

Look for a BBB logo on the charity's website.

Check with the Better Business Bureau.

The Better Business Bureau issues reports on charities using the same metrics they apply to Fortune 500 companies. Organizations volunteer their information to be verified by a local or national BBB organization. Check their updated list to confirm your charity or organization is operating in good standing.

Step 2

Unicef and Red Cross team up to offer water at local organization.

Give to a charity already established at the disaster site.

There are local organizations that have served every community. In times of crisis, international organizations aid the local workers who have direct access to the area. Give directly to organizations with an infrastructure, staff, and direct connection to people of the disaster area. You can be assured that your donation will directly assist the lives of people by giving to a local organization since the donations will not be redistributed across an international fund.

Step 3

Is your charity reporting their earnings?

Find facts at Foundation Center.

The Foundation Center searches for an organization by name, location or EIN (business identification numbers). It searches for the organization's most recent tax declaration using a 990 tax form search. If your charity isn't listed, it may not be considered a non-profit organization or it has not filed its earnings within the past year.

Step 4

InterAction identifies first response organizations.

Be in the know and assess the need.

InterAction is a clearinghouse for U.S.-based non-governmental organizations (NGOs). It's a forum where leaders working on specific issues share best practices. They use their worldwide membership directory to highlight resident NGOs in a disaster zone. The NGOs offer a direct response to damaged areas as well as an account of areas in need. Read their reports to understand key recommendations from NGOs on the ground.

Step 5

Charity Navigator offers extensive reports.

Use Charity Navigator.

Charity Navigator is staffed with forensic accountants who analyze financial documents of NGOs and charities. These expert sleuths work to account for how each cent of donated money is used. If you have doubts about a charity, run the name through the navigator. You're sure to get a full report on its financial management.

Step 6

Track charity dollars.

Check nonprofit status at GuideStar.

GuideStar documents organizations tax return forms and other information associated with their EIN. GuideStar lists the most recent tax return and how much money is reported on annual income statements.

Look for organizations that give at least 75 percent of their funding to directly to their causes. If more than 25 percent is spent on administration costs, it means the organization is heavily staffed but may not be equipped for direct response to disasters.

Step 7

Avoid responding to scripted telemarketing calls.

Be wary of direct solicitations.

Few small organizations sponsor telephone drives in this Internet age. Be wary of callers reading from a script to donate to a disaster area. These people set up private businesses with names that sound like relief organizations. Once credit card information is given, it's routed to a personal account rather than an organization.

Also be leery of urgent email and texting campaigns. Your phone service provider may charge you hidden fees in order to complete the transaction. Established organizations use mainstream media channels to alert you of their need for donations.

Step 8

Earn tax deductions with your donation.

Donate money.

The best way to donate to an organization is to give money. Unless you have a direct contact in the disaster area, do not send clothes or other supplies. During an emergency zone, the postal delivery can take weeks to arrive at a location and the logistics of retrieving packages can become a nightmare. It's best to send money so organizations can identify and purchase the proper resources. Make sure to ask for a receipt that identifies your contribution as tax-deductible.

Step 9

Get others to donate to your charity.

Spread the word.

Unless you're a medically trained first responder, you should not go to the disaster site. Organizations do not have systems to house and feed volunteers. During the recovery period, there may a need for volunteers. Unfortunately before rebuilding begins, the focus is on medical response and evacuation.

After you have donated, spread the word to family and friends to encourage them to donate as well. Campaigning for your charity will alleviate the helpless feeling that often overwhelms those who want to do more.

Step 10

It takes years to rebuild after a disaster.

Commit to give long-term.

Disasters inspire people to give as an immediate expression of grief and care. Still most organizations seek long-term commitment. Consider spreading a donation of $240 into $20 donations each month. Your consistent donation helps keep the organizations fully staffed during the recovery months.

Giving in the time of disaster is important, but long-term commitment is even more important. Avoid donation scams and form a sustaining relationship with a charity.
.
.
.

Conservative media reacts to the O’Keefe arrest

stephley — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 09:51:53 -0800

Campaign Desk - Columbia Journalism Review
“A Bad Cartoon,” or “A Big Nothing”?

The story that had the political media buzzing yesterday was the arrest of James O’Keefe, the conservative, pimp-playing activist who embarrassed ACORN with his undercover videos, and three other men-two of whom were apparently dressed as telephone repairmen-for allegedly attempting to tamper with the phones in the New Orleans office of Senator Mary Landrieu, a Louisiana Democrat.

To make the story even more bizarre, one of the men is the son of an acting U.S. attorney, and another is apparently the associate director of a spy school. The four have been charged with entering federal property under false pretenses with the intent of committing a felony. The Times-Picayune’s coverage is here, and the FBI affidavit is here.

For liberal bloggers and pundits, who’ve had a rough time of it lately, the story was comic relief; Twitter was buzzing yesterday with “plumber” jokes and references to Watergate. On the other side of the aisle, how did the conservative media world respond?

Andrew Breitbart, whose BigGovernment.com gave a platform to O’Keefe’s ACORN videos, didn’t run from the story. Tuesday evening, all three of Breitbart’s “Big” sites featured the AP story on their front page, along with a link to the affidavit and a statement from Breitbart in which he disclaimed any knowledge of the operation. He was later a guest of conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt; during the segment, Hewitt’s main focus was on distancing Breitbart from the arrest.

By this morning, Breitbart’s tone had shifted a bit. In a new post, he accused the “mainstream media” of “leaping to conclusions” while he waited for the facts:

I’m sure they would like to believe O’Keefe is stupid enough to try to “wiretap” a sitting U.S. senator in broad daylight during office hours, while recording the entire sequence of events on his cell phone camera. And they’d like you to believe it, too.

But there is absolutely no allegation in the criminal complaint that “wiretapping” or “bugging” is any part of this case, just the charge that O’Keefe and the others entered Sen. Landrieu’s office in New Orleans “for the purpose of interfering with the office’s telephone system.”…

Let me state clearly for the record: wiretapping is wrong. But until I hear the full story from James O’Keefe, I will not speculate as to what he was doing in Louisiana.

