Book Review: The Greatest Hoax by Sen James Inhofe

U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe’s long promised book, The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future is finally finished. It was published by WND Books, which has published other grand conspiracy books such as The Late Great USA: The Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada. The book will certainly be a hit with some lobbyists, politicians and corporate leaders. It may also be popular among scientists as it reveals some interesting things about Sen. Inhofe and gives scientists an opportunity to examine his ideas and arguments.

Sen. Inhofe has served as the mayor of Tulsa and is the senior Senator from Oklahoma. He has been a strong advocate for many of his constituents and he has been a strong critic of the lack of openness of some congressional procedures. He was instrumental in getting federal Superfund money to clean up the Pitcher lead mines in northeastern Oklahoma. A large area of northeastern Oklahoma was affected and millions of dollars have been spent to try to mitigate the environmental damage. No one knew at the time that lead was toxic, and Pitcher is a perfect example of how what you don’t know can hurt you and be costly.

Sen. Inhofe has often stated Global warming is a hoax, but proving that may be difficult. Every major scientific organizations in the world has adopted a statement similar to that of the American Chemical Society: “Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing rapidly in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases and absorbing aerosol particles. There is very little room for doubt that observed climate trends are due to human activities. The threats are serious and action is urgently needed to mitigate the risks of climate change.” A 2010 Stanford University poll of 1,372 climate scientists found that 97-98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in climate science agree that global warming is occurring and man activities are the main factor. The Greatest Hoax tries convincing us otherwise by quoting media sources, politicians, lobbyist, and the 2-3% of the scientists who claim to be skeptics, though some receive substantial rewards for being skeptical. Legitimate science is based upon evidence and reason, but many of the ideas put forward in this book are not.

Politics: Sen. Inhofe says: “I am not a scientist. I do understand politics. “He says he went into politics because a Tulsa city engineer would not approve his request to move a fire escape on his building. Mr. Inhofe told him that he was going to run for mayor and fire him when he won. And he did. It is possible that the engineer was following the building code adopted by the city’s elected officials, and that there may have been a good reason to leave the fire escape where it was, such as it being easily assessable in case of a fire. That incident, however, explains Senator Inhofe’s attitudes toward regulations, regulators, and scientists whose research show the need for regulations. It also explains the Senators approach to regulations. He sees them as an impediment to business but he does not see that most regulations are developed to protect the public. One of his favorite targets is the EPA, which was created by Pres. Nixon to protect the environment. Sen. Inhofe chose to work on the Senate’s Environmental and Public Works (EPW) committee so he could protect businesses from what he considers needless environmental regulations.

The Hoax: Sen. Inhofe was apparently convinced “global warming is a hoax” by one of the worse hoaxes in recent Congressional history. It started when Dr. Willie Soon managed to get a paper through the peer review process at Climate Reviews with the help of an editor sympathetic to his views. The paper reviewed the literature on climate science, and concluded that the global warming in the 20th century was not unusual and that natural forces, rather than man’s activities was the cause. An important piece of his evidence was the Medieval Warm Period, which he claimed was warmer than the latter 20th century. But there was something wrong with the paper. There were no accurate temperature records in Medieval Times, the Americas had not yet been discovered, and much of the Southern hemisphere was unknown. Dr. Soon’s paper contradicted the evidence from hundreds of other peer-reviewed papers. It caused quite a furor at Climate Reviews which ended with 3 members the editorial board resigning in protest and the newly hired chief editor stating the paper had serious errors and should never have been published. The EPA was unwilling to include the paper in its assessment of climate science, so Sen. Inhofe scheduled a meeting of the EPW committee to examine the paper.

Shortly before the meeting, the American Geophysical Union (AGU) issued a press release from 13 of the scientists whose work was used in Dr. Soon’s paper, saying the paper distorted their research. At the hearing, Michael Mann represented the scientific viewpoint, presenting evidence from multiple sources showing that the Medieval Warm period was not worldwide and resulted only in a small hump in the temperature record. Soon stood behind his work and testified that he had not received any funds that might have biased his objectivity. However, the paper lists the American Petroleum Institute as a major source of funding and documents received since from the Smithsonian Institution in response to FOIA requests, revealed that since 2001 Dr. Soon has received over $1 million in funding from oil and coal interests. Sen. Inhofe was upset by the turn of events and tried to get him fired – Michael Mann that is. At Sen. Inhofe’s insistence, the University of Pennsylvania, a Quaker University, has conducted 2 investigations into Dr. Mann’s research and found no misconduct. A 2010 Science article reviewed the investigations, declaring “Michael Mann is cleared, again. ” Dissatisfied with the ruling, Sen. Inhofe has tried to get the attorney general to charge Michael Mann with fraud. Sadly, for the first time in history, scientists are collecting a legal defense fund to defend scientists against political attacks. And even worse, the scientific opinion of the senior member of our Environmental and Public Works committee is apparently based on a paper that would not pass freshman English.

