Theodore Roosevelt Malloch answers these charges head-on. In Spiritual Enterprise, he explores the opportunity of doing virtuous business - a concept that has been disappearing from our public consciousness. Malloch argues that the creation of wealth by virtuous means is the most important thing we can do for ourselves and for the world at large. But more than simply explain why free enterprise makes the world a better place, Malloch documents how virtuous business models have made many of the brightest companies in America more successful than ever.

Spiritual Enterprise rehabilitates the idea of big business as a force for good in society and offers a sensible guide for realizing this ideal. As antiglobalization and anticorporate tides are rising, Malloch’s books is both a much-needed defense of free enterprise and a vital call for better business.

——–

This book is a classic. Ted Malloch does a masterful job in helping the reader understand the important role of faith in the leadership and operation of a successful business and also the necessity of “spiritual capital” for a healthy market.

Bill Pollard
Chairman of ServiceMaster

I have never seen a better outline of the social and spiritual factors responsible for stewardship of the modern political economy and its main agent, the corporation.

Dr. Luder Whitlock,
Chairman of the Trinity Forum

The owl of wisdom takes flight in this book. Malloch provides a framework for building the values and virtues of a good corporation.

Don Soderquist,
Former Chairman of Wal-Mart

——–

Spiritual Capital

Grace is given of God but knowledge is bought in the market.

Arthur Clough

Built to Last, a classic study of “visionary companies,” reveals an interesting discovery: the company that succeeds in circumstances where its rivals falter or go the wall is not the kind of “profit machine” envisaged by the opponents of corporate capitalism. On the contrary, although it aims to be profitable, the visionary company understands profit in the way that a biologist understands oxygen—not the goal of life, but the thing without
which there is no life. A corporation may be motivated by an ideology of group membership, low prices, and consumer satisfaction, like Wal-Mart; or it may be fired by a desire to make a real contribution to society, like Hewlett-Packard (HP). It may even impress upon the world and its workforce that its primary purpose is to honor God (as in the case of Dacor, which I discuss in Chapter Three). The point is that, however the company describes its motivating principles, profit does not appear as the goal, but as the side effect of pursuing those principles.

In this connection it is worth quoting the words of John Young, CEO of HP from 1976 to 1992:

Maximizing shareholder wealth has always been way down the list. Yes, profit is a cornerstone of what we do—it is a measure of our contribution and a means of self-financed growth—but it has never been the point in and of itself. The point, in fact, is to win, and winning is judged in the eyes of the customer and by doing something you can be proud of. There is symmetry of logic in this. If we provide real satisfaction to real customers—we will be profitable.

What Young is saying is clear: by aiming exclusively at profit, you risk losing your sense of purpose; by pursuing your sense of purpose, on the other hand, you gain profit as through an invisible hand. Moral and economic values are not in competition; in the right context, to pursue the one is to obtain the other. Moreover, as Built to Last shows through the telling contrast between HP and Texas Instruments, the firm that puts profit at the top of its agenda, making all else subordinate, very soon begins to lose its competitive edge.

A team of researchers has shown the close connection, in particular cases, between moral conviction and business success. Through the exercise of “moral imagination,” a firm can further the moral goals of its members, providing them with the personal satisfaction that comes from doing good, without sacrificing profitability. Some go further, suggesting a kind of secular basis for the moral dimension of business, as people enter through business into moral relations with their fellows, and work comes to function as the foundation of social harmony, imbuing life with purpose—performing the role that religion once performed. These studies take us far along the road to understanding the moral basis of capitalism and the resources of social capital on which it draws. But they do not go far enough. There is another and deeper root of business success, and that is what I explore in this book.

Social Capital

For close to a century, sociologists, economists and political scientists in the academy have been developing the concept of “social capital,” drawing on the language of economics in order to describe the accumulated social resources inherited by each new generation from its predecessor. These resources are used in managing the day-to-day affairs of social existence, and they include customs, language, manners and morals—in short, all the
practices that are taught to us by our parents in order to make us fit members of society. These things cannot be invented anew by each generation, since they are the distillation of a long process of accommodation. As many since Tocqueville have shown, the rules, customs and traditions that enable people to live together in a great society are also products of the “invisible hand.” They are the beneficial results of cooperation and competition between neighbors, and the spontaneous byproducts of their attempts to live in peace. The very same freedom that produces the capitalist economy also produces the social capital that is needed if it is to run successfully.

