Screen Shot 2017-03-31 at 8.45.56 AM
Heartland Institute’s President and Founder Joe Bast

By Nancy Thorner – 

The Obama administration used concern over “global warming” as a false flag operation to advance it’s left-wing agenda to “transform” the country’s energy sector. This makes global warming policy — not global warming itself — the greatest threat facing this nation. This was one of the themes of The Heartland Institute’s Twelfth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-12), held in Washington D.C. on March 23-24, 2007.

According to Heartland President Joseph Bast in opening remarks, the election of Donald Trump on November 8 opened a new chapter in the global warming debate, creating hope that a new pro-environment, pro-energy, and pro-jobs agenda will be created to benefit the American people.  ICCC-12 was the first major conference on climate change to take place after Trump’s election, and its 40-some speakers presented the science and economics that are the foundation of that new agenda.  Speaker after speaker rejected the policies and claims of President Barack Obama and showed optimism about the possibility of dismantling these policies now that Donald Trump is in office.

Of note is that four special awards were presented to those who had made huge contributions to the Climate Debate.

  • Col. Walter Cunningham is best known as pilot of Apollo 7, the first manned flight test of the Apollo Program to land a man on the Moon. 
  • J. Scott Armstrong, Ph.D., a professor at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, was applauded for his research on forecasting.
  • Myron Ebell, director of energy and environment policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute and chair of the Trump administration’s EPA transition team.
  • Dr. John Barrasso, M.D. (R-WY) is chairman of the Senate Committee on Environments and Public Works (EPA).  Unfortunately Barrasso was unable to attend to receive his award in person because of the House debate on replacing Obamacare.

Three Republican legislators were scheduled to appear at ICCC-12, but only Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) could attend in person.  Senator Barrasso, M.D., a reward recipient, received his award In absentia, while Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma made his remarks through a video presentation. Unfortunately, many legislators were tied up in their respective Chambers during ICCC-12, House members with repealing Obamacare and Senate members in dealing with Chief Justice nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch.

Joseph Bast, president and CEO of The Heartland Institute welcomes guests

Joseph Bast, president and CEO of The Heartland Institute, welcomed an enthusiastic group of 300 attendees. The meeting included eleven panels and five plenary sessions offering views on such topics as climate science, environmental economics, and the relationship between fossil fuels and human prosperity, the environment; human health; and world peace.

On Heartland’s agenda was an impressive group of keynote speakers including Lord Christopher Monckton for his wit and humor as well as mastering of mathematics and statistics; Patrick Michaels, a climate scientist with the Cato Institute who has written numerous books on the subject; Roger Helmer, a member of the European Parliament; and Heartland Science Director Jay Lehr, who delivered a presentation he and others at Heartland had prepared to deliver to President-elect Trump in person.

Bast related how EPA Director, Scott Pruitt, recently remarked on CNBC that human activity is not the primary activity of the global warming that we see. More good news followed when Bast recounted a remark made by Trump’s budget director when announcing that global warming activities were not going to be funded because the president doesn’t think the issue is important. 

Climate “realists” have won the public opinion debate, Bast claimed. He cited survey data showing most Americans don’t believe human activity is responsible for most global warming, further stating that “42% of Americans don’t want to spend a dollar more to prevent global warming.”  Bast then related how the Trump administration has proposed cutting EPA funding by 1/3, and how the subsidies shoring up the wind and solar industry are soon to be on the cutting block. Without those subsidies, wind and solar energy would be unaffordable. Britain, Spain, Germany, and Australia are all cutting back on their sustainable energy funding, Bast said.

Breakfast, Thursday, March 23:  Keynote Address, Jay Lehr, Ph.D., Senior Fellow and Science Director of The Heartland Institute  

Following opening remarks, Joe Bast spoke about the 20-minute presentation The Heartland Institute was asked to prepare and present to explain global warming to President-elect Trump. Jay Lehr, PhD. was selected to share Heartland’s compilation of facts based on sound scientific research to President-elect Trump. Lehr’s direct presentation never happened, but Heartland’s message was shared with others in the Trump administration.   

With this in mind, Mr. Bast called Dr. Jay Lehr to the podium to present Heartland’s slide presentation as prepared for President-elect Trump. Lehr, who delivers one or two addresses a week all across the country, was described by Bast as the most popular speaker expressing climate change realism in the country today. 

Dr. Jay Lehr’s Powerpoint Keynote Breakfast presentation addressed the elimination the EPA and turning its functions back to the states to legislate.  Dr. Lehr playfully suggested that he might be paying penance for a 1971 crime, for when joining the Nixon administration he helped create the EPA. As Dr. Lehr remarked:  “For 10 years the EPA did some good work, but since 1980 no good has come from the EPA.” 

As to devolving the EPA, Dr. Lehr states the following reasons:

  • The states are eminently capable of, and should be responsible for, the protection of our air land water.
  • His plan migrates that responsibility from the EPA to the states over a 5-year plan, and thereby materially alters the existing structure of the EPA, which is worthy of serious consideration.

Lehr went on to explain how there are 14 separate offices within the EPA, each having their own staff and budgets, but only 5 of the offices deal with the environment:  1) Office of Water; 2) Office and Air and Radiation; 3) Office of Chemical Safety and Emergency Response; 4) Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response; and 5) Office of Research and Development. 

What’s more, two of the offices belong in the Bureau of Indian Affairs 1) Office of American Indian Environmental Affairs and 2) Office of International and Tribal Affairs, while seven more of the offices within the EPA are entirely non-scientific in nature: (Office of Policy; Office of General Council; Office of Chief Financial Officer; Office of Environmental Information; Office of Administration and Resource Management; Office of the Enforcement and Compliance Management; and Office of the Administrator).

According to Dr. Lehr, only 4 useful pieces of EPA legislation were created in its first ten years of existence from 1971 to1980.  They are:  

1.  Water Pollution Control Act (later renamed as the Clean Water).

2.  Safe Drinking Water Act, Resource Conservation and Recover Act, Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (which covers deep mining too).

3.  Clean Air Act, Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). 

4.  Comprehensive Environmental Response compensation and Liability Act (Superfund).

As to the reach and size of the EPA, Lehr cited 15,000 employees spread between Washington DC and 10 regional offices and a few research centers, with a total budget of $8.2 billion.  Most importantly, what are taxpayers getting for the $8.2 billion budget of the EPA?  No actual environmental protection is produced.  This is all done by the 50 State Agencies. 

Given such a dismal record by the EPA, these stated conclusions are sound and need to be implemented by the Trump administration:  

  • We must aggressively trim, restructure and eliminate multiple programs within the federal system that have any association with the god of Sustainability, especially and starting with the EPA. 
  • It is incumbent upon use to strive to deliver the truth to the American people with good science, properly constructed legislation, and policy-making that is grounded in the Iron Law of Regulation.

Dr. Lehr asked each participant to set a target to change the minds of 5 people in a year who believe in global warming. With 200 individuals in the room, 1,000 individuals would be reached.

An addendum to article  

President Donald Trump on Tuesday, March 28, 2017, issued an “energy independence” executive order to undo several of the Obama administration’s climate change regulations. 

Happening so soon after Heartland’s successful ICCC-12 event in Washington, D.C., Trump’s sweeping executive order on Climate Policy, sorely needed, was greeted with much acclamation and applause.   

  • Orders the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review and repeal, or revise, the Clean Power Plan is the backbone of President Barack Obama’s climate agenda, requiring states to transform their electricity mix away from conventional fuels toward renewables.
  • Eliminates the use of the “social cost of carbon.” This figure, called the “social cost of carbon,” is a dollar amount that federal agencies apply to different regulations to calculate the “climate benefit” of abated co2 emissions. In 2015, the social cost of carbon was said to be $36 per ton.
  • Rescinds moratorium on new coal leases and methane emissions from oil and gas operations on federal lands. Under Obama, the Department of Interior would not issue new coal mining leases on federal lands until the agency conducted a more comprehensive environmental review that included the estimated effects the lease would have on global warming.
  • Repeals guidance on agencies taking global warming into account when conducting National Environmental Policy Act reviews.  The National Environmental Policy Act requires federal agencies to conduct comprehensive environmental assessments for a wide range of projects, including permitting of infrastructure.