Endorsement: The Greatest Hoax was endorsed by Dr. R.M. Carter, a paleontologist from Australia, who was the star witness at Sen. Inhofe’s 2006 Senate hearing on Climate Change and the Media. No credible members of the media testified, and one might wonder why Sen. Inhofe would be interested in the media bias in Australia. Dr. Carter was likely there because he could be counted on to testify that historically the rise in global temperatures had always preceded rising carbon dioxide concentration; thus some natural cause must be releasing the carbon dioxide that is causing the temperature to rise. He was right about the role of carbon dioxide in increasing the Earth’s temperature, but he rather ignored the possibility that the CO2 concentration was rising because the burning of fossil fuels was releasing 30 billion tons of CO2 annually.

After the hearing, Dr. Carter was challenged by climatologists to produce research showing the natural variability he claimed, but the paper he belatedly produced was soon refuted when significant errors were found in his reasoning. Though two of the four scientists who testified at the hearing were skeptics, all four agreed that the Earth had warmed about 1°C in the last century. Sen. Inhofe’s own hearing had clearly refuted his claim: “Global warming is a hoax.” That was of little concern to Sen. Inhofe, as the main purpose of the hearing was to intimidate members of the press – as if that were needed.

Science: There is little science in the book, though much of the book is dedicated to discrediting science and scientists by quoting friends of his from the Heartland Institute, media personalities, and other politicians. He even sets up Al Gore as a strawman for scientists. In the book’s introduction, he displays a rather tasteless picture of Al Gore naked, and considerable space is devoted to vilifying him. That is a shame as Al Gore has served as a respected Senator, Vice President, and as a Presidential candidate came within a few hundred votes of being elected. Al Gore received a Nobel Peace Prize for his environmental work and his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, won an Oscar. The movie also had its day in court and won. Interestingly, the same Dr. Carter, who endorsed the book, was the star witness for the plaintiff in Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education, a suit which sought to prevent the educational use of An Inconvenient Truth in England. The court apparently did not agree with Dr. Carter and ruled that, though the film had some errors, it was substantially founded upon scientific research and fact and could be shown. Sen. Inhofe claims to be a free market capitalist, but he seems to take great umbrage that Al Gore has profited from his investments in green energy, apparently without realizing that most of those profits have been dedicated to promoting conservative causes, such as protecting the Earth.

Though he may be a skilled politician, in the partisan sense, Sen. Inhofe is correct when he says “I am not a scientist.” He does not understand how scientific knowledge from many fields fits together to form a consistent view of nature. For instance, the book tells that after a large snowfall in Washington D.C., his grandchildren built an igloo and put up a sign: “Al Gore’s New Home“. Sen. Inhofe used the picture to denounce global warming alarmism, though he should know that a single weather event proves nothing. And, if he were a scientist, he might understand how the warming oceans increase the probability of a record snowfall in Washington D.C., making the igloo possible – and how carbon dioxide has made more probable the record heat waves in Texas and Oklahoma, making droughts and wildfires possible.

Sen. Inhofe shows he does not understand how science works when he brings up the “Coming Ice Age” story to discredit the scientific evidence. The argument goes, “How can you trust science, when in the 1970s the scientists were predicting the coming of a new Ice Age, but now scientists claim that the Earth is warming?” In the 70’s, scientists found that increased industrialization was causing not only an increase in particulates, which would cause global cooling, but also an increase in CO2, which would increase global warming. There was no consensus among scientists about which effect would predominate. A count of scientific papers in that decade showed that only 7 journal articles predicted that the global average temperature would continue to cool, while 44 papers indicated that the average temperature would rise. The research on global cooling was valuable as it showed a nuclear war was unwinnable as particulates from a nuclear exchange might create a nuclear winter, ending life on Earth as we know it.

Scientific controversies are usually settled by the evidence, but this one was settled by the intervention of man. Particulates are visible and have serious health consequences. By 1980, regulations were in place to limit particulate emissions and, as that happened, the temperature of the Earth began increasing again. The fossil fuel companies became alarmed, as it was becoming apparent that we should also limit carbon emissions to keep the Earth’s temperature at equilibrium, so they began a propaganda campaign to convince us that carbon dioxide was harmless. If you believe that, remember the lesson of Pitcher, Oklahoma. What you don’t know can hurt you and be very costly.