Regardless of the outcome we will keep the readers of Big Government apprised of this emerging story.
Other conservative writers were more critical. At Hot Air, blogger Allahpundit posted on the news:

The editors of Big Government claim they knew nothing about it, which is almost certainly true: No way would Breitbart be so stupid as to sign off on tapping a senator’s phone. What makes this doubly bizarre, of course, is that O’Keefe was already threatened with legal action by ACORN for surreptitiously videotaping inside their offices. You’d think if he was planning to try something as insanely underhanded as this, he might have done, say, a Wikipedia search about whether it’s illegal to, um, tamper with government phone lines.
Allahpundit then cites the section of the federal code that spells out a prison sentence of up to 10 years for anyone who “attempts or conspires” to interfere with federal telephone lines, and adds:

I assume the defense is going to be something like, “We never intended to tap the phone, we simply wanted to show how easy it would be if someone wanted to do it,” but even so: Ohhhhhhhhhhhh boy. Ten years.
Michelle Malkin, meanwhile, had this to say:

the details… are damning. This is neither a time to joke nor a time to recklessly accuse Democrats/liberals of setting this up - nor a time to whine about media coverage double standards.
And also:

They are, of course, presumed innocent until proven guilty.

But for now, let it be a lesson to aspiring young conservatives interested in investigative journalism:

Know your limits. Know the law. Don’t get carried away. And don’t become what you are targeting.
Malkin also updated the link on her front page with a quizzical response to O’Keefe’s words as he was leaving jail on bail: “‘Veritas’?”

The National Review’s group blog, The Corner, had less to say. The bloggers there noted the news, providing links to the story, the affidavit, and some ACORN schaedenfreude, and published a statement from Breitbart. But other than the remark that the reputation of “the self-styled spy school” with which one of the men is affiliated “just took a considerable hit,” there was not much commentary.

At The Weekly Standard’s site, Mary Katharine Ham had a longer response, beginning with the observation that “things do no look good” for O’Keefe:

"In a caper that sounds straight out of a bad cartoon, O’Keefe apparently sat in the Senate office’s waiting area recording while two friends came in wearing jump suits, tool belts, fluorescent vests, and carrying white hard hats. (Frankly, knowing O’Keefe’s costuming predilections, I would not be surprised if they looked just like the Marios Bros., mustaches and all, but that’s not in the affidavit.)"

She adds:

'Ideological allies of O’Keefe’s in the media, so far, are united in condemning the behavior the charges allege, which will likely taint the public case he made against ACORN and future investigative attempts by other conservatives.'

Still, O’Keefe is not without defenders. At RedState, diarist Common_Cents quotes the FBI press release, then adds:

"This just seems pretty fishy to me. Would the guy be that dumb after breaking such a big story on ACORN not knowing that he’d be on the radar of many left wing groups? I guess time will tell, or not. I’m sure he’ll be enemy #1 to prosecute."

And blogger Patterico, after first saying “if [O’Keefe] did do it, there is no defending it,” later weighed in again:

"I’m sticking out my neck and declaring that I think this will prove to be a big nothing.

I just don’t believe this guy was wiretapping phones or trying to do so. I really don’t.

It might not even have been an attempt to show how easy it would be to bug phones. Maybe there is another explanation. But I don’t think he was acting in a criminal fashion. I don’t."

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/a_bad_cartoon_or_a_big_nothing.php?page...

House Rundown, "Remorse"

BuzzSugar — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 09:33:29 -0800

"Remorse" couldn't have been a more appropriate title for this week's House. Just when you think the doc's therapy didn't have any effect on his cold heart, his conscience pops up in the form of a former med school classmate. But while House experiences pangs of guilt, his new patient Valerie can't feel the slightest tinge of, well, anything. Did I mention she's psycho?

The medical case gave the writers a chance to have some fun as Valerie flips in and out of her faux "good girl" routine, but more so, I'm enjoying the shift that we're seeing in House as he learns from his mistakes and tries to make amends (albeit at a snail's pace). A few questions came to mind as I was watching, so I'm curious to hear your take! Let's break 'em all down and dissect some of the episode's highlights when you read more.

Was anyone else expecting a hair-pulling cat fight between Valerie and Thirteen a la Ali Larter and Beyonce in Obsessed? What did you think about the "psycho" storyline?
We saw completely polarized sides of House this week. First, he's unsympathetic by destroying Cuddy's favorite photo, but then he pays the mortgage for a man he tried to hurt years before in med school. Obviously House is just trying to do penance in one scenario to compensate for the guilt he feels with Cuddy (as Wilson suggests). Do you think he'll ever formally apologize to her?
Favorite line of the night, courtesy of Taub: "Oh, sorry, that was our secret," in response to House requesting that anyone who hadn't slept together leave the room. After which, Taub looks at Thirteen. Nice one, Taub.
Speaking of Thirteen, are they really putting her back with Foreman? Ugh. He finally apologizes for firing her, and I swear by the end, she's giving him a longing look. Would you welcome a reunion, or would you rather see them move on?
What I did like about Thirteen in this episode: she solves the patient's case nearly on her own. Personally, I delighted in watching her prove the boys wrong. I know some of you are mixed on her, but did this episode make you warm up to her a bit more?
Did you freak as much as I did when Thirteen breaks Valerie's arm by accident?
I love how this show always raises questions about what (and who) is morally good. Example No. 1: Valerie may be crazy, but her sister divulges how she protected her from their abusive father. Example No. 2: Valerie tries to compare House to her, even though House is supposedly the show's hero.
Great song for the final scene! Fiona Apple's "Why Try to Change Me Now" seemed like a fitting way to tie up the episode.

Please, share your two cents! I'm especially dying to hear what you make of the new focus on Thirteen and Foreman. Sound off in the comments or head over to the House! group to chat more.