The World Bank defines social capital as “the norms and social relations embedded in social structures that enable people to coordinate action to achieve desired goals.” Robert Putnam, a Harvard political scientist who has made social capital into his specialty, describes it similarly: “‘social capital’ refers to features of social organizations such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit.” His landmark 1993 book, Making Democracy Work, convincingly demonstrated
the political, institutional and economic value of social capital. In Bowling Alone, he presented a scholarly and provocative account of America’s declining social capital. Numerous comparative economic studies by the World Bank and the United Nations corroborate Putnam’s thinking: some regions of the globe lag behind while others thrive due to their social capital.

A recent study examines the role that social capital invested in a company plays in economic success. In Good Company describes social capital as the stock of active connections among people, the trust, mutual understanding, and shared values and behaviors that bind members of human networks and communities and make cooperative action possible.” Social capital involves the social elements that contribute to knowledge sharing, innovation and productivity. It makes any organization or cooperative group into
something more than a collection of individuals intent on achieving their own private purposes. This social capital, it turns out, is so integral to business life that without it, corporate action—and consequently productive work—is not possible.

Like economic capital, social capital can be accumulated and invested. It is built through creating networks of trust and goodwill, which enable people spontaneously to pool their intellectual and physical resources in a common enterprise. A seminal work titled Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity argues that communities with a culture of trust and accountability are able to prosper in adverse circumstances and to create wealth seemingly ex nihilo. Hong Kong, a tiny peninsular without natural resources, and with some 5 percent of China’s population, has regularly accounted for 30 percent of the Chinese GNP. The difference between Hong Kong and mainland China (which has every possible natural resource) lies in the culture of trust that was protected under British administration in Hong Kong, but systematically destroyed by the Communists on the mainland.

Western societies have built up a great stock of social capital in the form of culture, networks, institutions and laws. In each area of human endeavor they have added to this stock, accumulating works of art and music, games and sports, festivals and competitions, through which individuals rehearse their social feelings and refresh their commitments. Social capital can be wisely invested, as when we found a school or university and endow it with good teachers, good books and good facilities, so helping the fund of knowledge and skills to grow. It can dwindle, as many researchers have shown, through the gradual retreat from social contact. It can also be wasted, and the conspicuous waste of social capital is one of the most unhappy features of our societies today. This waste has been documented by several authors who have shown the way in which, by throwing economic resources into the welfare system, we do not merely waste those resources, we also waste social capital—producing the welfare-dependency that prevents people from learning how to be on equal and responsible terms with others, subsidizing indolence and exhausting our teachers, social workers and doctors with the thankless task of caring for people who are often unwilling to care for themselves.

But as Guy Sorman reveals in Empire of Lies China’s success is, at least in part, a mirage. True, 200 million of her subjects, those fortunate enough to be working in an expanding global market, enjoy a middle-class standard of living. The remaining one billion, however, are among the poorest, most exploited people in the world. Popular discontent simmers, especially in the countryside, where it often flares into violent confrontation with Communist Party authorities. In truth, China’s economic “miracle” is rotting from within.

In this extraordinary book, Sorman explains how the West has conferred greater legitimacy on China than do the Chinese themselves. He has visited the country regularly for forty years and spent most of the past three years exploring her teeming cities and remotest corners. Empire of Lies is the culmination of these travels and perhaps the only book on China that lets the Chinese people speak for themselves.

——–

“Guy Sorman gets under the skin of the shiny new China that most of us see, to find deeply-rooted problems and harsh practices that haven’t changed. A tireless traveler whose curiosity about people never wanes, Sorman gives us dozens of vivid stories that add up to a clear — and disturbing — picture of China today.”

Andrew J. Nathan

President Ronald Reagan

“[Empire of Lies] transforms all things we were accustomed to believe concerning

Claude Levi Strauss
Author of The Savage Mind

Hungry? Why wait

On to the links:

The Basra Business, Weekly Standard, by Frederick Kagan and Kimberley Kagan
“Much of the discussion about recent Iraqi operations against illegal Shia militias has focused on issues about which we do not yet know enough to make sound judgments, overlooking important conclusions that are already clear. Coming days and weeks will provide greater insight into whether Maliki or Sadr gained or lost from this undertaking; how well or badly the Iraqi Security Forces performed; and what kind of deal (if any) the Iraqi Government accepted in return for Sadr’s order to stand down his forces. The following lists provide a brief summary of what we can say with confidence about recent operations and what we cannot…”