Cap and Trade: Sen. Inhofe claims that cap and trade is the “crown jewel” of a global conspiracy of scientists, Hollywood stars, and media personalities who want to take away your freedom and create a world government. However, cap and trade was devised by free-market conservatives for President Reagan, who used it successfully to stop the acid rain drifting into Canada from our Northeastern power plants. It was part the Clean Air Act signed into law by President Bush I and many prominent Republicans, including John McCain, have supported it. Cap and trade is considered to be the market solution to reducing carbon emissions. It is described by the EPA as “an environmental policy tool that delivers results with a mandatory cap on emissions while providing sources flexibility in how they comply. Successful cap and trade programs reward innovation, efficiency, and early action and provide strict environmental accountability without inhibiting economic growth.”Does that sound like it “Threatens Your Future“, as the subtitle of the book claims? And, it cannot be making Al Gore rich – or be the cause of rising energy prices – as it has not yet been enacted for carbon emissions.

Costs: Sen. Inhofe main objection to environmental regulations is their tremendous cost; but an accurate analysis of costs and benefits are not in the book. He just claims that it would cost each U.S. household $3,100 a year, a cost that has great sticker shock, but is totally inaccurate. Dr. John Reilly, the MIT economist whose work was used to arrive at that number, has publicly criticized a Republican lobbyist for distorting his work to arrive at that inflated value. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the cost of the cap-and-trade program by 2020 would average about $175 annually per household, and that associated savings would reduce the federal deficit by about $19 billion over the next decade. A recent report by the National Academy of Sciences details other high economic costs of inadequate environmental legislation, such as reduced streamflow, rainfall, and crop yields. Yet Congress has refused to act on the matter.

Also, Sen. Inhofe seems to have left some important items out of his balance sheet, such as the true cost of using fossil fuels. The true cost of a resource should include repairing damage caused by its use and disposing of the waste. We are in effect subsidizing the fossil fuel industry by allowing them to freely discharge their wastes into the environment. Some of the “true costs” of fossil fuel use, such as health and environmental costs can be estimated. Nicholas Stern, former chief economist of the World Bank and one of the world’s top economists, has used the results from formal economic models to examine the potential cost of failure to limit our carbon emissions. He estimates that the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global Gross Domestic Product (GDP) each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the cost of mitigation and damages could rise to 20% of GDP or more in the future – and we would run the additional risk of an environmental catastrophe.

Taking 5% of the US GDP for 2010, would give an environmental cost of $727 billion. As to health costs, the American Lung Association estimates that the EPA’s proposed guidelines for particulates could prevent 38,000 heart attacks and premature deaths, 1.5 million cases of acute bronchitis and aggravated asthma, and 2.7 million days of missed work or school. They estimate the economic benefits of reduced exposure to particulates alone could reach as much as $281 billion annually. Those two add up to about $1.08 trillion. The calculations do not include all the environmental and health costs, but they do show about how much we are subsidizing the fossil fuel industries by ignoring the damage to people’s health and the environment.

Sen. Inhofe, in his Rachel Maddow interview, stated that the cost of cap and trade would be $30-$40 billion annually. That is about 1/30 of what the environmental and health costs might eventually be. Then, it is rather hard to put a value on those premature deaths or the added risk of environmental catastrophes. The number of billion-dollar weather disasters has increased fivefold over the last 30 years, and insurance giants such as Suisse Re now consider man-made global warming real, and a risk factor in setting insurance rates. Increased insurance rates will be an additional out of pocket cost, which could easily offset the $175 the CBO estimated that cap and trade would cost.

Scientists: To get around the strong consensus of scientists, the book claims there is a global conspiracy of liberal scientists bent on creating a world government, that climate science is a religion, that climate scientists are in it for the money, and that Climategate proves climate scientists are dishonest. None of those claims are supported by verifiable evidence. Most scientists are good citizens, conservative in their statements and actions. Most are religious, with stewardship and concern for their fellow man being part of their religion. The Presbyterian church, where Senator Inhofe claims membership, stated in 1989 and reaffirmed in 2008, its “serious concern that the global atmospheric warming trend (the greenhouse effect) represents one of the most serious global environmental challenges to the health, security, and stability of human life and natural ecosystems.”