Live stream archives:  All sessions and speakers at ICCC-12 can be viewed here at Heartland’s Live Stream Archives.

Future articles by Nancy Thorner dealing with Heartland’s ICCC-12 will cover Fossil Fuels and Human Prosperity, Fossil Fuels and World Peace, Climate Politics and Policy, and Sustainability.


Thursday, September 08, 2016

Thursday, May 12, 2016

Screen Shot 2016-05-12 at 9.02.14 AM
Left to right:  Tim Hart; Joe Bast, president of Heartland; Bill Kehr

By Nancy Thorner – 

The Michael Parry Mazur Memorial Library at the Heartland Institute’s new facility in Arlington Heights celebrated its grand opening on Wednesday, May 4, 2016. A wine and cheese reception and library tours were offered before the main program began and continued after the formal program ended.

Screen Shot 2016-05-12 at 9.00.57 AM
Jim Johnson, trustee at The Heartland Institute, browsing through the stacks

About the Michael Parry Mazur Library
The Michael Parry Mazur Memorial Library, referred to as “The Library of Liberty,” holds nearly 10,000 books on education, environment, healthcare, and other topics. This collection will be of special interest to students and scholars studying economics, public policy, and political science, elected officials and members of their staffs, and concerned citizens. Eight colleges are located within a 20-minute drive of the Heartland Institute, and 20 more are within an hour’s drive. The library contains some out-of-print books and journals unlikely to be found in public or university libraries. Featured authors include William F. Buckley, Whittaker Chambers, Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, and Richard Weaver. A wish list includes the complete works of Hayek, James Buchanan, and George Orwell.
Welcoming words from Jim Lakely, director of communications, pointed out the nature of the The Heartland Institute as a national nonprofit public policy research organization, tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Founded in Chicago in 1984, The Heartland Institute is devoted to discovering, developing, and promoting free-market solutions to social and economic problems. According to Lakely, everyone at Heartland had a hand in getting the library ready to operate as a functioning one.
Heartland President Joe Bast: Why Build a Library Devoted to Liberty?
It was fitting that Joe Bast, president and co-author of 12 books, spoke on this topic. 7,000 of the nearly 10,000 books in Heartland’s Michael Parry Mazur Library were owned by Joe Bast before he donated them. As a student in the 1970s and ‘80s, Joe said he would go without eating so he could buy bargain books in a used book store. With such affection and desire for books – for the truth of them – Joe never thought he would give his books away … until he did.
Mr. Bast assured attendees that when books are donated to The Heartland Institute they will be put on shelves so people have the use of them and they will not disappear. It is true that the Internet can be searched for information, but on-line information can be deleted and altered to serve a purpose other than the truth. Also, there is so much information on-line that it is difficult to locate the good stuff, in contrast to a library where the complete works of an author can be immediately viewed. Printed books, unlike an online entry, cannot be edited, and a library becomes a physical place where people can come together without fear. Mr. Bast said he hopes to see a steady stream of people in and out of the building to review the books on site, and take them home when the library is ready for lending sometime in the near future. So let your friends know about it.
Presentations at the Grand Opening
Hon. Thomas Hayes, conservative mayor of Arlington Heights – who participated in the ribbon-cutting ceremony at Heartland’s Arlington Heights headquarters in August – was on hand to dedicate the library. He had kind word to say about The Heartland Institute, noting that Arlington Heights had many attractions, but it didn’t have a think tank within its borders until last year. Hayes went on to say that the concepts of liberty and freedom, which convey Heartland’s values, are very important to area residents. Lastly, Mayor Hayes thanked Heartland for its invitation, and wished The Heartland Institute many years of success.


Screen Shot 2016-05-12 at 9.05.25 AM  Screen Shot 2016-05-12 at 9.05.38 AM

Arlington Heights Mayor Thomas Hayes; Dr. John Mazur, after whose brother, Michael Parry Mazur, the new library is named

Dr. John Mazur was on hand to talk about his family and the donation that put the name of his brother on the library. The youngest of four boys, Dr. Mazur brought smiles to the audience by noting he is a bee keeper with “800,000 residents in his back yard.”

Dr. Mazur described his brother Michael as a talented libertarian economist. Very bright and academically minded – having even studied Arabic which, was almost unheard of decades ago – Michael Parry Mazur graduated from Northwestern University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he earned a Ph.D. in economics. He was a staff economist at the Office of Management and Budget in Washington, D.C., serving under presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan.

Michael Parry Mazur passed away in 1987 from cancer at age 39. Before his death, Dr. Mazur said, his brother confessed that the sadist part of his life was not getting cancer, but failing to win his group in the Boston Marathon. Michael had run it several times, and was considered a shoo-in to win, but was unable to compete when he was struck with cancer.

Joseph Davis, an ardent reader and a professional librarian, helped prepare Heartland’s Michael Parry Mazur Library over the last two months. Davis stressed how old books can be just as important today as when they were published. Davis compared books to individuals, much like private actors competing in the free market. Accordingly, reading a book is like having a talk with the author. Books that span the ages produce good citizens, so that free men and women do not perish from the earth.

Diane Carol Bast, executive editor and finance manager at Heartland, is the wife of Joe Bast and was instrumental in organizing the library. She recounted how she never helped Joe collect and organize his library at home because that was his space. So it was ironic she had such a hand in building this one – including an online database from which you can browse every book in the library. There are 16 categories organized by topic, including a Socialism and Soviet Studies section. It is not organized the way a public library is, but is laid out more like a research library. For instance, you’ll see Milton Friedman’s works in the economics section, but also separately in the education section.

The library is open from 9 a.m. to  5 p.m. Monday through Friday, but it would be best to call ahead before arriving to make an appointment (312-377-4000). As noted above, the library does not yet lend books, but there is a wealth of material to explore and no admission fee. Further amenities include available study space, free wi-fi, and access to copiers and printers.

If you have books on economics, politics, public policy, philosophy, and other intellectual pursuits (including biographies of significant public figures), you can donate those books to the Michael Parry Mazur Library – even if you have notes written in the margins and sections highlighted or underlined. Duplicates of books already on the shelves are also accepted.

Click on the link below to see video of the Grand Opening presentations, announcing the creation of the largest collection of books about free markets and liberty in the Midwest. 

Upcoming events at Heartland

Upcoming events at The Heartland Institute include three free movie nights with screenings of the recent Atlas Shrugged movies – parts one, two, and three. In 1957, Ayn Rand introduced the world to a new kind of hero, molded from the best within man, a hero who exemplified the joy of individual achievement. With passion and conviction, Atlas Shrugged speaks to the hero in all of us.

Join Heartland and fellow lovers of liberty for this special series of Heartland Movie Nights, in which each part of the trilogy will be shown on three Wednesdays in a row. 

May 18, 2016 Heartland Movie Night: Atlas Shrugged Part 1

May 25, 2016 Heartland Movie Night: Atlas Shrugged Part 2

June 1, 2016 Heartland Movie Night: Atlas Shrugged Part 3

Doors to Heartland’s Andrew Breitbart Freedom Center open at 5:30 p.m. and the film rolls at 6, followed by a group discussion at the end. To register for this free event, click here:

Tuesday, October 13, 2015

Heartland's 31st Benefit Dinner

Left to right:  Joe Morris, Donald J. Devine, and Jameson Campaigne


By Nancy Thorner – 

The Heartland Institute, CEO, Joe Bast, celebrated its 31st anniversary with a reception and dinner at The Cotillion in Palatine, Illinois, on Thursday, October 8, 2015.  Since 1984 Heartland has devoted itself to supporting individual freedom by discovering, developing, and promoting free-market solutions to social and economic problems.