Human Smoke by Nicholas Barker, Commentary, by David Pryce-Jones
“A writer of some note, whose last book, Checkpoint (2004), was a novel debating the merits of assassinating George W. Bush, has now published a work characterizing Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Winston Churchill as warmongers and claiming that, thanks to them, Western civilization was lost…”

Irony on the Street, National Review Online, by Thomas Sowell
There was a real irony in the recent intervention by the Federal Reserve System to provide the money that enabled the firm of JPMorgan Chase to buy Bear Stearns before it went bankrupt. The point was to try to prevent a domino effect of panic in the financial markets that could lead to a downturn in the economy.

Mandates Are Not the Answer, City Journal, by David Gratzer and Paul Howard
“Insurers call them “young invincibles”: twentysomething hipsters who will spend $4 on a café latte or $80 on a monthly gym membership but won’t buy health insurance. “Health insurance wasn’t even an option,” 24-year-old aspiring designer Andrew Ondrejcak told the magazine New York in March 2007. “I was flying through my savings, trying to get a career started. . . . The last thing I’m going to do is spend $300 or whatever on insurance, you know?” Ondrejcak’s personal health plan: running, yoga, and vitamins. The cost: acute appendicitis and a $37,000 hospital bill…”

Israel and the Palestinians: Has Bush Reneged?, Commentary, by Norman Podhoretz
“On June 24, 2002, George W. Bush, having already become the first American President to come out openly and officially for the establishment of a Palestinian state, attached two stern conditions to that new policy. The United States, he declared, “will not support the establishment of a Palestinian state until its leaders engage in a sustained fight against the terrorists and dismantle their infrastructure.” This commitment constitutes what I have called the “Fourth Pillar” of the Bush Doctrine, and many friends of Israel now believe that Bush has reneged on it…”

Biography Isn’t Enough, New York Times, by William Kristol
“The McCain campaign’s first general election ad, released Friday, includes moving footage of him as a prisoner of war. What was Democratic Chairman Howard Dean’s reaction? “While we honor McCain’s military service, the fact is Americans want a real leader who offers real solutions, not a blatant opportunist who doesn’t understand the economy and is promising to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years.”…”

Bearish on Bail-Outs, National Review Online, by Thomas Sowell
“There was a real irony in the recent intervention by the Federal Reserve System to provide the money that enabled the firm of JPMorgan Chase to buy Bear Stearns before it went bankrupt. The point was to try to prevent a domino effect of panic in the financial markets that could lead to a downturn in the economy…”

It is the jihad that continues to this day. But now, fifteen years after radical Islam first declared war by detonating a complex chemical bomb in the heart of the global financial system, former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy provides a unique insider’s perspective on America’s first response.

McCarthy led the historic prosecution against the jihad organization that carried out the World Trade Center attack: the “battalions of Islam” inspired by Omar Abdel Rahman, the notorious “Blind Sheikh.” In Willful Blindness, he unfolds the troubled history of modern American counterterrorism. It is a portrait of stark contrast: a zealous international network of warriors dead certain, despite long odds, that history and Allah are on their side, pitted against the world’s lone superpower, unsure of what it knows, of what it fights, and of whether it has the will to win.

It is the story of a nation and its government consciously avoiding Islam’s animating role in Islamic terror. From the start, it led top U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies to underestimate, ignore, and even abet zealots determined to massacre Americans. Even today, after thousands of innocent lives lost, our eyes avert from harsh reality.

——–

“Finally, from the legal front line, a devastating account of the peril we put our country in when we treat terrorist atrocities as if they were mere crimes. Andy McCarthy was there when the jihad began. Read this book and you’ll understand why this war is a war, and why we have no choice but to fight it and win it.”

Rush Limbaugh

“Willful Blindness is the best book I have ever read about terrorism, bar none. It is arguably the most stirring, brilliantly written, and devastatingly honest book on terrorism that has ever been published. Written by one of our nation’s greatest prosecutors, who understood early on from his successful prosecution of the 1993 World Trade Center plotters what our country was up against, Andy McCarthy tells the shocking story of our nation’s refusal to acknowledge the deadly adversary we are facing. His mesmerizing analysis of the nature of radical jihad’s war against the West will change the way you look at our future. Brutally candid and eloquent, this book is one that you MUST read. You simply have no choice. I have been writing about or working in national security for the past nearly 30 years, and from the moment I opened this book, I could not put it down until I finished the last page. I sat in stunned silence, but also eternally grateful that one of our top public servants finally had the guts to tell it like it is: a worldwide jihadist movement has operated in plain sight in our country, where policymakers were, and are, too politically correct to recognize it.”