The book calls climate scientists “alarmists” in a derogatory sense, but many are becoming alarmed. Research shows that the Earth’s climate is changing because of our emissions of CO2, yet Congress has not acted to solve the problem. Scientists were criticized for considering the problem catastrophic, but they realize our carbon emissions will have an affect for 100 years or more into the future and inaction will threaten our food and water supply,increase the risk of severe weather events, and a possibly lead to an environmental catastrophe. Remember what happened at Pitcher, Oklahoma because lead mining was considered harmless.

Sen. Inhofe often calls those who disagree with him “liberals”, but the meaning of liberal and conservative seem to be flexible. During the American Revolution, it was the liberals who wanted to create a democracy and conservatives who thought that King George had a divine right to rule. Sen. Inhofe uses “liberals” to describe environmentalists and others who want to preserve the earth – and uses “conservatives” for those who want to conserve power and profits.

He describes Rachel Maddow as one of his favorite liberals, but that may change. In his book he said “Rachel’s segment was one of the last major efforts to go after me just days before I landed in Copenhagen and declared vindication.” However in his recent interview on Rachel’s show, she showed the clip. Nowhere in the clip does it mention Copenhagen or climate change. Rather than apologize, he said he couldn’t remember everything he said in the 350 pages of fine print in the book, raising questions about how much of the book he actually wrote. Apparently liberal can also mean “pesky”.

Big Oil: Sen. Inhofe tells some good stories of the old days in the Oklahoma oilfields, but back then Tulsa was the Oil Capital of the World and our domestic oil producers were a different breed from today’s multinational oil companies. They have little loyalty to the United States and little concern for our citizens or the environment. They have created some of the greatest man-made environmental disasters and resisted compensating their victims fairly. After the furor over the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, BP’s CEO commented “I want my life back“, but he could not give back the 11 lives lost because of his decisions. Although he promised to compensate Americans damaged by the oil spill, BP appointed a lawyer to disperse the funds, who made many of the victims “take it or leave it” offers. After the Exxon Valdez oil spill, Exxon Mobil went all the way to the Supreme Court to avoid paying the $5 billion in damages owed the native Alaskans. Koch oil was charged in Oklahoma of cheating Native Americans and the government out $5 billion in oil royalties. They settled the case out of court for a 10th of the $5 billion, with no admission of wrongdoing. Who says crime doesn’t pay?

Last year, the world’s 5 largest oil companies received $24 billion in tax break subsidies. Yet, they reported $171 billion in profits, while most US businesses and citizens struggled with financial losses, in part caused by the steep rise in fuel prices. Sen. Inhofe says his goal is “energy self-sufficiency” for the United States, yet last year the leading US export was fuels, so Big Oil companies are selling American oil abroad, creating a shortage in the United States that is driving up prices. Increasing their profits is their main goal, even though carbon emissions may cause a man-made environmental disaster much greater than oil spills. To defend their profits, these companies are now the major contributors to the science denial machine that Sen. Inhofe defends in his book.

Heartland Foundation: Sen. Inhofe was able to poke fun at himself when he said” Nature strikes back”, referring to a serious illness he contacted while swimming in a lake contaminated with toxic blue-green algae, whose growth was fueled by water pollution and the heat wave and Oklahoma. The illness caused him to miss the meeting of the Heartland Institute where he was to be a keynote speaker. His relation to the Heartland Institute is troubling. The Heartland Institute, once a major source of propaganda designed to prove there was no link between smoking, cancer, and lung disease, has now turned its considerable experience and resources into producing propaganda disputing the link between carbon emissions and global warming. Big Oil provides much of the funding for the Heartland Institute, and other similar “conservative” think tanks, who channel millions of dollars into the denial of science. The Heartland Institute is a gathering place for Big Oil’s lobbyists, loyal politicians, and paid skeptics. Many of those are the sources of information for Sen. Inhofe’s book. How accurate is that information likely to be?

Skeptics: Science values its skeptics as they make science strong by pointing out areas that need more investigation, and they sometimes making valuable contributions to science. When Richard Muller questioned NASA’s temperature records, he evaluated all 6 billion pieces of weather station data, and came to the conclusion that the temperature record was accurate. When O’Donnell doubted Steig’s work showing Antarctica was warming, he re-analyzed the data and found that indeed Antarctica, the coldest place on Earth, was getting warmer.