Photos courtesy of Fox

35 Inconvenient Truths The errors in Al Gore’s movie

Grandpa — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 15:10:22 -0800

35 Inconvenient Truths
The errors in Al Gore’s movie
For the Full Report in PDF Form, please click here.

By

Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

October 18, 2007

Christopher Walter, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, is a former policy advisor to Margaret Thatcher during her years as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. He may reached through SPPI, or directly at (

monckton@mail.com

This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

35 Inconvenient Truths
The errors in Al Gore’s movie
A spokesman for Al Gore has issued a questionable response to the news that in October 2007 the High Court in London had identified nine “errors” in his movie An Inconvenient Truth. The judge had stated that, if the UK Government had not agreed to send to every secondary school in England a corrected guidance note making clear the mainstream scientific position on these nine “errors”, he would have made a finding that the Government’s distribution of the film and the first draft of the guidance note earlier in 2007 to all English secondary schools had been an unlawful contravention of an Act of Parliament prohibiting the political indoctrination of children.
Al Gore’s spokesman and “environment advisor,” Ms. Kalee Kreider, begins by saying that the film presented “thousands and thousands of facts.” It did not: just 2,000 “facts” in 93 minutes would have been one fact every three seconds. The film contained only a few dozen points, most of which will be seen to have been substantially inaccurate. The judge concentrated only on nine points which even the UK Government, to which Gore is a climate-change advisor, had to admit did not represent mainstream scientific opinion. Ms. Kreider then states, incorrectly, that the judge himself had never used the term “errors.” In fact, the judge used the term “errors,” in inverted commas, throughout his judgment. Next, Ms. Kreider makes some unjustifiable ad hominem attacks on Mr. Stewart Dimmock, the lorry driver, school governor and father of two school-age children who was the plaintiff in the case. This memorandum, however, will eschew any ad hominem response, and will concentrate exclusively on the 35 scientific inaccuracies and exaggerations in Gore’s movie. Ms. Kreider then says, “The process of creating a 90-minute documentary from the original peer-reviewed science for an audience of moviegoers in the U.S. and around the world is complex.” However, the single web-page entitled “The Science” on the movie’s official website contains only two references to articles in the peer-reviewed scientific journals. There is also a reference to a document of the IPCC, but its documents are not independently peer-reviewed in the usual understanding of the term. Ms. Kreider then says, “The judge stated clearly that he was not attempting to perform an analysis of the scientific questions in his ruling.” He did not need to. Each of the nine “errors” which he identified had been admitted by the UK Government to be inconsistent with the mainstream of scientific opinion. Ms. Kreider says the IPCC’s results are sometimes “conservative,” and continues: “Vice President Gore tried to convey in good faith those threats that he views as the most serious.” Readers of the long list of errors described in this memorandum will decide for themselves whether Mr. Gore was acting in good faith. However, in this connection it is significant that each of the 35 errors listed below misstates the conclusions of the scientific literature or states that there is a threat where there is none or exaggerates the threat where there may be one. All of the errors point in one direction – towards undue alarmism. Not one of the errors falls in the direction of underestimating the degree of concern in the scientific community. The likelihood that all 35 of the errors listed below could have fallen in one direction purely by inadvertence is less than 1 in 34 billion. We now itemize 35 of the scientific errors and exaggerations in Al Gore’s movie. The first nine were listed by the judge in the High Court in London in October 2007 as being “errors.” The remaining 26 errors are just as inaccurate or exaggerated as the nine spelt out by the judge, who made it plain during the proceedings that the Court had not had time to consider more than these few errors. The judge found these errors serious enough to require the UK Government to pay substantial costs to the plaintiff.

ERROR 1
Sea level "rising 6 m"

Gore says that a sea-level rise of up to 6 m (20 ft) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland. Though Gore does not say that the sea-level rise will occur in the near future, the judge found that, in the context, it was clear that this is what he had meant, since he showed expensive graphical representations of the effect of his imagined 6 m (20 ft) sea-level rise on existing populations, and he quantified the numbers who would be displaced by the sea-level rise. The IPCC says sea-level increases up to 7 m (23 ft) above today’s levels have happened naturally in the past climate, and would only be likely to happen again after several millennia. In the next 100 years, according to calculations based on figures in the IPCC’s 2007 report, these two ice sheets between them will add a little over 6 cm (2.5 inches) to sea level, not 6 m (this figure of 6 cm is 15% of the IPCC’s total central estimate of a 43 cm or 1 ft 5 in sea-level rise over the next century). Gore has accordingly exaggerated the official sea-level estimate by approaching 10,000 per cent. Ms. Kreider says the IPCC estimates a sea-level rise of “59 cm” by 2100. She fails to point out that this amounts to less than 2 ft, not the 20 ft imagined by Gore. She also fails to point out that this is the IPCC’s upper estimate, on its most extreme scenario. And she fails to state that the IPCC, faced with a stream of peer-reviewed articles stating that sea-level rise is not a threat, has reduced this upper estimate from 3 ft in 2001 to less than 2 ft (i.e. half the mean centennial sea-level rise that has occurred since the end of the last Ice Age 10,000 years ago) in 2007. Ms. Kreider says the IPCC’s 2007 sea-level calculations excluded contributions from Greenland and West Antarctica because they could not be quantified. However, Table SPM1 of the 2007 report quantifies the contributions of these two ice-sheets to sea-level rise as representing about 15% of the total change. The report also mentions the possibility that there may be an unquantified further contribution in future from these two ice sheets arising from “dynamical ice flow.” However, the Greenland ice sheet rests in a depression in the bedrock created by its own weight, wherefore “dynamical ice flow” is impossible, and the IPCC says that temperature would have to be sustained at more than 5.5 degrees C above its present level for several millennia before half the Greenland ice sheet could melt, causing sea level to rise by some 3 m (10 ft). Finally, the IPCC’s 2007 report estimates that the likelihood that humankind is having any influence on sea level at all is little better than 50:50. The judge was accordingly correct in finding that Gore’s presentation of the imagined imminent threat of a 6 m (20 ft) sea-level rise, with his account of the supposed impact on the present-day populations of Manhattan, the Netherlands, Bangladesh, etc., etc, was not a correct statement of the mainstream science on this question.

ERROR 2
Pacific islands "drowning"

Gore says low-lying inhabited Pacific coral atolls are already being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming, leading to the evacuation of several island populations to New Zealand. However, the atolls are not being inundated, except where dynamiting of reefs or over-extraction of fresh water by local populations has caused damage. Furthermore, corals can grow at ten times the predicted rate of increase in sea level. It is not by some accident or coincidence that so many atolls reach just a few feet above the ocean surface. Ms. Kreider says, “The IPCC estimates that 150 million environmental refugees could exist by the year 2050, due mainly to the effects of coastal flooding, shoreline erosion and agricultural disruption.” However, the IPCC cannot be basing its estimate on sea-level rise, since even its maximum projected rise of just 30 cm (1 ft) by 2050 would not cause significant coastal flooding or shoreline erosion. There are several coastlines (the east coast of England, for instance) where the land is sinking as a consequence of post-ice-age isostatic recovery, or where (as in Bangladesh) tectonic subduction is similarly causing the land to sink. But such natural causes owe nothing to sea-level rise. There have been no mass evacuations of populations of islanders as suggested by Gore, though some residents of Tuvalu have asked to be moved to New Zealand, even though the tide-gauges maintained until recently by the National Tidal Facility of Australia show a mean annual sea-level rise over the past half-century equivalent to the thickness of a human hair. The problem with the Carteret Islands, mentioned by Ms. Kreider, arose not because of rising sea levels but because of imprudent dynamiting of the reefs by local fishermen. In the Maldives, a detailed recent study showed that sea levels were unchanged today compared with 1250 years ago, though they have been higher in much of the intervening period, and have very seldom been lower. A well-established tree very close to the Maldivian shoreline and only inches above sea level was recently uprooted by Australian environmentalists anxious to destroy this visible proof that sea level cannot have risen very far.