The theme of this year’s celebratory event was “The Heartland versus The Ruling Class”, borrowed from the title of a recent book by the event’s keynote speaker, Angelo CodevillaThe Ruling Class: How They Corrupted America and What We Can Do About It .  Angelo Codevilla is a former staff member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, professor emeritus of international relations at Boston University, and the author of fifteen fine books on politics, arms control, and intelligence.

In his book, Codevilla accordingly identifies the people and organizations at the heart of the attack on American freedom:

“The Ruling Class is a bipartisan group of political elites educated at universities known for their left-wing biases, convinced of the soundness of their opinions even when they know little or nothing of substance, whose success largely depends on access to politicians or being part of a vast government bureaucracy.”

Codevilla’s words certainly ring true as the 2016 election cycle unfolds. Many voters are fed up with a ruling class that is not listening to them and is further demeaning their intelligence by imposing upon them unacceptable, unsolicited opinions and rulings.  According to a new CBS News poll of October 10, 2015, Trump and Dr. Carson, having criticized the political establishment, are still dominating the Republican presidential race.

Heartland's Benefit - Charlie Kirk Heartland's Benefit - Angelo Codevilla

Charlie Kirk                                                    Angelo Codevilla

Charlie Kirk, of Turning Point USA, introduces Angelo Codevilla

It was appropriate that Dr. Codevilla was introduced by Charlie Kirk, as both are of the same persuasion in  their assessments of how the ruling class is negatively impacting society. Charlie Kirk is the Founder and Executive Director of Turning Point USA, a 501(c) 3 non-profit organization birthed on June 5, 2012.  The organization’s mission is to identify, educate, train, and organize students on college campuses in all 50 states to promote the principles of fiscal responsibility, free markets, and limited government.  Still in his early 20’s, Kirk conceived of organizing a group that would train young people to be “community organizers” on the Right while still he college. Jim Lakely, Communications Director for The Heartland Institute, without hesitation when approached by Charlie Kirk several years ago, helped Kirk realize his dream. Turning Point USA now has a full time staff of 53.

Charlie Kirk spoke of the ruling class in higher education as indolent people who work on college campuses as academicians and professors.  Even though the Left has become the ruling class on college campuses, it has made a serious error.  How so?  The Left rose to power by railing against the very machine it has now become. While Liberals consider free speech paramount to intimidation, speech is not considered free unless they are the ones doing the speaking.

Angelo Codevilla recounts historical trends as harbingers of what followed 

Angelo Codevilla set the tone for his remarks by stating that “in every society there is some element that sets the tone for the rest of it.”   George Washington made an enormous contribution in what America became by embodying the precept that all men are created equal. In regards to Clinton, it wasn’t so much what he did, but that a substantial portion of the American people approved of it.  This question was then entertained by Codevilla: “Who do American men seek to imitate today when the moral compass is so far removed from what it was in the time of George Washington?”

Soon after the era of this nation’s founding, continued Codevilla, a society began to develop in which races were considered unequal. Some were deemed better than other, leading to a belief in moral inferiority.  Southerners were considered inferior human beings.  As such Codevilla equated the Civil War as a battle between racial and moral convictions, with moral convictions winning out.

The beginning of the 20th century saw a new class of society emerge who believed they were the rightful rulers. It was a time when the Chautauqua movement flourished and the ACLU came into being. Up until the time of Roosevelt, there existed a tug of war between those who favored limited government over those who wanted more government control. But it was under FDR that the ruling class assumed power, when decisions were to be made by the brightest and best government officials, not by technocrats.

As reflected by Codevilla, we no longer live in a republic where laws are made by legislators. They are instead made and enacted by unelected bureaucrats, whose judgments go unchallenged.  It is rule by decree, where the ruling class wins support by the goodies they generously dispense. It is an era where the law means what an administrator says it means. Consider the convoluted way in which Supreme Court Justice John Roberts was able to vote in favor of Obamacare by twisting the meaning of words.   It is a definition of absolute power when a ruling class can turn men into women.  When a child can declare that they are either a boy or a girl at any given time.   When fetuses out of the womb are simply fetuses to be dissected for their parts.

What can we do?  Speak the truth and argue.  It is important to know the subject so a convincing argument can be make. Recently Senator Ted Cruz did so when he confronted the Sierra Club president over global warming.  Some hope remains for this nation in facing the political aspect of the current era, as on both the  Right and the Left a massive objection has developed against the existing ruling class. Regarding the social aspect, Dr. Codevilla has noticed how the quality of freshman college students has declined over the years.  Here the bullet must be bitten. But of utmost important is the need to reduce the size and scope of government.  This will be up to us!

Dr. Donald J. Devine presented Heartland Liberty Prize by Campaigne and Morris

A highlight of Heartland 31st Anniversary Benefit Dinner was the presentation of this year’s Heartland Liberty Prize to Dr. Donald J. Devine by Jameson Campaigne, founder and president of Green Hill Publishers and Jameson Books, and Joe Morris, President, Lincoln Legal Foundation.  The award recognizes outstanding contributions to the defense of liberty.  Dr. Devine is a political scientist, author, and former Reagan official.  “The Washington Post” labeled Donald Devine as Ronald Reagan’s “terrible swift sword of the civil service” when he served as Director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management during Reagan’s first term, “The New York Times” called him “the Grinch,” and the ‘Federal Times” titled Divine the “Rasputin of the reduction in force” – all because he helped cut 100,000 bureaucratic jobs and save over $6 billion reducing generous benefits.  Devine’s most recent book, America’s Way Back, all about reclaiming Freedom, Tradition, and Constitution, was available for purchase and autographing.

Dr. Devine emphasized how the size and scope of government can be cut if there is a determination and will to do so.  While a cut is seldom proposed by an administrator, this is what must be done!  As Devine remarked, “This nation won’t be saved by having the Republican Party in charge of government, but only by the involvement of ‘We the People.”‘

Fascinating was a discussion by Devine about economic depressions in America’s history.  Most people are aware of the “Great Depression of 1929” and of the current one, but there was also another depression, the depression of 1987.  This depression occurred during the Reagan administration.  What did President Reagan do about the depression?  Instead of throwing money at the severe economic downturn as a way to artificially prop up the economy, and likewise increasing regulations, Reagan did nothing. It worked, ushering in five years of prosperity.

The final cabinet meeting Dr. Devine attended in the Regan administration was described in this way: Said Ronald Reagan:  “No country has gone this far down the road away from freedom and has been able to come back, but this is my challenge to you.”

Heartland's Benefit - Tom Morrison  Heartland Benefit - Joe Bast in hard hat

Welcome by Rep.Tom Morrison of IL 24th District

The Honorable State Representative, Tom Morrison, served as master of ceremonies for the evening, as one of The Heartland Institute’s strongest allies in the Illinois state legislature since elected in 2011. Morrison represents Palatine and neighboring communities. With its move from Chicago to Arlington Heights, Heartland  is now in Morrison’s 24th Representative District.

Morrison intoned these famous words of Ronald Reagan, in extolling about the kind of world we want to leave to our children.

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

Morrison cautioned how Republicans must do better at communicating their message of freedom to the other side, lest the other side wins by default.

Opening Remarks by CEO Joseph Bast covered Heartland’s accomplishments over past year

Opening remarks were presented by Heartland’s president and CEO, Joseph Bast, during which he spoke of the the many accomplishments of The Heartland Institute during the past year.  Foremost was the amazing renovations that were accomplished from top to bottom to its new home at 3939 North Wilke Road in Arlington Heights, IL.  The renovations took ten months to complete, which created a challenge, given the lease at Heartland’s former Chicago headquarter had run out two months before the new headquarters could be occupied by Heartland staff.  White helmets were part of each table’s centerpiece, as a symbol of how Heartland’s new Arlington Heights headquarters was transformed into the amazing headquarters and workplace it is today. Joseph Bast, in a show of relief and pride over the completed renovations, wore a white helmet during a portion of his remarks.