Skeptics are expected to follow the methodologies and the ethics of science, to subject their work to review by their peers, and to divulge conflicts of interest. Many of those Sen. Inhofe praises as “climate skeptics” do not meet those criteria. They profit from being skeptical and, when research shows them wrong, they continue to repeat their skeptical arguments anyway. An example is Anthony Watts, who started the Surface Station Project to examine the data from weather stations, which he claimed had errors. The AGU took his skepticism seriously and did a thorough study on the weather stations, finding the data was reliable. They had offered Watts a chance to participate in the research, but he missed his chance to be a scientist when he refused. And though the question has been answered, Mr. Watts is still repeating the same criticisms – and collecting substantial donations to continue his Surface Station Project. There are many skeptics like Mr. Watts, who receives generous grants from think tanks, not for fundamental research, but to come up with ideas to cast doubt on the IPCC, climate research, and the work of legitimate scientists. Many of the paid skeptics appear in Sen. Inhofe’s book as his sources for information, quotes, and references.

Vindication: In this chapter of the book, Sen. Inhofe claims vindication, but it is hard to imagine sufficient vindication for displaying a picture of Al Gore naked. Sen. Inhofe does claim he is vindicated by the Climategate e-mails. Hackers broke into the computers of England’s Hadley Climatic Research Unit (CRU), and stole 10 years of e-mails exchanged between the scientists. Quotes from the stolen e-mails were taken out of context, distorted, and released to media sources with claims the CRU scientists engaged in illegal and unethical acts. As of today, eight independent formal investigations have been completed and none have found any scientific misconduct by the scientists involved. The incident was dubbed “Climategate”, but it was in no way like Watergate. In Wategate, the thieves were caught and punished and those who masterminded the plot were publicly disgraced. In Climategate, the thieves have been hailed by some skeptics as heroes – and the victims of the theft have been vilified. It seems strange that Scotland Yard is searching for the hackers, while Sen. Inhofe is gleefully helping spread the misinformation. So, rather than being like Watergate, the e-mail scandal was actually more like Stargate, fictional fantasy. The accusations of wrongdoing by some of the skeptical scientists, made before the matter could be investigated, were particularly egregious as scientist’s ethical codes say that:” Public comments on scientific matters should be made with care and precision, without unsubstantiated, exaggerated, or premature statements.”

Winning: Sen. Inhofe claims he is winning, but he can’t be talking about the scientific debate. All the world’s major scientific organizations think he is losing, as do 97 – 98% of the climate scientists, and 83% of American voters. A 2011 Stanford poll found that 83% of Americans say that global warming is happening with 88% of Democrats and 54% of Republicans saying it is the result of human action. Attacking scientists may prove to be contrary to the Republican party’s best interest. While polls find scientist’s trustworthiness is highly rated , with 84% having a favorable view of scientists, Congress’ approval has now dropped to around 9%. This may be indicative of the public’s dissatisfaction with the partisanship and gridlock in Congress, occurring for reasons well on display in this book.

Although some members of Congress and some of the public may listen to Sen. Inhofe, nature doesn’t. No matter how much he claims “hoax”, research shows the climate is changing in response to man’s activities. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, the temperature of the Earth is rising, the oceans are becoming more acidic, glaciers and polar ice caps are melting, sea levels are rising, the probability of severe weather events is increasing, and weather-related natural disasters are becoming more frequent and more costly. It’s time we examine more closely who is actually winning by ignoring science.

(c) 2012 J.C. Moore

Education for Iraq and the Dinar

Education reform is a challenge for every country. We have our own issues with education in the U.S. – lack of funding, under performance in math and science, under paid teachers, etc. However, the burden of education reform in the U.S. does not compare to Iraq. How is education reform related to the Iraqi dinar? A strong educational system in Iraq will reduce violence by diminishing the youth’s appeal of joining insurgent groups, helping close the stark gap between the rich and poor and in the future, allow Iraq to be a power player in the global economy. Education will provide stability and strength in Iraq, which are both necessary for a strong dinar.

Iraq used to have one of the best educational systems in the Middle East. Before the Gulf War, literacy was above 90% and the dropout rate was the lowest in the Middle East. In addition, Iraq placed a huge importance on education, as evidenced by spending 20% of its budget on education. It is no coincidence that the Iraqi dinar was at its peak value during this time. However, since the 1980’s, the Iraqi educational system has been declining and has essentially crashed amidst all the wars, educational neglect by Saddam Hussein and instability in the region to name a few factors. Bottom line, Iraq’s educational system was at the forefront of its region and it most regain its form to shape the future of Iraq and the dinar.