ERROR 3
Thermohaline circulation "stopping"

Gore says “global warming” may shut down the thermohaline circulation in the oceans, which he calls the “ocean conveyor,” plunging Europe into an ice age. It will not. A paper published in 2006 says: “Analyses of ocean observations and model simulations suggest that changes in the thermohaline circulation during the last century are likely the result of natural multidecadal climate variability. Indications of a sustained thermohaline circulation weakening are not seen during the last few decades. Instead, a strengthening since the 1980s is observed.” Ms. Kreider, for Mr. Gore, says that “multiple scientists” have claimed that we cannot exclude the possibility of the disruption or shutdown of the Conveyor. Disruption, perhaps: shutdown, no. It is now near-universally accepted that the thermohaline circulation cannot be and will not be shut down by “global warming,” and the film should have been corrected to reflect the consensus.

ERROR 4
CO₂ "driving temperature"

Gore says that in each of the last four interglacial warm periods it was changes in carbon dioxide concentration that caused changes in temperature. It was the other way about. Changes in temperature preceded changes in CO2 concentration by between 800 and 2800 years, as scientific papers including the paper on which Gore’s film had relied had made clear. Ms. Kreider says it is true that “greenhouse gas levels and temperature changes in the ice signals have a complicated relationship but they do fit.” This does not address Gore’s error at all. The judge found that Gore had very clearly implied that it was changes in carbon dioxide concentration that had led to changes in temperature in the palaeoclimate, when the scientific literature is unanimous (save only for a single paper by James Hansen, whom Gore trusts) to the effect that the relationship was in fact the other way about, with a carbon dioxide feedback contributing only a comparatively insignificant further increase to temperature after the temperature change had itself initiated a change in carbon dioxide concentration. The significance of this error was explained during the court proceedings, and was accepted by the judge. Gore says that the 100 ppmv difference between carbon dioxide concentrations during ice-age temperature minima and interglacial temperature maxima represents “the difference between a nice day and a mile of ice above your head.” This would imply a CO2 effect on temperature about 10 times greater than that regarded as plausible by the consensus of mainstream scientific opinion (see Error 10). Ms. Kreider refers readers to a “more complete description” available at a website maintained by, among others, two of the three authors of the now-discredited “hockey stick” graph that falsely attempted to abolish the Mediaeval Warm Period. The National Academy of Sciences in the US had found that graph to have “a validation skill not significantly different from zero” – i.e., the graph was useless.

ERROR 5
Snows of Kilimanjaro "melting"

Gore says “global warming” has been melting the snows of Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa. It is not. The melting of the Furtwangler Glacier at the summit of the mountain began 125 years ago. More of the glacier had melted before Hemingway wrote The Snows of Kilimanjaro in 1936 than afterward. Temperature at the summit never rises above freezing and is at an average of –7 Celsius. The cause of the melting is long-term climate shifts exacerbated by imprudent regional deforestation, and has nothing to do with “global warming.” Ms. Kreider says, “Every tropical glacier for which we have documented evidence shows that glaciers are retreating.” However, a recent survey of the glaciers in the tropical Andes shows that they were largely ice-free in the past 10,000 years, except on the very highest peaks. The mere fact of warming or melting, therefore, tells us nothing of the cause. Ms. Kreider says, “Global warming exacerbates the stresses that ecosystems (and humans) are already experiencing.” However, since the temperature at the summit of Kilimanjaro remains below freezing and has not risen in 30 years, “global warming” is not “exacerbating the stresses” at the summit of Kilimanjaro.

ERROR 6
Lake Chad "drying up"

Gore says “global warming” dried up Lake Chad in Africa. It did not. Over-extraction of water and changing agricultural patterns dried the lake, which was also dry in 8500BC, 5500BC, 1000BC and 100BC. Ms. Kreider says, “There are multiple stresses upon Lake Chad.” However, the scientific consensus is that at present those “stresses” do not include “global warming.”

ERROR 7
Hurricane Katrina "man made"

Gore says Hurricane Katrina, that devastated New Orleans in 2005, was caused by “global warming.” It was not. It was caused by the failure of Gore’s party, in the administration of New Orleans, to heed 30 years of warnings by the Corps of Engineers that the levees – dams that kept New Orleans dry – could not stand a direct hit by a hurricane. Katrina was only Category 3 when it struck the levees. They failed, as the Engineers had said they would. Gore’s party, not “global warming,” was to blame for the consequent death and destruction. Ms. Kreider says, “Mr. Gore has never addressed the issue of climate change and hurricane frequency.” What Gore actually says, however, addresses the frequency not only of hurricanes but also of typhoons and tornadoes –

“We have seen in the last couple of years, a lot of big hurricanes. Hurricanes Jean, Francis and Ivan were among them. In the same year we had that string of big hurricanes; we also set an all time record for tornadoes in the United States. Japan again didn’t get as much attention in our news media, but they set an all time record for typhoons. The previous record was seven. Here are all ten of the ones they had in 2004.”

For the record, however, the number of Atlantic hurricanes shows no trend over the past half century; the number of typhoons has fallen throughout the past 30 years; the number of tornadoes has risen only because of better detection systems for smaller tornadoes; but the number of larger tornadoes in the US has fallen.