Among other accomplishments cited by Bast were:

  • “The Neglected Sun”, a German publication, will soon be republished with free copies sent to 5000 individuals.
  • Heartland recently created and launched this new website,, a Heartland Institute project devoted to creating accurate profiles of prominent individuals and organizations on the political Left with a special focus on groups in the global warming (a.k.a “climate change”) debate.
  • New also at Heartland is PolicyBot, a search engine and database containing more than 32,000 reports, news articles, and commentaries from some 300 think tanks and advocacy groups, including those of The Heartland Institute. Publications can be searched by keyword, author, publisher, and date of publication, making it an ideal resource for researchers and legislative staffers.

Looking ahead in facing the future

The Heartland Institute will continue in its mission to fight to preserve liberty and to advance free markets.  Such is essential if a nation founded on the principle of individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is to remain a sovereign and free nation, able to prosper and to flourish.  Unfortunately this nation no longer ranks among the top ten freest nations in the world. We’ve fallen to 12th place.

The history of humanity reveals individual liberty has always been the exception while slavery and tyranny were the rule. May this nation not succumb to what Thomas Jefferson wrote as the natural progress of things. . . “for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.”

Photos by Nancy Thorner 

Friday, August 22, 2014


Screen Shot 2014-07-18 at 10.36.03 AM
Heartland Institute CEO Joe Bast awards Dr. Arthur Robinson with “Voice of Reason” award

By Nancy Thorner – 

Ongoing today in this nation is a full court press to convince the public that everybody knows that a catastrophic global warming looms over us, that human beings are the cause of it, and that the only solution is to turn more money and power over to the government to stop us from our dangerous ways of living. 

The earth can be either warm or cool and has done both at one time or another for thousands of years, even before there were SUVs. Had there never been any global warming in the past, enjoying a visit to Yosemite Valley today would be impossible as it was once buried under thousands of feet of ice.

Forty-five years ago in the 1970’s, the environmental hysteria was all about the dangers of a new ice age. This hysteria was spread by many of the same individuals who are promoting today’s hysteria about global warming. 

Today the far the political left’s favorite argument is that there is no argument, that science is settled, despite the cooling trend in the 70’s and now the absence of any warming for 17 years and 10 months. 

Radical environmentalist Al Gore believes that disasters around the world can only be avoided by imposing a new form of authoritarian government.  Democracy is dismissed as a model that can sustain the world.  How then do climate alarmists like Al Gore explain the following discrepancy? Progress on the environmental front has been steady over the last half century without the transformative agenda now being proposed and enacted by President Obama to save the planet.

To President Obama climate change policies represent an important plank of his political agenda, one that Obama wants noted as an important presidential legacy achievement. Obama unequivocally accepts the claims made by climate change alarmists that are set forth by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He is not at all hesitant to bash what he calls “climate deniers” and their obstruction by daring to debate science behind man-made global warming.  So it was on Friday, May 9, in a speech at a California Wal-Mart that Obama once again proclaimed “climate change as a fact” and that climate change skeptics are wasting everybody’s time on a settled debate.

In the mindset of President Obama, storms, floods and droughts have been made more severe by rising global temperatures.  This despite a report by IPCC that shows there “is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century” and current data shows “no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century. … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.”

In keeping with the “science is settled” argument falsely being conveyed to gullible Americans by Al Gore, the Obama administration, other radical environmentalists, and the mainstream media, it was gratifying and most appropriate that nine individuals (with a surprise tenth award), were selected prior to Heartland’s recent 9th International Conference on Climate Change through a request process solicited by The Heartland Institute for ideas and nominations of individuals world-wide who were willing to speak out against global warming alarmism. Without shame, The Heartland Institute considers it a badge of honor to have been called by The Economist in a May 26, 2011 article “the world’s most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made climate change.” 

Heartland’s ten award recipients, all global warming skeptics accorded by President Obama as climate deniers, are but representative of countless of scientists who are routinely shunned by politically correct universities and scientific societies by simply speaking truth to power. Climate skeptics or deniers often take great risks regarding their personal safety and their professional careers, which have cost them the promotions and rewards they might have otherwise received from their peers. Government money falls on those who seek grants to study global warming and then produce solutions for it.  That money is not likely to fall on skeptic in the scientific community who refuse to join the global warming stamped. 

The awards delivered at Heartland’s conference were sponsored by eight organizations. Their purpose was to give long-overdue recognition and encouragement to the recipients, increase public awareness of the global warming realism movement, and send a signal to the academy and other elite institutions saying if they won’t recognize our heroes, The Heartland Institute will.  All of the ICCC9 videos can be viewed at this site.  

Following are the ten award winners — global warming heroes — individuals you should know about who are deserving of your praise and congratulations for their willingness to speak out about global warming alarmism:

  • “Speaks Truth to Power Award” to Dr. Patrick Moore, an internationally renowned ecologist and environmentalist who began his career as an activist/leader in the Greenpeace movement.
  • “Frederick Seitz Memorial Award” to Dr. Sherwood Idso, president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, and the world’s leading authority on the effects of carbon dioxide on plants.
  • “Lifetime Achievement in Climate Science Award” to Dr. S. Fred Singer who was among the first and is still the most prominent scientist in the world speaking out against global warming alarmism.  In the August 2007 issue of Imprimis (a publication of Hillsdale College), Dr. Singer wrote this excellent article:  “Global Warming:  Man-Made or Natural?”
  • “Outstanding Spokesperson on Faith, Science, and Stewardship Award” to Dr. E. Cavin Beisner a theologian, historian and national spokesman for The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation and author or co-author of several major papers and articles on global warming produced by the Cornwall Alliance.
  • “Outstanding Evangelical Climate Scientist Award” to Dr. Roy W. Spencer, a former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites.  Dr. Spencer has made no secret of his evangelical faith.
  • “Excellence in Climate Science Communication Award” to Tom Harris, the founder and executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition, a non-partisan group of independent scientists, economists, and energy and policy experts who are working to promote better understanding of climate science and policy worldwide.
  • “Courage in Defense of Science Award” to Dr. Willie Soon, who as an astrophysicist and a geoscientist he is a leading authority on the relationship between solar phenomena and global climate.  His discoveries challenge computer modelers and advocates who consistently underestimate solar influences on cloud formation, ocean currents, and wind that cause climate change.
  • “Climate Science Whistleblower Award” to Dr. Alan  Carlin, now retired, who was a career environmental economist at EPA when the Competitive Enterprise Institute broke the story of his negative report on the agency’s proposal to regulate greenhouse gases in June, 2009.  Dr. Carlin’s supervisor had ordered him to keep quiet about the report and to stop working on global warming issues. 
  • Surprise Heartland Award: “Dauntless Purveyor of Climate Truth Award” to Viscount Monckton of Brenchley   (Lord Christopher Monckton) who has for years been crisscrossing the globe sharing the inconvenient truths about global warming.  Known as the high priest of climate skepticism, Lord Monckton advised Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.  Monckton has attended United Nations conferences since the Rio Conference in 1991, during which time steps have been taken to create what is in effect a world government.  He urged conference attendees to write their congressmen and senators, telling them to press for the inclusion of an escape clause in the Treaty of Paris that will permit any State to resign from its obligations by giving a few months’ notice.  In that way, as the world continues to fail to warm anything like as fast as predicted, nations can break free from the regime of terror by stealth that has been furtively planned.   
  • “Voice of Reason Award” to Dr. Arthur Robinson,  a distinguished chemist, co-founder of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, and editor of the newsletter “Access to Energy.”