Steven Emerson
Author of the bestseller American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Amongst Us
Executive Director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism

“In any intellectual street fight or battle, I want Andy McCarthy on my side—he is a smart and forceful intellectual ally. In a time of war, this is all the more so, and America is lucky to have him on hers.”

William J. Bennett
Host, Bill Bennett’s Morning in America

——–

Chapter 1

“Imagine the Liability!”

“Imagine the liability!”

We were squinting in a new dawn’s first glimmers. A terrifying new dawn. Law enforcement’s visionaries—and, yes, there really were a few—could not yet see how profoundly things had changed, how the very notion of law enforcement would have to change. Already, though, there was reason enough to blanch at the insouciant idiocy of that reedy sigh of relief.

Imagine the liability! The words spilled from the lips of the FBI’s top foreign counterintelligence agent in New York City. Fifteen years later, the plea is as jarring as when first I heard it. For all the sober resolutions about new enforcement “paradigms,” it endures: endogenous, invariant, maybe immutable. By July 1993, I’d already been in government for well over a decade, so the ethos was far from unknown to me. Still, the thud I was sure I heard had to be the sound of my jaw striking the war room floor.

War room. There was an irony. There was a war on, alright. But not in that room. The war was right outside the window that looked out on the frenetic majesty of lower Manhattan. It may be impossible to clap with one hand, but a war can be fought by one side. Radical Islam was proving it. Inside the “war room,” however, there was no war. There was legal strategizing.

Just a few blocks away, not five months before, the most brazen attack against the American homeland since Pearl Harbor had taken place, the bombing of the World Trade Center. Hard on it had followed an even more ambitious—though unsuccessful—mass-murder plot against other New York City landmarks. Yet the vigorous government counterattack being planned in that room involved no military personnel, no intelligence officers, no maps or grids or pins.

We were writing an indictment.

In 1993, the United States Department of Justice Department was not merely the point of America’s counterterrorist spear. It was the spear. Period. The enemy was at war. Jihadists had made that exquisitely clear, in word as well as deed. Our response was to call in not the marines, but the prosecutors. And here in the war room, by the battle’s frontline, I would be the field commander.

My chief qualification? Why, I was a lawyer, of course.

It had to be that way, at least for a time. We’d been struck a stunning blow. But, unlike Pearl Harbor, we didn’t yet know exactly where it had come from, or why. Well, better to say, “We didn’t yet know exactly what we knew,” because, as it turned out, we had reason to know plenty. In any event, it is now patent that the bombing and its aftermath marked a liminal moment in American history: An offensive executed by sub-sovereign, transnational enemies, embedded and operating not only from inaccessible safe-havens but also within friendly nations. This was to be the era of asymmetric warfare, fueled by a chiliastic ideology, barbarously capitalizing on civilization’s once-settled assumptions about the limits of deviancy.

The war was on, but we didn’t see it yet. It was still dawn and we were playing catch-up. That we couldn’t see clearly was a problem easily rectified by information. That we wouldn’t see even upon informing ourselves—that was a problem within us. One that hasn’t changed. The enemy’s declaration of war would be complemented by a campaign of murder and mayhem, culminating in the same place, eight years later, when this first strike would be dwarfed. In the interim, the United States would respond with law. And so, while the enemy prosecuted the war, we prosecuted the enemy—er, the defendants.

No surprise there. For government, “Terror” was the new “Drugs,” which themselves had been the new “Poverty”—the trendy nuisance sure to register at the ballot box. There was no stomach and, it was supposed back then, no cause, to wage a real war. When the public is roused, though, high officials must always be seen as doing something! So, urgently flipping to page one of the High Official Playbook, they declared “war” and put the lawyers in charge. In terms of actual national commitment, such wars translate into a somewhat higher priority than the dogged pursuit of tax cheats and corporate fraudsters. To be sure, jihad differs from Wars on Drugs, Poverty, Disease, Incivility, Intolerance, Greenhouse Gases, or whatever the next Flavor of the Month may be. Jihad, after all, actually does involve warfare: real bombs, real victims, and real death. But the distinction is lost when the side that declares only rhetorical war is exclusively on the receiving end of the blows and reacts by installing its lawyers at the helm.