ERROR 8
Polar bear "dying"

Gore says a scientific study shows that polar bears are being killed swimming long distances to find ice that has melted away because of “global warming.” They are not. The study, by Monnett & Gleason (2005), mentioned just four dead bears. They had died in an exceptional storm, with high winds and waves in the Beaufort Sea. The amount of sea ice in the Beaufort Sea has grown over the past 30 years. A report for the World Wide Fund for Nature shows that polar bears, which are warm-blooded, have grown in numbers where temperature has increased, and have become fewer where temperature has fallen. Polar bears evolved from brown bears 200,000 years ago, and survived the last interglacial period, when global temperature was 5 degrees Celsius warmer than the present and there was probably no Arctic ice-cap at all. The real threat to polar bears is not “global warming” but hunting. In 1940, there were just 5,000 polar bears worldwide. Now that hunting is controlled, there are 25,000. Ms. Kreider says sea-ice “was the lowest ever measured for minimum extent in 2007.” She does not say that the measurements, which are done by satellite, go back only 29 years. She does not say that the North-West Passage, a good proxy for Arctic sea-ice extent, was open to shipping in 1945, or that Amundsen passed through in a sailing vessel in 1903.

ERROR 9
Coral reefs "bleaching"

Gore says coral reefs are “bleaching” because of “global warming.” They are not. There was some bleaching in 1998, but this was caused by the exceptional El Nino Southern Oscillation that year. Two similarly severe El Ninos over the past 250 years also caused extensive bleaching. “Global warming” was nothing to do with it. Ms. Kreider says, “The IPCC and other scientific bodies have long identified increases in ocean temperatures with the bleaching of coral reefs.” So they have: but the bleaching in 1998 occurred as a result not of “global warming” but of a rare, though not unique, severe El Nino Southern Oscillation.

ERROR 10
100 ppmv of CO₂ "melting mile-thick ice"

Gore implies that the difference of just 100 parts per million by volume in CO2 concentration between an interglacial temperature maximum and an ice-age temperature minimum causes “the difference between a nice day and having a mile of ice above your head.” It does not. Gore’s implication has the effect of overstating the mainstream consensus estimate of the effect of CO2 on temperature at least tenfold. Temperature changes by up to 12 degrees C between glacial minima and interglacial maxima, but CO2 concentration changes by no more than 100 ppmv. Gore is accordingly implying that 100 ppmv can cause a temperature increase of up to 12 degrees C. However, the consensus as expressed by the IPCC is that 100 ppmv of increased CO2 concentration, from 180 to 280 ppmv, would increase radiant energy flux in the atmosphere by 2.33 watts per square meter, or less than 1.2 degrees Celsius including the effect of temperature feedbacks.

ERROR 11
Hurricane Caterina "manmade"

Gore says that Hurricane Caterina, the only hurricane ever to strike the coast of Brazil, was caused by “global warming.” It was not. In 2004, Brazil’s summer sea surface temperatures were cooler than normal, not warmer. But air temperatures were the coldest in 25 years. The air was so much colder than the water that it caused a heat flux from the water to the air similar to that which fuels hurricanes in warm seas.

ERROR 12
Japanese typhoons "a new record"

Gore says that 2004 set a new record for the number of typhoons striking Japan. It did not. The trend in the number of typhoons, and of tropical cyclones, has fallen throughout the past 50 years. The trend in rainfall from cyclones has also fallen, and there has been no trend in monsoon rainfall.

ERROR 13
Hurricanes "getting stronger"

Gore says scientists had been giving warnings that hurricanes will get stronger because of “global warming.” They will not. Over the past 60 years there has been no change in the strength of hurricanes, even though hydrocarbon use went up six-fold in the same period. Research by Dr. Kerry Emanuel, cited by Ms. Kreider, has been discredited by more recent findings that wind-shear effects tend to nullify the amplification of hurricane strength which he had suggested, and, of course, by the observed failure of hurricanes to gain strength during the past 60 years of “global warming.”

ERROR 14
Big storm insurances losses "increasing"

Gore says insurance losses arising from large storms and other extreme-weather events are increasing, by implication because of “global warming.” They are not. Insured losses, as a percentage of the population of coastal areas in the path of hurricanes, were lower even in 2005 than they had been in 1925. In 2006, a very quiet hurricane season, Lloyds of London posted their biggest-ever profit: £3.6 billion.

ERROR 15
Mumbai "flooding"

Gore says flooding in Mumbai is increasing, by implication because of “global warming.” It is not. Rainfall trends at the two major weather stations in Mumbai show no increase in heavy rainfall over the past 48 years.

ERROR 16
Severe tornadoes "more frequent"

Gore says that 2004 set an all-time record for tornadoes in the US. More tornadoes are being reported because detection systems are better than they were. But the number of severe tornadoes has been falling for more than 50 years.

ERROR 17
The sun "heats the Arctic ocean"

Gore says that ice-melt allows the Sun to heat the Arctic Ocean, and a diagram shows the Sun’s rays heating it directly. It does not. The ocean emits radiant energy at the moment of absorption, and would freeze if there were no atmosphere. It is the atmosphere, not the Sun that warms the ocean. Also, Gore’s diagram confuses the tropopause with the ionosphere, and he makes a number of other errors indicating that he does not understand the elementary physics of radiative transfer.

ERROR 18
Arctic "warming fastest"

Gore says the Arctic has been warming faster than the rest of the planet. It is not. While it is in general true that during periods of warming (whether natural or anthropogenic) the Arctic will warm faster than other regions, Gore does not mention that the Arctic has been cooling over the past 60 years, and is now one degree Celsius cooler than it was in the 1940s. There was a record amount of snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere in 2001. Several vessels were icebound in the Arctic in the spring of 2007, but few newspapers reported this. The newspapers reported that the North-West Passage was free of ice in 2007, and said that this was for the first time since records began: but the records, taken by satellites, had only begun 29 years previously. The North-West Passage had also been open for shipping in 1945, and, in 1903, the great Norwegian explorer Amundsen had passed through it in a sailing ship.

ERROR 19
Greenland ice sheet "unstable"

Gore says “global warming” is making the Greenland ice sheet unstable. It is not. Greenland ice grows 2in a year. The Greenland ice sheet survived each of the previous three interglacial periods, each of which was 5 degrees Celsius warmer than the present. It survived atmospheric CO2 concentrations of up to 1000 ppmv (compared with today’s 400 ppmv). It last melted 850,000 years ago, when humankind did not exist and could not have caused the melting. There is a close correlation between variations in Solar activity and temperature anomalies in Greenland, but there is no correlation between variations in CO2 concentration and temperature changes in Greenland. The IPCC (2001) says that to melt even half the Greenland ice sheet would require temperature to rise by 5.5 degrees C and remain that high for several thousand years.