It is worth noting that Dr. Art Robinson, as the internationally respected scientist that he is, is running in Oregon Congressional District 4 against Democrat Peter DeFazio, who cast one of the four deciding votes for Obamacare after telling Oregonians he would vote against it.  This is Art Robinson’s third attempt to defeat Democrat Peter DeFazio, the first attempt being in 2010. Robinson wants to restore sorely needed common sense in Washington, D.C.   He is not afraid to speak up publicly on behalf of sound science and common sense.  May he encourage others to follow the same course of action in the political arena.

Robinson’s book, Common Sense in 2012, although published and distributed in 2012, is just as relevant to the problems this nation is facing today as it was two years ago. 

This is your chance to get behind candidate Art Robinson, Ph.D., one of the ten distinguished award winners at Heartland’s Ninth International Conference on Climate Change. Send an outstanding scientist to Congress in November. His “Voice of Reason Award” should serve him well in his role as a U.S. Congressman on the Chamber floor.  

More on Heartland’s 9th International Conference on Global Warming:

Article 1:    

Article 2:



L to R: Ted Dabrowski, State Rep. Tom Morrison, Joe Bast

By Nancy Thorner – 

Last week was National School Choice Week. Negative vibes and views about school choice whether achieved through vouchers, charter schools, Educational Savings Accounts, or by other means are quite common. Three years ago a study by Greg Forster, PhD used available empirical studies to show that vouchers improve outcomes for both participants and public schools in A Win-Win Solution: The Empirical Evidence on School Choice.

It’s easy to understand how participants would benefit by giving them more options, but schools likewise benefit. Vouchers introduce healthy incentives for public schools to improve. Forster’s 2011 report indicates how 11 out of the 12 gold-standard studies on school choice found that choice improves student outcomes; the other study found neither a negative nor positive impact (Friedman Foundation for Educational Excellence, April 2013).

Chicago’s celebration of School Choice Week was commemorated at a joint venture held by The Heartland Institute and the Illinois Policy Institute at an evening event on Thursday, January 30, at the headquarters of The Heartland Institute, One South Wacker Drive #2740. Joe Bast is President and CEO of The Heartland Institute.  John Tillman heads the Illinois Policy Institute as its CEO.  Moderator was Bruno Behrend, Senior fellow for education policy, The Heartland Institute.  Members of the panel were Joseph Bast, Heartland’s president; Tom Morrison, Illinois State Representative (R-54); and Ted Dabrowski, Vice President of Policy, Illinois Policy Institute.  All have expertise in education policy.

The discussion centered on how to improve our schools and give children a chance at a better future.  There was ample time provided for attendees to direct questions to the three panelists.  Free school choice educational materials was on hand to help spread the reform message, as was the book “What American Can Learn from School Choice in Other Countries,” which presents a wealth of information and insights into how parents in many other countries have more freedom of choice in education than Americans do and without the financial penalty.

In his opening statement moderator Burno Behrend spoke of the need to transform instead of reform, questioning why school districts and administrators even have to exist.  The panelists were given a series of questions by Behrend for general response. At other times a specific question was directed to only one of the panelists for his consideration.

The following article is worthy of consideration prior to the responses of the three panelists when quizzed by Burno Behrend about the use of technology to advance education.

Frederick Hess and Bror Saxberg in their joint article published in the SPRING 2014/ VOL. 14. NO 2 of Education Next, “Schooling Rebooted: Turning educators into learning engineers”, advances the understanding of technology as a tool rather than some kind of secret sauce. . . The most important thing is the vision of what you’re going to do.  Once you’ve got vision, there are various kinds of support that are needed in terms of curriculum and infrastructure.  Trying to backfill technology into existing systems can be difficult. 

All three panelists spoke favorably about the use of technology in education.  Ted Dabrowski is convinced that technology will break down the status quo in education, allowing for more innovation.  Tom Morrison spoke of the use of tablets enabling students to work at their own pace with a teacher available to check that students are doing their assignment, while Joe Bast believes that a technology revolution is already taking place outside of the school in virtual learning.

Selected statements made by Ted Dabrowski, Tom Morrison, and Joe Bast on a variety of subjects:

Ted Dabrowski –

  • Children who are forced to remain in failing schools must be turned into heroes and not the victims they are perceived to be by those resisting vouchers or school choice.
  • Four of 100 kids in Illinois’ worst schools won’t be college ready, meaning 96% aren’t going to make it.
  • Make the case for vouchers by 1) doing a better job of promoting the money case, 2) having an action plan when the anti-choice side fights back with massive amounts of money, and 3) thinking more of being in a constant campaign mode as is the practice of unions.
  • The pro school choice side is lousy at building coalitions.  We miss opportunities by not partnering with parents who have children in the worst schools or who do want a choice.  There are those even in suburban schools who would prefer to send their children to a private school. [Moderator Behrend raised the issue of how to overcome the stigma of poor kids attending mostly white suburban schools.]

State Rep. Tom Morrison (R-Arlington Heights) –

  • Taxpayers are no longer willing to keep paying higher tax rates even if guaranteed a better educational outcome, in a realization that throwing more money at education is not the answer.
  • The term “voucher” has gotten to be a bad word and doesn’t sell well with so-called soccer moms.  Might be better to call them “opportunity scholarships” instead, where the money follows the child.
  • In crafting a bill for Educational Savings Accounts, a family would receive the money and could choose how to spend it. Shopping around is possible as there is no need to spend the money all at one place. Any bill would need to stipulate non-means testing and a further requirement for qualification at 1-1/2 times the poverty level. Without these factors the legislation would be difficult to sell to legislators.
  • Raised the question of whether it’s fair to force kids in Chicago to attend faulty schools?

Joe Bast –

  • People in the front lines are the last ones to realize how much progress has taken place in school choice:  1.6 million children are attending charter schools. 250,000 are attending private school through vouchers.
  • The other side has lots of money.  We are outspent 100 to 1.  We must win the political argument and the rest will fall into place.
  • In answer to Ted Dabrowski who suggested that every child might be given the opportunity of school choice, Bast cited the lack of money and of political support for Ted’s universal proposal.
  • Teacher burn out does happen.  Burned out teachers who remain in the teaching profession, lured to stay by generous pension, do just as well in their teaching as do younger and more enthusiastic teachers. How so?  The really talented teacher leave the teaching profession to work in other fields, leaving in its wake the burned out teachers.
  • Believes the next governor will sign on to vouchers or choice legislation.  Illinois is way out of line with other states.

Question and Answer Highlights –

  • Jeff Berkowitz of Chicago Now spoke about the importance of keeping the message simple.  As related by Berkowitz, there are 15,000 students in the Chicago Public Schools.  Unless we get 30 senators to vote for voucher legislation it won’t happen.  At the end of the day it will be a pitchfork political battle with the fierce educational lobby.  Whether school vouchers or pension reform, it’s all about money which is the driving force.  When you can’t get the money, what do you do?  Said Berkowitz:  If the right message (public policy) is presented to get the people to move, the money will be found.  Legislators must then be convinced to vote the right way.  A better job of messaging is needed.
  • Education doesn’t appear anywhere in the Constitution because the Founders didn’t want the government to manipulate schools.
  • Common Core with its standards for each grade level might sound good to many.  This presents the opportunity to show how ineffective Common Core actually is with government centralization. Common Core was referred to as “Obamacore.”
  • Schools are to serve the children; children are their customers.
  • The best schools in Chicago are charter schools.  Even when located in areas with the same demographics, children fare better than in a traditional school setting.
  • There is 60% support for school vouchers.  The pubic gets it. It’s all about politics!
  • All total there are 6.3 million individuals in public school education.  Half of the system (3.2 million) is made up of pricy and often unnecessary administrators.

Moderator Behrend’s closing thoughts:

The envelope must be pushed. Common Core was depicted as the “last gasp of centralized, top-down education.”  And why doesn’t centralization work?  Because one size fits all just doesn’t work.