As a class, baby-boom attorneys know nothing of war. Prosecutors included. The vast majority (I am no exception) has never donned the uniform. In our formative years, unparalleled American might provided the luxury of paying scant mind to matters martial. Except, that is, in those airy precincts of academe that churn out our swelling nomiocracy—there, the rich variety of scholarly nuance runs from barely concealed contempt to outright revulsion.

Yet lawyers, and most of all trial lawyers, are peerlessly grandiose when it comes to slaying such dragons as there are. The witness who must be impeached—destroyed!—so that the breach of some humdrum supply contract can be proved—and victory won!—becomes the megalo-mind’s personal Iwo Jima. Or so he thinks as he imagines the liability.

It was only natural, then, that we should be standing in what, without a trace of embarrassment, was called a “war room.” The designation is crisis-headquarters cachet for an otherwise nondescript file-strewn government office, nestled in an impractical, Seventies-style government office building. A “war room” is the portentous Central Command for game-planning litigation in the criminal justice system. And this particular war room was thus cachet within cachet. Not only was it dedicated to a litigation like no other; the building it was inside breathed a sense of purpose belying its prosaic appearance.

    And yet, despite this dominant and sprawling campaign, the facts behind global warming remain as confounding as ever.

    In Climate Confusion, distinguished climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer observes that our obsession with global warming has only clouded the issue. Forsaking blindingly technical statistics and doomsday scenarios, Dr. Spencer explains in simple terms how the climate system really works, why man’s role in global warming is more myth than science, and how the global warming hype has corrupted Washington and the scientific community.

    The reasons, Spencer explains, are numerous: biases in governmental funding of scientific research, our misconceptions about science and basic economics, even our religious beliefs and worldviews. From Al Gore to Leonardo DiCaprio, the climate change industry has given a platform to leading figures from all walks of life, as pandering politicians, demagogues and biased scientists forge a self-interested movement whose proposed policy initiatives could ultimately devastate the economies of those developing countries they purport to aid.

    Climate Confusion is a much needed wake up call for all of us on planet earth. Dr. Spencer’s clear-eyed approach, combined with his sharp wit and intellect, brings transparency and levity to the issue of global warming, as he takes on wrong-headed attitudes and misguided beliefs that have led to our state of panic. Climate Confusion lifts the shroud of mystery that has hovered here for far too long and offers an end to this frenzy of misinformation in our lives.

——–

“Climate Confusion is the best book length treatment of global warming science that is available to the literate citizen. The title says it all. Spencer explains the broad agreement over the existence of some climate change and the existence of some human role, but he also explains why these have little to do with the implausible and overheated projections of environmental disaster. The author thus cuts through all the rhetorical brickbats of “denialism” and “salvationism” to allow the citizen to reach rational conclusions. Despite a light touch, Spencer does not pull punches when it comes to unclothing the moral pretenses of many in the environmental movement—pretenses often disguising some truly immoral agendas.”

Richard S. Lindzen
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

“An outstanding discussion of the many scientific, political and religious problems associated with the acceptance that humans are the primary cause of global warming. A must read for anyone wanting a full and balanced understanding of the global warming debate.”

William M. Gray
Professor Emeritus, Department of Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University

“Roy Spencer’s Climate Confusion is needed to put the global warming hysteria in its rightful place. He has done a yeoman’s job in making the issue understandable and accessible to the general public without a sacrifice in the rigor of his arguments.”

Walter E. Williams
John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics
George Mason University

“If you have an interest in global warming, but are intimidated by equations and scientific terminology, this book is for you. The author explores the philosophy of global warming (and cooling), examines the limitations of global numerical models for which all alarmist statements are based, and discusses the economics of alternative actions that might be pursued. This book is an excellent read!”

Neil L. Frank
Former Director National Hurricane Center

——–

Prologue

Mark Twain observed that “everyone talks about the weather, but no one does anything about it.” Well, today’s popular view is that we finally are doing something about the weather. We are making it worse.

Because of humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, many scientists are predicting dramatic weather changes ahead. Depending upon which scientists you believe, the extra carbon dioxide we are putting in the atmosphere could melt the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, flooding coastal locations worldwide. It could shut down the Atlantic Gulf Stream and oceanic thermohaline circulation, triggering the rapid onset of a new Ice Age. Global weather circulation changes could cause more severe floods and droughts, altering or even destroying entire ecosystems.