ERROR 20
Himalayan glacial melt waters "failing"

Gore says 40% of the world’s population get their water supply from Himalayan glacial melt waters that are failing because of “global warming.” They don’t and they are not. The water comes almost entirely from snow-melt, not from ice-melt. Over the past 40 years there has been no decline in the amount of snow-melt in Eurasia.

ERROR 21
Peruvian glaciers "disappearing"

Gore says that a Peruvian glacier is less extensive now than it was in the 1940s, implying that “global warming” is the cause. It is not. Except for the very highest peaks, the normal state of the Peruvian cordilleras has been ice-free throughout most of the past 10,000 years.

ERROR 22
Mountain glaciers worldwide "disappearing"

Gore says that “the ice has a story to tell, and it is worldwide.” He shows several before-and-after pictures of glaciers disappearing. However, the glacial melt began in the 1820s, long before humankind could have had any effect, and has continued at a uniform rate since, showing no acceleration since humankind began increasing the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere. Total ice volumes in three of the last four Ice Ages were lower than they are today, and “global warming” had nothing to do with that.

ERROR 23
Sahara desert "drying"

Gore says terrible tragedies are occurring in the southern Sahara because of drought which he blames on “global warming.” There is no drought caused by “global warming.” In 2007 there were record rains across the whole of the southern Sahara. In the past 25 years the Sahara has shrunk by some 300,000 square kilometers because of additional rainfall. Some scientists think “global warming” may actually mitigate pre-existing droughts because there will be more water vapor in the atmosphere. Before 1200 AD there were frequent, prolonged and severe droughts in the Great Plains. Since 1200 AD, there has been more rainfall. Likewise, the US has had more rainfall since the 1950s than it had in the earlier part of the 20th Century, when the great droughts which were then common were described by John Steinbeck in The Grapes of Wrath. South African rainfall was also more stable in the second half of the 20th Century, when human effect on climate is said to have become significant, than in the first half.

ERROR 24
West Antarctic ice sheet "unstable"

Gore says disturbing changes have been measured under the West Antarctic ice sheet, implicitly because of “global warming.” Yet most of the recession in this ice sheet over the past 10,000 years has occurred in the absence of any sea-level or temperature forcing. In most of Antarctica, the ice is in fact growing thicker. Mean Antarctic temperature has actually fallen throughout the past half-century. In some Antarctic glens, environmental damage has been caused by temperature decreases of up to 2 degrees Celsius. Antarctic sea-ice spread to a 30-year record extent in late 2007.

ERROR 25
Antarctic Peninsula ice shelves "breaking up"

Gore says half a dozen ice shelves each “larger than Rhode Island” have broken up and vanished from the Antarctic Peninsula recently, implicitly because of “global warming.” Global warming is unlikely to have been the cause. Gore does not explain that the ice shelves have melted before, as studies of seabed sediments have shown. The Antarctic Peninsula accounts for about 2% of the continent, in most of which the ice is growing thicker. All the recently-melted shelves, added together, amount to an area less than one-fifty-fifth the size of Texas.

ERROR 26
Larsen B Ice Shelf "broke up because of
'global warming'"

Gore focuses on the Larsen B ice shelf, saying that it completely disappeared in 35 days. Yet there has been extensive ice-shelf break-up throughout the past 10,000 years, and the maximum ice-shelf extent may have been in the Little Ice Age in the late 15th century.

ERROR 27
Mosquitoes "climbing to higher altitudes"

Gore says that, because of “global warming”, mosquitoes are climbing to higher altitudes. They are not. Most recent outbreaks have been at lower levels than those of a century and more ago. He says that Nairobi was founded 1000 m above sea level so as to be above the mosquito line. It was not. In the period before anthropogenic warming could have had any significant effect, there were ten malaria outbreaks in Nairobi, one of which reached as far up as Eldoret, almost 3000 m above sea level. Malaria is not a tropical disease. Mosquitoes do not need tropical temperatures: they need no more than 15 degrees Celsius to breed. The largest malaria outbreak of modern times was in Siberia in the 1920s and 1930s, when 13 million were infected, 600,000 died and 30,000 died as far north as Arkhangelsk, on the Arctic Circle. There is no reason to suppose that malaria will spread even if the climate continues to become warmer.

ERROR 28
Many tropical diseases "spread through
'global warming'"

Gore says that, as well as malaria, “global warming” is spreading dengue fever, Lyme disease, West Nile virus, arena virus, avian flu, Ebola virus, E. Coli 0157:H7, Hanta virus, legionella, leptospirosis, multi-drug-resistant TB, Nipah virus, SARS and Vibrio Cholerae 0139. It is doing no such thing. Only the first four diseases are insect-borne, but none is tropical. Of the other diseases named by Gore either in his film or in the accompanying book, not one is sensitive to increasing temperature. They are spread not by warmer weather but by rats, chickens, primates, pigs, poor hygiene, ill-maintained air conditioning, or cold weather.

ERROR 29
West Nile virus in the US "spread through
'global warming'"

Gore says that West Nile virus spread throughout the US in just two years, implicitly because of “global warming.” It did not. The climate in the US ranges from some of the world’s hottest deserts to some of its iciest tundra. West Nile virus flourishes in any climate. Warming of the climate, however caused, does not affect its incidence or prevalence.

ERROR 30
Carbon dioxide is "pollution"

Gore describes carbon dioxide as “global warming pollution.” It is not. It is food for plants and trees. Tests have shown that even at concentrations 30 times those of the present day even the most delicate plants flourish. Well-managed forests, such as those of the United States, are growing at record rates because the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is feeding the trees. Carbon dioxide, in geological timescale, is at a very low concentration at present. Half a billion years ago it was at 7000 parts per million by volume, about 18 times today’s concentration.

ERROR 31
The European heat wave of 2003 "killed 35,000"

Gore says, “A couple of years ago in Europe they had that heat wave that killed 35,000.” Though some scientists agree with Gore, the scientific consensus is that extreme warm anomalies more unusual than the 2003 heat wave occur regularly; extreme cold anomalies also occur regularly; El Niño and volcanism appear to be of much greater importance than any general warming trend; and there is little evidence that regional heat or cold waves are significantly increasing or decreasing with time. In general, warm is better than cold, which is why the largest number of life-forms are in the tropics and the least number are at the poles. A cold snap in the winter following the European heat wave killed 20,000 in the UK alone. Though the IPCC says 150,000 people a year are being killed worldwide by “global warming,” it reaches this figure only by deliberately excluding the number of people who are not being killed because there is less cold weather. In the US alone, it has been estimated that 174,000 fewer people are being killed each year because there are fewer episodes of extreme cold.