Education is a strong component in deterring Iraq’s youth from joining violent groups that threaten the stability of the country and hamper the dinar. The illiteracy rate has soared to 39% in the rural population and the drop out and displacement rate of students are at its all time highs. As more and more kids slip through the cracks, more and more kids are subject to recruitment by violent insurgent and terrorist groups. The youth that drop out of school might see a future with these groups, while education becomes an insignificant priority. The most troubling concern is that as more and more children are recruited into these violent groups, the effects last generations. A strong educational system will provide hope and a promising future for the youth of Iraq and diminish the appeal of joining factious groups. At the least, a stable school system will reduce the number of kids on the streets exposed to these rebel cliques that only bring instability and uncertainty to Iraq.

There really is no middle class in Iraq – the class the drives an economy and country forward. The consequences of the lack of a middle class is shown in the current political impasse. The political and cultural elite that control the government don’t have the urgency of a stable government that serves the masses who are suffering the most. Education is the great equalizer and will spark a rise in the middle class and enable them to participate and contribute to the government by responding to the needs of the general public. When the rich and upper class control the government and there is no middle class, it is laughable to think that the government will meet the needs and interests of the rest of the country. The current political vacuum should serve as a warning and motivate Iraq to support a robust educational system, much like the years before the Gulf War when the Iraqi dinar was at its peak value.

An educated population is necessary for Iraq to become an influential player in the global economy. Iraq is already a player in the global economy because of its oil reserves. However, Iraq must not become complacent and must invest in education to become one of the most powerful players. Iraq has to play catch up when it comes to the technology and medical industries that will dominate the future. While the oil industry will support Iraq’s economy for a considerable time, it must invest in education so that Iraq can diversify its industries. Oil in Iraq, while abundant, is still a finite resource. With education, the possibilities are endless, who knows what new discoveries a brilliant scientist will make or what new successful businesses will be formed. The common ground is that it is all rooted in the same foundation – education.

The potential results of a strong educational system are tremendous: peace, a more informed general public, more job opportunities and more technological advancements. These are all voids in Iraq that can be addressed by educational reform. Again, the golden years of the Iraqi educational system were also the golden years of the Iraqi dinar, that is not a coincidence.

Is There a Future For Graduates of Political Science?

Can one make a living out of political science? The answer to this question will be answered below. But before proceeding, it is also important to know the basics of this course. So, what really is political science? This question is often the most basic point that students of law, politicians, and even laymen are trying to answer in their quest to understand politics. At its most basic core, political science is the study of political behavior, political processes and dynamics, as well as the study of governments in general. Being one of the branches of social sciences, political science aims to analyze, describe, and predict political behavior in relation with existing political systems.  Although it is considered science, political science revolves around subjective elucidations rather than verifiable empirical data. As a science, its most essential function is to help individuals understand interpersonal relationships as well as study how relationships between individuals affect other individuals, groups, nation, state, and governments.

As an academic subject, political science is a relatively new form of discipline, which has only gained enough recognition in recent decades in the United States and other countries. It has many subfields such as philosophy, international relations, theory of political systems, political economy, policy studies, and other related fields. Formal students of political science aim to get enough understanding and knowledge of politics in general to help them in their political career. In the United States, graduates of political science are called political scientists. They can get jobs in many government agencies including exciting ones in local, state, and federal government. Some graduates can also go into law, business, electoral politics, and even international organizations.

Job responsibilities can range from boring to exciting. This includes analyzing the entire spectrum of political behavior, public opinion, taxation, public administration, and voting. Research on many public issues and political relationships are also part of the job. Political scientists can also make recommendations as well as suggestions on matters that affect the environment, business, and citizens. Elections such as the coming 2010 Federal Election in Australia can get varied opinions on TV, radio, and other media from many political scientists involved or monitoring the event.

Since getting into career options in college considers the chance of getting employed after graduation, or the high number of future employers, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States made a study on the course. The Bureau claimed that jobs available for political scientists is constantly increasing. Thus, there is bright future in this field just like any other career. Average earning of political scientists depends on their education, geographical position, and experience, but usually the starting salary is $27,000. Those with advanced degrees can make more than the average. Further, bachelor’s degree holders can also move into paralegals or administrative assistants vacancies. Many graduates of this course can also employ themselves in colleges and universities. On top of this, they can also boost their income by teaching summer school courses, writing books, and even doing consulting works.

Current Economic and Marketing Trends That Will Shape the Next Generation

The primary purpose of our publication is to provide useful and effective information while at the same time providing an understanding of current trends in the marketplace, and then subsequently joining together these concepts into a meaningful conclusion to provide companies with an effective result. An effective outcome, from my perspective, is to purely think about the trends shaping our economy, and having the insight to project these trends into your sales and marketing strategy.