The fear of global warming has galvanized the environmental movement and has led to billions of dollars in federal expenditures to observe and understand the climate system. It has spun off popular movies and helped to solidify political movements, such as the Green Party in Germany. Even a former U.S. Vice President, Al Gore, has written books and made a movie addressing the problem. Global warming has given new purpose to the lives of entertainers and movie stars, some of whom have taken a special interest in the issue.

Oh, and we scientists who make our living off it think it’s a pretty cool gig, too.

But now, the western world’s fear of global warming and its effects has reached the point of being an obsession. The media is more than willing to spread, and even amplify, the fear that humanity is filling up the Earth, pushing it beyond its ability to sustain us. Mother Nature is suffering as a result of our sins, and humans are now being increasingly blamed for every hurricane, tornado, tsunami, earthquake, flood, and drought that occurs.

Art Bell’s popular book The Coming Global Superstorm and its movie spin-off, The Day After Tomorrow, are good examples of the public’s fascination with fears of global climate catastrophes. I would say that the coming global superstorm has already arrived—but it is a storm of hype and hysteria.

I believe that the environmental fears that have consumed the western world stem from two central beliefs. The first is that the Earth is fragile and needs to be protected, even to the detriment of humans if necessary. Many people feel like the climate system is being pushed beyond its limits, past some imaginary tipping point from which there will be no return.

The second belief is that the increasing wealth of nations is bad for the environment. Since technology and our desire for more stuff are to blame for environmental problems, we should renounce our modern lifestyle.

I will argue for exactly the opposite viewpoint: that the Earth is pretty resilient; and that only through mankind’s ingenuity and freedom to create wealth do we solve, or at least minimize, environmental problems as they arise.

We have had no shortage of pessimistic environmental predictions over the last forty years. The birth of the modern environmental movement is usually traced to the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring. A biologist, Carson was passionate about the dangers of the insecticide DDT, which was in widespread use at the time. One concern was that DDT was causing a thinning of egg shells in some birds; another was that DDT was causing problems throughout the food chain.

While Carson is still admired for paving the way for future generations of environmentalists, governmental policies resulting from her work have caused the deaths of literally millions of people by allowing malaria to thrive in Africa. Instead of greatly reducing the amount of DDT that was so indiscriminately sprayed on crops, governments banned the use of the pesticide altogether. That the most famous policy reaction to environmental concerns has caused so much human suffering should, by itself, make us wary of any sweeping efforts to “protect the environment.”

While Carson’s research dealt with the dangers of one particular insecticide, it wasn’t long before predictions of more widespread doom from other human pressures on the environment began to appear. In Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 book, The Population Bomb, Ehrlich predicted that worldwide crises in food supply and natural resource availability would occur by 1990. Huge famines and economic system failures were predicted, destabilizing social and political order in the world. The basic premise of the book was that, while available resources were growing linearly with time, the population of the Earth was growing faster, at a geometric rate. Eventually, the population pressure would be too much—unsustainable in today’s environmentally-friendly lexicon.

The only problem with Ehrlich’s premise was that it was not true, and the crises never materialized. This led to the economist Julian Simon winning a famous bet with Ehrlich over whether several natural resources would become less or more available between 1980 and 1990. Simon allowed Ehrlich to choose five metals that Ehrlich thought would go up in price. Ehrlich chose copper, chrome, nickel, tin, and tungsten. A decrease in resource availability would be measured as an increase in price. Ten years later, in 1990, Dr. Ehrlich was forced to write a check to Dr. Simon, since the cost of all of the metals had decreased over the previous ten years.

While Ehrlich was correct that the amount of raw material in the ground does go down as mankind removes it, Julian Simon noted that mankind always adapts. We become more efficient in our use of those materials, or we find replacement materials. Someday we might even be mining our landfills to recover and recycle discarded materials.

In fact, almost all known reserves of resources have actually grown faster than the population over time. Even the United Nations, which never saw a crisis it wouldn’t take money for to fail at solving, has projected that the global population will level off in this century. But this hasn’t prevented a variety of experts to continue to claim that humanity’s current rate of consumption can not be sustained.

Not every environmentalist has bought into predictions of global doom, though. In the late 1990s, a professor of statistics and self-proclaimed environmentalist decided to examine many of the environmentalists’ claims. Bjorn Lomborg and his statistics students started investigating the data that environmentalists were basing their gloomy predictions of environmental disaster on. He thus embarked on his road to conversion from environmental worry-wart to an optimistic defender of capitalism and the future of both humanity and the Earth.