ERROR 32
Pied flycatchers "cannot feed their young"

Gore says “The peak arrival date for migratory birds 25 years ago was April 25. Their chicks hatched on June 3, just at the time when the caterpillars were coming out: Nature’s plan. But 20 years of warming later the caterpillars peaked two weeks earlier. The chicks tried to catch up with it, but they couldn’t. So they are in trouble.” Yet adaptation is easy for the flycatchers: they merely fly a few tens of kilometers further north and they will find caterpillars hatching at the appropriate time. Besides, though Gore does not say so, what is bad news for the pied flycatchers is good news for the caterpillars, and for the butterflies they will become.

ERROR 33
Gore's bogus pictures and film footage

In the book accompanying Gore’s film, the story of the pied flycatchers and the caterpillars is accompanied by a picture of a bird feeding her hungry chicks. However, closer inspection shows that the bird is not a pied flycatcher but a black tern; and that she is not carrying a caterpillar in her beak, but a small fish. Gore similarly misuses spectacular footage of a glacier apparently calving off enormous slabs of ice into the sea – footage that is often shown on television to accompany stories about “global warming.” However, the glacier in question is one that is known to be advancing – and to be doing so more rapidly and more often than previously. It is in southern Argentina, where its snout crosses – and eventually dams, Lake Argentino. Water builds up behind the ice dam and eventually bursts it, causing the spectacular collapse of ice into the lake that is so misleadingly used as the iconic image of the effect of “global warming” on glaciers. The breaking of the ice dam used to occur every eight years or so: now, however, it occurs every five years, not because of “global warming” because of the regional cooling of the southern Atlantic.

ERROR 34
The Thames Barrier "closing more frequently"

Gore says that rising sea levels are compelling the operators of the Thames Barrier to close it more frequently than when it was first built. They are not. The barrier is indeed closed more frequently than when it was built, but the reason has nothing to do with “global warming” or rising sea levels. The reason is a change of policy by which the barrier is closed during exceptionally low tides, so as to retain water in the tidal Thames rather than keeping it out. Yet even the present leader of the official Opposition in the UK Parliament recently used a major speech as the opportunity to mention today’s more frequent closing of the Thames Barrier as though it were a matter of grave concern.

ERROR 35
"No fact...in dispute by anybody."

Gore says that his prediction that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide will rise to more than 600 parts per million by volume as soon as 2050 is “not controversial in any way or in dispute by anybody.” However, not one of the half-dozen official projections of growth in CO2 concentration made by the IPCC shows as much as 600 parts per million by 2050.

Conclusion
35 serious scientific errors

As many as 35 serious scientific errors or exaggerations, all pointing towards invention of a threat that does not exist at all, or exaggerations of phenomena that do exist, do not reflect credit on the presenter of the movie or on those who advised him. The movie is unsuitable for showing to children, and provides no basis for taking policy decisions. Schools that have shown the movie to children are urged to ensure that the errors listed in this memorandum are drawn to the children’s attention.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

Geithner’s New York Fed Told AIG to Limit Swaps Disclosure

StolzeMama — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 11:01:38 -0800

Jan. 7 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, then led by Timothy Geithner, told American International Group Inc. to withhold details from the public about the bailed-out insurer’s payments to banks during the depths of the financial crisis, e-mails between the company and its regulator show.

AIG said in a draft of a regulatory filing that the insurer paid banks, which included Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Societe Generale SA, 100 cents on the dollar for credit-default swaps they bought from the firm. The New York Fed crossed out the reference, according to the e-mails, and AIG excluded the language when the filing was made public on Dec. 24, 2008. The e-mails were obtained by Representative Darrell Issa, ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

The New York Fed took over negotiations between AIG and the banks in November 2008 as losses on the swaps, which were contracts tied to subprime home loans, threatened to swamp the insurer weeks after its taxpayer-funded rescue. The regulator decided that Goldman Sachs and more than a dozen banks would be fully repaid for $62.1 billion of the swaps, prompting lawmakers to call the AIG rescue a “backdoor bailout” of financial firms.

“It appears that the New York Fed deliberately pressured AIG to restrict and delay the disclosure of important information,” said Issa, a California Republican. Taxpayers “deserve full and complete disclosure under our nation’s securities laws, not the withholding of politically inconvenient information.” President Barack Obama selected Geithner as Treasury secretary, a post he took last year.

Bank Payments

Issa requested the e-mails from AIG Chief Executive Officer Robert Benmosche in October after Bloomberg News reported that the New York Fed ordered the crippled insurer not to negotiate for discounts in settling the swaps. The decision to pay the banks in full may have cost AIG, and thus taxpayers, at least $13 billion, based on the discount the insurer was seeking.

The e-mail exchanges between AIG and the New York Fed over the insurer’s disclosure of the transactions show that the regulator pressed the company to keep details out of the public eye. Issa’s comments add to criticism from Republican lawmakers, including Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, who wrote letters in the past two months demanding information from Geithner, 48, about the costs of the AIG bailout.

Securities Lawyers

AIG’s Dec. 24, 2008, filing was challenged privately by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which polices the adequacy of disclosures by publicly traded firms. The agency said in a letter to then-CEO Edward Liddy six days later that AIG should provide a Schedule A, which lists collateral postings for the swaps and names the bank counterparties that purchased them from the company. The Schedule A was disclosed about five months later in a filing.

“Our position has always been that if AIG’s securities lawyers determine that AIG is legally obligated to make a particular filing or disclosure, then that is what AIG must do,” said Jack Gutt, a spokesman for the New York Fed, in an e- mailed statement. Gutt said it was appropriate for the New York Fed, as party to deals outlined in the filings, “to provide comments on a number of issues, including disclosures, with the understanding that the final decision rested with AIG’s securities counsel.”

Mark Herr, a spokesman for New York-based AIG, declined to comment. Andrew Williams of the Treasury referred questions to the New York Fed.

Kathleen Shannon, an AIG deputy general counsel, wrote to the insurer’s executives in a March 12, 2009, e-mail about the conflicting demands from the New York Fed and SEC.