Two dates to consider saving:

1.  Tuesday, February 11 – Tevi Troy will present a lecture on his book, What Jefferson Read, Ike Watched, and Obama Tweeted:  200 Years of Popular Culture in the White House.  To register call 312/377-4000 or visit

2.  Friday, September 12 – Michelle Malkin has been engaged to be the Keynote Speaker at The Heartland Institute’s 30th Anniversary Benefit Dinner. Visit: benefit. or contact Gwendalyn Carver at or call 312/377-4000.

Monday, February 03, 2014 at 09:30 AM | Permalink



Pin It!



By Nancy Thorner –

Being intrigued and interested in the announced topic, Why do we have such a big immigration mess?, I immediately registered to attend Heartland’s speaker series featuring Henryk A. Kowalczyk in a talk about immigration on Wednesday, October 2nd.

Henryk Kowalczyk first spoke at Heartland’s anniversary benefit dinner in 2008, at which time guests participated in a heated debate about immigration.  A vote was taken and was split almost evenly between supporters and opponents of illegal immigrants and immigration.  Now five years later, the issue is still front and center.  About Mr. Kowalczyk, he was born in Poland but now lives in Chicago as a naturalized citizen.

Introduced by Joe Bast, president of the Heartland Institute, Mr. Kowalczyk explained how as an engineer and a business man he looked for solutions to problems, but to do so it was essential to understand the problem first.

Within minutes into Kowalczyk’s talk, I could perceive that his views were not of my own nor of my liking, which was likewise the tenor of a few of the comments made by others at the conclusion of the event. At first I thought Mr. Kwwalczyk was approaching the issue of immigration as a Libertarian, but I quickly dismissed this viewpoint. Libertarians argue from the first principle of Human Rights, believe they are Inherent regardless of what country someone lives in. Therefore, to a libertarian, the right to emigrate or immigrate is a basic human right. Henryk definitely did not embrace this concept. He believes we should put a price tag on immigrating to the U.S., which is really a conservative position even if he favors more people entering the country.  Might this make Mr. Kowalczyk a pro-immigration conservative?  Read on to decide for yourself.

Freedom of speech is so important to uphold.  Kudos to The Heartland Institute, as a leading free market think tank, for inviting Kowalczyk to speak, knowing that his remarks would be scrutinized and questioned!  Mr. Kowalczyk was warned beforehand of the reception he would most likely receive in front of Heartland members and friend, but this didn’t deter him from accepting Heartland’s invitation.

According to Henryk Kowalczyk our thinking about immigration is based upon and tainted by 1) xenophobia, 2) on having Socialistic tendencies, and 3) on the failure to practice deliberation democracy.

Capitalism, as defined by Kowalczyk, was where everyone had the same freedom to pursue their particular interest, while with Socialism there was a need for a society to collectively work to come up with better ideas for the good of a society.

What I found most disturbing and so out-of-step with my own thinking was when Kowalczyk’s described those of us who weren’t in support of open immigration as having tendencies that were akin to socialism.  Kowalczyk reminded all that the democratic process had at time backfired, as many Americans continue to hold on to the belief that democracy mandates that all men should have an equal vote in deciding important issues

What followed was a discussion by Kowalczyk of mistakes made a hundred years ago in the treatment of new arrivals.  Never corrected, they now weigh heavily on today’s immigration problems.

Before 1924 new arrivals were mostly unfettered Europeans, only white, in search of new opportunities and freedom of  movement in looking for jobs.  The scouts came first, bringing their families over later.  Many of the new immigrants settled west of the Mississippi where limited friction did develop between the new arrivals and those who had already undergone urbanization.

The 1850’s saw the rise of anti-Irish sentiment.   Anti-German sentiment followed. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was aimed at controlling the influx of Chinese immigrants who had arrived to work on railroads.

The arrival of the 20th century brought with it a large influx of individuals with pronounced cultural differences.  With this trend followed a dramatic change in the nature of society.  An intense dislike for each new ethnic group setting foot in America became common place.  Especially evident was the rise of anti-Semitism which developed side-by-side with the widely held belief of eugenics, which deduced that Jews were inferior and had a negative effect on society.  It made no difference that Jewish enrollment in colleges in the East totaled 20 percent of all new admissions.  With the rise Hitler and the use of eugenics by his administration to create a superior race of people, the movement lost all of its steam in the U.S. and was quickly abandoned by the elites.

Critical in creating the immigration mess of today, according to Henryk Kowalczyk, was the Gentleman’s Agreement of 1907, and the formation in the same year of the Dillingham Commission (1907-1911) in response to the growing political concerns about immigration in the U.S.

The Dillingham Commission decided that immigration from southern and eastern Europe posed a serious threat to American society. This determination prompted The Emergency Quota Act of 1921 which instead favored immigration from northern and western Europe.  Eight years later, in 1929, the National Origins Act set the annual immigration ceiling annually at 150,000 which allocated northern and western Europeans 85% of all the places.  Asian immigration were barred altogether.

How the mindset of the American people and the actions of politicians were influenced by xenophobia, Socialism, and deliberation during the first decades of the 20th century in regard to immigration policy, Mr. Kowalczvk tied all together in the following ways.  Concerning xenophobia, The laws enacted, as described in the two previous paragraphs, set forth immigration quotas and further classified people from one area more desirable to fill the existing quotas slots than from others areas of the world.

Regarding Socialism, pointed out by Kowalczyk was that this ideology had achieved recognition while gaining a foothold in this nation during the first decade of so the 20th century, bringing with it the idea that the U.S. was superior to other countries.  Accordingly, this nation had the right to decide those who could enter the country.  An example given of socialistic behavior at the time was alcohol prohibition from 1920-1933 under the guise that a central government by its actions could shape society.

As far as the inability of the American people to practice deliberate democracyKowalczyk asked what the consequences were of limiting new arrivals in relation to the Law of 1924 (The Johnson-Reed Act)?

They were enumerated as such:

  • With the limiting of new arrivals, some believed this was a factor in the Great Depression,
  • It was the first time politicians had added a price tag to be in the U.S.
  • An environment was created for the black market.
  • The negative aspects didn’t show up immediately because of WW II and the prosperity it generated.

Going forward in years to 1952, although the immigration part remained essentially the same with the upholding of the national origins quota system, the Naturalization Act of 1952 removed the stigma against Asians from being able to become naturalized American citizens.  Also introduced was a system of preferences based on skill and family reunification,  Vetoed by the Truman White House, Congress overrode the veto.

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, was signed by President Lyndon Johnson.  This act opened up chain-family-sponsored immigration.  It also leveled the immigration playing field by giving a nearly equal shot to newcomers from every corner of the world.  By so doing it also changed the face of America with immigration now being viewed as a gift that wealthy nations of the world should offer to the very poor.  No longer was immigration seen as part of our economy.

The Immigration Act of 1990 went even further and signaled a return to the pre-1920’s open-door immigration policy.  It likewise created the lottery program which Kowalczyk considers the greatest and most stupid blunder ever made in dealing with the immigration mess by establishing a whole new class of immigrants known as “diversity immigrants.”

The 2006 Kennedy-McCain Comprehensive immigration Reform Act of 2006 went no where.

Jumping ahead to 2012, the so-called partisan Gang-of-Eight Senate bill is presently stalled and under fire over the issue of whether the border should be secured first before amnesty is granted with only the promise of border security.  In Kowalczyk’s estimation, the 2012 Senate proposal is based on upside down logic because it fails to meet our nation’s economic needs by bringing in as many foreign workers needed.

Regarding President Obama’s DREAM Act Executive Order, Kowalczyk was in favor of it because it offered much needed development relief and education opportunities to alien minorities.  According to Kowalczyk, some human treatment was finally being offered young people.  Any opposition to what the Dream Act granted exhibited proof of the continued  presence of xenophobia in this nation.