We continually look for new and innovative ways for companies to look beyond the daily scope of their business. First and foremost, consider the purpose. The operative word is “trend”, so let’s begin by providing a definition:

Noun: a general direction in which something is developing or changing.

Verb: change or developing in a general direction.

The most effective way to construct your plan is to immerse yourself into a profound appreciation of the economic landscape in America, and the trends shaping this landscape. In past publications, despite my overwhelming desire, I have steered clear of the political composition, unfortunately, as business executives, we need to consider the path we are headed and how we can intellectually capitalize on this potentially negative trend and transform it into a positive development.

Consider the media environment and broad message America has been digesting each and every day. Russell Brand, the world’s greatest intellect is a prime example. In a recent interview; he proclaimed that a ‘socialist revolution and massive redistribution of wealth is necessary in America, he believes in heavy taxation of corporations and an increase in punitive responsibilities for energy companies exploiting the environment. ‘ This is the rhetoric our young people are hearing and the message being embraced by the Obama administration and the liberal media. How ridiculous. Who is Russell Brand, and since when does a British comedian become an expert on the capitalistic revolution?

We need to begin by exploring the failure of our current president and political system. No world leader in history has made so many errors and provided so few options. The last five and a half years will shape our economy and business trends for decades well into the future. One failure after another is well documented: the economy, Benghazi, Solyndra, the stimulus package, health care reform, foreign policy, the national energy policy, partisan politics, social reform, the campaign to divide America through class warfare. Not to mention the fact that his administration has been and will be documented as the worst selection of cabinet members in history.

Abstract:

  • The federal debt as a percentage to GDP (Gross Domestic Product) has exceeded 100% in every year since 2007. See the graph below.
  • The number of people receiving benefits under the federal government has grown from 94 million people in 2000 to more than 128 million in 2011. This means that over 41% of the U. S. population receives at least one benefit.
  • A large portion of the American public have two kinds of income: (1) money they earn and (2) money transferred to them through a taxpayer service vehicle.

The Obama Policies are here to stay, for a long time to come, a very long time. The employment and industry growth trends are hard to pinpoint, however, if we take a detailed look at the industries shaping the American landscape, here is what our team of experts have ascertained.

First of all, we must look at the current economic and social trends shaping our lives. These trends will have a profound impact on our daily routine and will influence the prospect of the future:

  1. The movement towards bigger government, higher taxes, and more entitlements. Obama and his administrative policies have opened the eyes to countless demographics that consider capitalism to be out of favor and socialism is acceptable. We must acknowledge that a vast percentage of people in the country are going to expect the government to create a long term vehicle to transfer wealth. Productive end entrepreneurial people are going to have to work harder with the expectations of higher taxes and fewer benefits. Because of this social and economic shift, expect corporations to redefine their purpose, to build legitimacy within their core customer base within the eyes of the demanding consumer. Companies must think way outside the box; they must find and establish new and creative ways to increase their organic growth and profit platform. The country will be firmly and problematically divided on the subject of increased taxes and bigger government and this will continue to create social class division in the U. S.
  2. Domestic oil production. Contrary to liberal viewpoints, in order to gain true fiscal financial freedom, we must first liberate our country from the dependence on foreign crude oil. Saudi Arabia is running out of natural resources on an exponential basis. The U. S. has the largest crude oil reserves in the world. Special interest groups have limited the production of these resources due to environmental concerns. Technology and neo-production methods have made the recovery of these resources implausible from a environmental standpoint. The government needs to relax the regulations and create more jobs in American and eliminate the funding of foreign natural resources. It is no secret that domestic energy production underpins virtually element of the domestic economy. Sixty years ago, it was not uncommon for domestic oil wells to produce 10,000 barrels of oil a day, today, many of these wells in the same fields (primarily West Texas, Alaska, and The Gulf) are producing 1,000 barrels per day and more. A single well producing this volume of oil creates $30 million in annual revenue, 1000’s of jobs along with untold federal and local tax revenue. Energy production is the foundation of the U. S. economy and contributes significantly to GDP productivity. Me MUST maintain a reasonable oil and gas exploration in the U. S. and rid ourselves of the dependence on foreign crude oil.
  3. Reasonably priced alternative energy sources. A movement to cheaper and more practical solar power, wind, alternative energy sources. Not a government funded programs designed to fund special interest and political action committees, but entrepreneurial endeavors that encourage the development of alternative technologies with real life solutions. Along these same lines is the reduction of CO2 emissions to a historic low. The government has wasted way too much taxpayer dollars chasing alternative energy ghosts because that is exactly what we have done in the past, look at Solyndra. You will see a very strong movement towards innovation driven by scientists, business visionaries, and investors. I personally know of a company who has invented the technology to convert animal waste into useable hydrocarbons. This is an incredible process because it alleviates three serious concerns: animal waste disposal, a useable highly refined product, along with job creation, all three of which make a more productive environment and a more productive economy.
  4. Traditional domestic industrial production. A movement to traditional and historic gross-producing industries. America was founded on the principle of growth and innovation. The primary industries that augment that principle is construction, domestic tangible innovation, domestic intangible innovation, information, and domestic production. The construction industry is expected to rise by 33% through 2020 due to an underdeveloped infrastructure. Domestic manufacturing, higher education, advancements in health care and medicine, the movement to alternative fuel sources, professional and scientific services, mathematics and engineering, oil and gas production.
  5. A local job creation economy. The boom to the open borders in America is coming to an end. Not because the melting pot has dried up, but because we need to create jobs within the existing outline within demographic profiles of American citizens. We need to “care for” and “provide for” the people within the borders, without inviting more competition for the infinitesimal employment prospects in America. Simply stated, we are going to see lackluster job growth because of higher taxes and unemployment numbers will not improve dramatically until we begin to cut taxes. At the end of the day, we will see a movement to supplement the job creation and job growth by people who have well established credentials as U. S. citizens.
  6. The changing cultural drive. The millenials have become the weak link in our economy. These are the trophy kids who have no work ethic and no competitive drive, they are not ready to commit, and they believe that big business is evil with a negative impact on society. From the standpoint of achievement, they want less than they were given. Fortunately, they believe education is more important than ever and will eventually snap out of this disturbing behavior because they have a keen sense of accomplishment and are late bloomers. I think you can even introduce the idea that the reason the millenials have acquired these traits in the first place is because they have been brought up as trophy kids, and I think they will lose this trait over time.
  7. Shift in the job market. Employers will find unsuitable talent pools to fill the expanding job roles. American, as well as the rest of the world has an aging population. In order for prosperity to persevere, the country must provide its youth with adequate educational opportunities. Although educational access is growing nationally, not enough students graduate with the skills desired by global employers and the market needs to persuade this expertise. Furthermore, woman, an increasingly well educated force in the market, with an incredible competitive drive, will become a factor in job fulfillment.
  8. The end of cheap China. As the economic engine evolves in China, it will become a lesser world faction. Why? Because they have tasted a new found wealth along with an emerging manufacturing popularity. The only substance of stability pertaining to the health of China’s economic engine is their cheap labor force, which is rapidly dwindling. The price of human capital (labor) has increased by as much as 20% annually for the last 4-5 years driven by a strong demand for goods and services and inexpensive production. China has literally priced themselves out of the world market by increasing their labor prices, and at the end of the day, NO ONE in the world, especially America, is going to buy Chinese goods and services at market rates. In short time, these jobs will be transferred to domestic counterparts who can produce the same product at the same price with much higher quality. The U. S. economy is still double the size of China (number 2), and triple the size of Japan (number 3). Sorry folks, but China is slowing, and it will continue to move in that direction.
  9. The movement to become a society of contra-form. This county must become the world leader once again. In terms of innovation, invention, scientific achievement, engineering, productivity, and the entrepreneurial productivity. This concept begins first and foremost with education, training and knowledge; we must once again embrace the belief that education drives innovation and invention is what made this country what it is today, and will make it what it desires in the future. No other country has the prosperity equal to the U. S. , not even close, you are going to see an enormous change in innovation like none other.

SO NOW WHAT?

Like any shift, we must examine these trends shaping our environment and transform them into real life and productive results. Never before has demographic change happened so abruptly and has divided the country so decisively. Companies operating in hope-a-land will be looking at others in their rear view mirror. Companies embracing these changes will adapt quite nicely.

Trends, by definition, are a general direction in which something is developing or changing. In almost all cases, current trends are short-lived, given time, they will be history. Understanding how these shape our lives is the difference between good leaders and great leaders. The political landscape in our country has been created by the citizens of a democracy, they have been elected. You can adapt, flee or die. It will take a long time to reverse these incredibly bad decisions of our president and for that matter, Washington in whole. Think about what you have just read and how you can incorporate this into your business to make it better.

We simply like to open your eyes towards looking into the next 6-10 years. Some of the material we present is a way for some insight and a desired solution by incorporating these trends into our business strategy is the smart move. Most of the information presented in our writings comes from conversations from everyday business people and a vast amount of resources.