‘Reasonable Basis’

“In order to make only the disclosure that the Fed wants us to make,” Shannon wrote, “we need to have a reasonable basis for believing and arguing to the SEC that the information we are seeking to protect is not already publicly available.”

AIG disclosed the names of the counterparties, which included Deutsche Bank AG and Merrill Lynch & Co., on March 15. The disclosure said AIG made more than $27 billion in payments without identifying the securities tied to the swaps or listing the value of individual purchases by each bank, details the Fed wanted to keep out, according to the March 12 e-mail from AIG’s Shannon.

Earlier that month, Fed Vice Chairman Donald Kohn testified to Congress that disclosure of the counterparties would harm AIG’s ability to do business. The insurer agreed to turn over a stake of almost 80 percent in connection to its bailout.

â€˜No Mention of the Syntheticsâ€™

The e-mails span five months starting in November 2008 and include requests from the New York Fed to withhold documents and delay disclosures. The correspondence includes e-mails between AIG’s Shannon and attorneys at the New York Fed and its law firm, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP. Tom Orewyler, a spokesman for Davis Polk in New York, declined to comment as did Shannon.

According to Shannon’s e-mails obtained by Issa, the New York Fed suggested that AIG refrain in a filing from mentioning so-called synthetic collateralized debt obligations, which bundled derivative contracts rather than actual loans.

The filing “reflects your client’s desire that there be no mention of the synthetics in connection with this transaction,” Shannon wrote to Davis Polk on Dec. 2, 2008. “They will not be mentioned at all.”

AIG had about $9.8 billion of swaps protecting the synthetic holdings as of September 2008, the company said on Dec. 10, 2008. Goldman Sachs said in a press release last month that it was among banks that had losses on synthetic CDOs.

As part of a bailout that swelled to $182.3 billion, AIG and the Fed created Maiden Lane III, a taxpayer-funded facility designed to remove mortgage-linked swaps from the insurer’s books. Shannon told the New York Fed on Nov. 24, 2008, that AIG executives wanted to publicly disclose details about Maiden Lane the next day.

‘Guided by Your Counsel’

“Do you think it might be feasible to hold off on the Maiden Lane III 8K and press release until next week?” Brett Phillips, a New York Fed lawyer wrote in an e-mail that day. “The thinking is that the Maiden Lane III closing will be a less transparent event, and it might be better to narrow the gap between AIG’s announcement and the New York Fed’s publication of term sheet summaries.”

“Given the significance of the transaction, AIG would be best served by filing tomorrow,” Shannon wrote. “We will of course be guided by your counsel.” The document outlining the Maiden Lane agreement was posted on Dec. 2, 2008.

In at least one instance, AIG pushed for documents to be disclosed and then released the information.

‘Better Disclosure’

“We believe that the agreements listed in the index (i.e., the Master Investment and Credit Agreement and the Shortfall Agreement) do not need to be filed,” Peter Bazos, a Davis Polk lawyer wrote on Nov. 25, 2008. “Please let us know your thoughts in this regard.”

AIG’s Shannon replied that “the better practice and better disclosure in this complex area is to file the agreements currently rather than to delay.” The agreements were included in the Dec. 2 filing.

More details of the negotiations over swaps payments emerged in November 2009 when Neil Barofsky, the special inspector in charge of policing the Troubled Asset Relief Program, assessed the Fed’s role in the bailout.

“Federal Reserve officials provided AIG’s counterparties with tens of billions of dollars they likely would have not otherwise received,” Barofsky wrote in a Nov. 17 report. “The default position, whenever government funds are deployed in a crisis to support markets or institutions, should be that the public is entitled to know what is being done with government funds.”

AIG’s first rescue was an $85 billion credit line from the New York Fed in September 2008. The bailout was expanded three times and is valued at $182.3 billion. That includes a $60 billion Fed credit line, an investment of as much as $69.8 billion from the Treasury and up to $52.5 billion for Maiden Lane facilities to buy mortgage-linked assets owned or backed by the company.

source

Young children who are smacked 'go on to be more successful'

Roarman — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 07:26:57 -0800

I feel we may have discussed this before, so if it is redundant please feel free to ignore.

Young children who are smacked by their parents grow up to be happier and more successful than those who have never been hit, research claims.

It found that children who are smacked before the age of six perform better at school when they are teenagers.
They are also more likely to do voluntary work and to want to go to university than those who have never been physically disciplined.

But the study also revealed that children who are smacked after the age of six were more likely to exhibit behavioural problems, such as being involved in fights.

Smacking is currently banned in 20 European countries, including Germany, Spain and the Netherlands.

In Britain 'reasonable chastisement' in the home is allowed unless it leaves a mark.
But the study, by Marjorie Gunnoe, professor of Psychology at Calvin College in the U.S. state of Michigan, found there was not enough evidence to prove that smacking harmed most children.

She said: 'The claims that are made for not spanking children fail to hold up.
'I think of spanking as a dangerous-tool, but then there are times when there is a job big enough for a dangerous tool. You don't use it for all your jobs.'

Professor Gunnoe questioned 2,600 people about being smacked, of whom a quarter had never been physically chastised.
The participants' answers then were compared with their behaviour, such as academic success, optimism about the future, antisocial behaviour, violence and bouts of depression.

Teenagers in the survey who had been smacked only between the ages of two and six performed best on all the positive measures.

Those who had been smacked between seven and 11 fared worse on negative behaviour but were more likely to be academically successful. Teenagers who were still smacked fared worst on all counts.

Parenting guru Penelope Leach disagreed with the findings.

'No good can come from hitting a child,' she said. 'I do not buy this idea that children will learn positive behaviour from being smacked.

'The law says adults hitting adults is wrong and children should be protected in the same way. Children are people too.'
But psychologist Aric Sigman said: 'The idea smacking and violence are on a continuum is a bizarre and fetished view of what punishment is for most parents.

'If it's done judiciously by a parent who is normally affectionate and sensitive to their child, our society should not be up in arms about that. Parents should be taught to distinguish this from a punch in the face.'
Two years ago, Britain was criticised by the UN for failing to ban smacking in the home, after experts said it was a form of abuse.

And growing numbers of the public seem to agree: A recent poll found 71 per cent of parents would support a ban on smacking

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1240279/Children-smacked-young-l...