Reasons given by Mr. Kowalczyk as to why this nation should and can absorb more immigrants:

  • Foreign born, including both illegal and legal, make up only 13% of this nation’s total population.  The doubling of the percentage in the last 30 years has given rise to anti-immigrant sentiment.
  • In Canada the number of foreign born is 20%.  Canada has a higher GPD than does the U.S.   Kowalczyk attributes this to Canada’s higher immigrant population and thus concludes that this nation would benefit by having a larger percentage of immigrants.
  • Out of a population of 350 million in the U.S., illegal immigrants at 11 million account for only 3.49% of the population. Kowalczyk believes that this percentage wouldn’t go any higher even if we allowed more illegal immigrants to enter the U.S., as this is all our U.S. labor market is in need of.

Like it or not, Mr. Kowalczyk believes that we must acknowledge that more immigrants are needed. For those critics who say that illegals are taking jobs away from the American people this is not true, as many of this nation’s jobs have moved either overseas and to other countries.

For those critics who say that big business benefits mostly from illegal immigrant workers, this is not true.  With more people working for a living more wealth is created.

Critics are also incorrect when they say that the source of all our nation’s problems is allowing illegal to work in this country.  Regarding high skilled labor, Kowalczyk does admit that engineers brought over from other countries do work for less, but it is the fault or our nation’s colleges in failing to produce engineers and scientists in sufficient number to fill our nation’s requirements.

As far as the current immigration impasse, Mr.Kowalczyk relates it to the fact that 55% of the American people want fewer immigrants than we now have.  Most legislators do objectively realize that this nation needs more immigrants, but they haven’t the guts to confront their voters and tell them they are wrong.

As far as not enforcing our laws?  The law is meant to protect particular interests.  It is not to be decided in accordance to moral values.  A moral dilemma facing law enforcers and enforcement has become the criminalization of illegal immigrants.

By using government to restrict the flow of illegal immigrants, Kowalczyk warns that Socialist behavior is being employed which didn’t work anywhere else before in the world, and it won’t work here and now.

My comment expressed openly at the Heartland event at the completion of Henryk Kowalczyk’s talk:  I don’t believe anything you said!  I then went on to tell Mr. Kowalczyk why.

It was only when leaving early to catch a train back home, that Kowalczyk showed a slide he had omitted during his talk because of time restrictions that offered some thoughts I could agree with — if the border were first closed — although I’m still in disagreement with Kowalczyk’s open border concept and that we need more immigrants for the sake of our economy.  Furthermore, why is treating illegal immigrants as a social issue dead wrong?

Mr. Kowalczyk’s proposal of several years in the making is defined under his The Freedom of Migration ActAlthough Kowalczyk admits that his concept is far away from what most Americans think about immigration and that he could be completely wrong, he further states, if most Americans were right we would not have an immigration crisis either. 

The solution, as outlined in Henryk Kowalczyk’s The Freedom of Migration Act:
  • The only way that a foreigner could settle in the USA should be by finding employment here.
  • Private employment agencies should, for a fee, manage the recruitment of foreigners, background checking, issuing ID cards, and keeping record of their employment.
  • During the first 5 years of living in the USA, an alien worker should not be entitled to any social benefits available to citizens and permanent residents.
  • Political refugees and other individuals admitted to the U.S. for humanitarian reasons should be assisted by private charitable organizations to register as alien workers and then follow the same path as all other foreigners settling here.
  • Foreigners which are rich enough to live here without working should be allowed to do so.
  • After staying in the USA for five years, a foreign worker, his or her spouse, or minor children should be entitled to obtain a status of the permanent resident, opening the venue to the citizenship.
All of Henryk Kowalczyk’s proposals sound good and are reasonable steps to follow should amnesty be granted to 11 million aliens.  Being a bit of a skeptic, I don’t believe either party would follow through with any restrictions or requirements placed on aliens in the long run if and when amnesty is granted.  Why?  Because both sides of the aisle are wooing the Hispanic vote, seemingly indifferent to the issue of security where terrorists, along with illegal immigrants, are crossing our porous southern border.

Sunday, October 06, 2013 at 12:49 PM | Permalink

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Friday, September 27, 2013

Th-8By Nancy Thorner – 

On September 24th The Heartland Institute held its final conference call in a series of exclusive Tuesday noon (CT) calls previewing Climate Change Reconsidered II:  Physical Science. This Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) report resulted from a collaboration among three organizations — Science & Environmental Policy Project, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, and The Heartland Institute.

Presented by The Heartland Institute Tuesday, September 17th, the NIPCC report was co-authored and co-edited by Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer. The report represents the most comprehensive and up-to-date review of climate science available from scientists. Free of the bias caused by political interference, Climate Change II provides the scientific balance that is missing from alarmist reports released over the years by the United Nation’s sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate (IPCC), which is highly selective in their reviews of climate science and controversial with regard to projections on future climate change.

Although the United Nation’s report was leaked last week, its official release will happen today, Friday, September 26th. The report is sure to provoke climate policy battles as the White House parries GOP efforts to block planned carbon emissions rules on power plants and curbing other administration plans to reduce the level of atmospheric CO2.

Expect there also to be renunciations and repercussions directed against the NIPCC September 17th report, and especially The Heartland Institute, who was called by the Economist on May 26, 2012: The World’s most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made climate change.  NIPCC will be highly criticized and disputed in the weeks ahead by those who accept the IPCC United Nation’s AR5 report as settled science.  Attempts will be made to sully The Heartland Institution and its fine world-wide reputation.

In anticipation of today, the Heartland telephone conference call, with expert Dr. Robert M. Carter, did serve as a prelude to the findings promoted in the U.N. IPCC report.  Without a doubt the report will be embraced by the mainstream media beginning today and will target man as the bully by filling the atmosphere with CO2.

To set the stage for what is to come, here is what Climate Depot’s Marc Morano had to say about the new UN IPPC report:

You have to pity the UN.  The climate events of 2013 has been one of the most devastating to the UN’s political narrative on global warming.  Both poles have expanding ice, with the Antarctic breaking all time records, global temperatures have failed to rise for 15 plus years, global cooling has occurred since 2002, polar bear numbers are increasing, wildfire’s are well below normal, sea level rise is failing to accelerate, tornadoes are at record lows, hurricanes are at record low activity, Gore’s organization is flailing and losing donors amid layoffs, former climate believers like Judith Curry are growing more skeptical by the day.  I doubt many will be frightened by the UN IPCC, simply a political body masquerading as a scientific group.  The thrill is gone.

Below is a compilation of thoughts expressed by Dr. Carter during his presentation and during question and answer time. Shared is how scientists responsible for the UN IPCC and Heartland’s NIPCC reports, even when exploring the same issues, arrived at conflicting opinions.

1. The charting of temperature is relatively new with a history of only 150 years. This amounts to 5 data cycles of 30 years each. Although thermometers are good for charting short term temperature, they fail in the long term.

2. The way scientists work is by having ideas that form a hypothesis. The hypothesis of the United Nation’s-sponsored IPCC is that global warming is man-made and that CO2 is the responsible agent. Accordingly, IPCC scientists look for and examine data that supports a hypothesis that man-made global warming is happening and will result in catastrophic happenings on Mother Earth unless checked.

Science, however, does not progress by proving a set hypotheses.  Reports are fine, but they must do more than just examine facts that fit a preconceived narrative.  After all, we do live on a dynamic planet.  A “null” or alternative hypothesis was set up by NIPCC scientists for the purpose of determining whether global warming was based on natural factors (outside sources) rather than CO2 emissions.  In so doing, scientists at the NIPCC concluded that outside natural factors were responsible for any changes that might be occurring and not an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.

3.  The released draft of the United Nation’s AR5 IPCC report has toned down predictions from those reported in its 2007 AR4 report.  AR5 now concedes that in many areas the global warming fear is not quite as alarming as it was when its former report was issued in 2007.  The IPCC specifically admitted that the warming trend from 1998 – 2012 was smaller than any trend since 1951. There would seem to be lots of backtracking that must be done in light of today’s report to explain such a pronounceddifference between the 2007 and 2013 IPCC reports.

There is this one sentence, however, that the IPCC hopes the public will latch on to. The AR5 report cites a 95% probability that human activities — chiefly the burning of fossil fuels — are the main cause of warming since the 1950s, while in the 2007 report the probability of human action as the cause was assessed 5 points lower at 90%.

How could there exist a toning down of alarm over man-made global warming in the current AR5 report, when in the same report IPCC scientists have raised the certainty level of man-made global to 95%, a five percentage point increase over the probability level in the 2007 IPCC report?  The selected probability level of 95% in today’s AR5 report was not in any way based on facts. The 95% “probability” represents what IPCC scientists think will happen.  It is the opinion of IPCC scientists that there will be more storm and severe weather of all sorts in the future, so up goes the probability level. This projection of opinion could be called “hocus-pocus” science. Scientists talked their way up to 95%.  It’s not based on statistical evidence, just a certainty that temperatures will rise with no real data to back up.

4.  According to Heartland’s NIPCC report here hasn’t been a rise in the ocean temperature since 2003, which contradicts the rise in temperature called for by the IPCC hypothesis.  Noted was that only since 2003 has there been a sufficient amount of data on which to measure ocean temperature, and this data is based on only 1/3 of one climate data point of 30 years.  Data used prior to 2003 is highly suspect.

In measuring the amount of greenhouse gas in the ocean, neither in the ocean or in the atmosphere has there been an increase of temperature for the last 15 years or so.  This despite an 8% increase of CO2 in the atmosphere during the same time.

Through research an excellent review was found of a paper which notes that the heat content of the ocean has not increased since 2003.  A key point cited:

The Ocean Heat Content measurement starting 10 years ago became much more objective with automated sampling systems which furthermore systematically surveyed layers of the ocean down to 700 meters.  Prior to this point the surveying was using both less systematic and not consistent methods.

5. While the UN IPCC hypothesis indicates that CO2 increases before any temperature change occurs, NIPCC peer review studies and research take the opposite view that CO2 levels occur after and not before temperature change.  The discrepancy exists because of faulty climate models used by IPCC in its predictions.  Research in Antarctica shows CO2 following temperature by a few hundred years at most.

6.  The UN IPCC tries to explain away the observation that the temperature has been flat for the past 16 years by the fact that there has been less volcanic activity. There have been no major eruptions over the last 20 – 50 years.  Major volcanic eruptions inject high amount of CO2 into the atmosphere; it stays in the atmosphere from 1-1/2 to 2 years. Because of less volcanic activity, less CO2 has been injected into the the atmosphere to form a protective shield to prevent heat from reaching the earth.  As heat from the sun should be reaching earth because the C02 protective shield is less dense, it makes no sense for the IPCC to use less volcanic action as the reason global warming hasn’t happened in16 years as  predicted by its models.  Even so the IPCC continues to say with a 95% probability that global warming is happening.

7.  To a question asked of Dr. Carter about how to deal with contradictory media reports which support the IPCC hypothesis that carbon sequestration is called for and other drastic measures to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, Carter expressed being uncomfortable in answering political question, although he did relate how cracks are starting to form in the carbon catching process.  The recent Australian election resulted in a climate disaster and talk of abolishing the carbon tax. Dr. Carter was hopeful that a new administration would follow the lead of Australia and Norway.

Obvious is that the IPCC and the NIPCC have a vastly different hypotheses on how to handle or treat science.  IPCC treats global warming by collecting facts telling them that cyclones, tornadoes, hurricane and droughts are increasing due to global warming, when they have not.  Good science doesn’t go out looking for facts to support a hypothesis, but instead looks for data that proves a “null” hypothesis such as was used used by NIPCC scientists.

As related by Joe Bast, CEO and president of The Heartland Institute, the NIPCC report is not on the fringe.  It represents the consensus of many scientists based on peer review studies.

On Friday, September 26, the public will have the opportunity to see the truth as presented in the NIPCC report, in  contrast to the opinions arrived at by IPCC report scientists.

Friday, September 27, 2013 at 08:00 AM | Permalink


On Wednesday, September 18, Fox News ran a special two-hour program hosted by Brett Baier that covered a wide range of topics, including The Heartland Institute’s release of the Nongovernmental International Panel of Climate Change (NIPCC) report, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, a massive 1,018-page report explaining why global warming is not a crisis.

Although the NIPCC report was released formally on Tuesday, Sept. 17 at a 10:00 CST news conference at the Thompson Center in downtown Chicago, the conference was poorly attended despite its promotion by Heartland.

I searched the media for reports following the news conference, but could find none. That’s certainly not surprising in a city where the media unconditionally supports Global Warming and refuses to give the “other” side the time of day, as the Chicago-based Heartland Institute has experienced time and again over the years.  Fox News Chicago was the one shining light — the exception — and a most welcome one.

Featured  on the Fox News two-hour special was footage videotaped in Fox’s Chicago studio of Dr. Willie Soon, astrophysicist and geoscientist and lead author for CCR II, and Joe Bast, president of The Heartland Institute.  The clip is posted on YouTube.

Joseph Bast and Dr Willie Soon left a special luncheon in progress at the headquarters of The Heartland Institute to share their remarks at the Fox Chicago studio.  Other notable scientists speaking at the luncheon but not traveling to Fox’s studio were Dr. S. Fred Singer, Director of the Science and Environmental Policy Project and a lead author and editor of CCR II, and Dr. Craig D. Idso, chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, likewise a lead author and editor of CCR II.

It was fitting that the Fox News account of a hearing held by House Republicans and attended by the Obama Administration’s chief Climate Change people, served as a perfect segue into the comments made by Joe Bast and Dr. Soon about the NIPCC report release.

A summary of the seven-chapter Climate Change Reconsidered II:  Physical Science can be found HERE.

In an e-mail update sent out by President Joe Bast on the morning after the Fox News presentation, Sept. 19, Bast shared these thoughts about the posted You Tube clip from Heartland’s Fox News appearance:

The You Tube clip cuts through all the propaganda and hype to explain why man-made carbon dioxide is not causing dangerous climate change.  The clip is something you can share with family and friends to start a conversation.

 At one point in the You Tube clip Heartland president, Joe Bast, is seen laughing because Dr. Soon (who is a brilliant astrophysicist and a very entertaining guy) was doing a riff on how ridiculous it is for the IPCC to claim to be ever-more confident in its predictions, even as every climate model the IPCC has relied on FAILED to predict the 16-year lull in warming.

 Climate models used by the IPCC assert that temperature should rise in concert with carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. That connection may be stronger or weaker for a few years, as other factors temporarily alter global temperatures, but it can’t just disappear for 16 years without the theory coming under serious challenge. The IPPC has no answer other than appeals to authority (and you surely trust the United Nations) and personal attacks on the scientists who are brave enough to speak out.

Even as the world await the release of the IPCC AR5 report next week in Stockholm, Sweden (195 governments fund the IPCC), and despite a leaked draft of the report where “top climate scientists” have admitted that their global warming forecasts are wrong and the world is not heating up at the rate previously reported, the IPCC still insists that it is more confident than ever – 95% certain — that global warming is mainly human’s fault and that C02 is the culprit.

Regrettably, climate change has become a major political issue. Hence, some individuals and groups with political agendas ignore or ridicule the scientific study of climate change when it doesn’t support their political views. One frequently used technique to disparage the science of climate change is to select a few bits of superficially contrary data and claim that they negate the whole body of work in support of climate change.

With a sparse amount of truthful and thoughtful reporting on this latest development, it will take effort to understand Global Warming, but it is necessary and worthwhile.

Friday, September 20, 2013 at 07:43 AM | Permalink

Technorati Tags: , , ,