By almost every measure, Lomborg found that the state of humanity and the Earth has gradually improved, most noticeably in the last hundred years. On average, people are living longer, healthier, better-fed, and more prosperous lives than ever before. Many diseases have been eradicated, and the gradual spread of free markets around the world has led to more efficient and cleaner use of natural resources.

In his book The Skeptical Environmentalist, Lomborg makes it clear that there is still room for improvement in many areas. But the idea that “things are getting worse” is just plain wrong.

Even overpopulation is now much less of a concern than it used to be. As the developing countries of the world become modernized, their birth rates fall. And despite population increases in recent decades, agricultural output has gone up even faster—on less farmland!

Now, global warming is the cause du jour. Environmentalists, politicians, clergy, doctors, actors, musicians, and representatives of probably every other profession have all spoken out about the danger that global warming poses to both humanity and the Earth.

That mankind inadvertently influences the weather is true, at least to some extent. It would be surprising indeed if the climate system did not notice that six billion people live on the Earth. Everything influences the weather. Why should it be any different for humans? A forest changes the weather from what it would otherwise be if the forest did not exist. The same goes for lakes and oceans, rivers, plains, and mountains. We might have a fond attachment to deserts, but think objectively about what they really are: vast stretches of nearly dead land.

The romantic notion that nature untouched by man is “pristine” is a philosophic, even religious, point of view. Why do we give nature a pass, but not ourselves? I find such attitudes fundamentally anti-human, and certainly not scientific. As long as we keep being told, explicitly in news stories, or implicitly through movie themes, that we are the enemies of the environment, then we will be too meek to stand up for ourselves and our right to use nature for our own purposes. I believe that the only rights that the natural world has are those conferred upon it by humans.

Once we elevate the concerns of nature above those of people, we abdicate our authority to do the things that are necessary to improve the human condition. Yet you seldom hear this point of view being advanced. It is considered politically incorrect, anthropocentric, arrogant, or even worse—capitalistic.

I am part of the relatively small, infamous minority of climate researchers known as global warming “skeptics.” Despite the oft-repeated claims of our detractors, it is not true that we do not believe in global warming. Al Gore has grown fond of calling us “global warming deniers,” apparently hoping to confuse the public through propaganda, knowing full well that none of us deny that global warming has taken place. What we are skeptical of is the theory that all (or even most) of global warming is caused by mankind, or that we understand the climate system and our future technological state well enough to make predictions of global warming in the next fifty to one hundred years, or that we need to reduce fossil fuel use now.

There are two themes in environmentalist rhetoric that seek to discredit us so-called skeptics on global warming issues. The first is that corporations with lots of wealth buy influence from skeptics, and therefore we can’t be trusted. The second is that skeptics use scientific disinformation in their attempts to undermine the scientific consensus that global warming is real.

On the first point, contrary to what most would expect, the financial incentive for individual scientists to speak out on global warming is on the side of the global warming alarmists. While private industry would seem to have the most money available to “buy” opinions, big corporations tend to shy away from that kind of influence. For instance, in my case I have never been approached by any energy company seeking to pay me for any service. I wrote “skeptical” articles and book chapters, for no pay, for thirteen years before a science and technology website, TechCentralStation.com, offered to pay me to write articles about the latest newsworthy events that involved global warming.

While I have given talks to organizations which are partly funded by “Big Oil,” I have also given similar talks to state environmental organizations. Left-leaning websites like ExxonSecrets.org mention only the former in their attempts to make it look like we global warming optimists are simply shills for big business. This guilt-by-association tactic helps them avoid having to address our arguments based on science.

Corporations recognize the need for government-sponsored research to help answer scientific questions since that research is presumably unbiased. But as we shall see, the governmental funding of researchers is definitely biased toward work that demonstrates that global warming is a threat, since this helps to maintain research programs at NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the EPA, and the Department of Energy.

In contrast, philanthropic foundations with leftist boards of directors routinely give money to alarmist causes. For instance, $500,000 no-strings-attached grants have been awarded by the MacArthur Foundation to climate researchers who speak out publicly against the global warming threat. James Hansen, the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, received a $250,000 grant from a foundation headed by John Kerry’s wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry. That Hansen publicly endorsed John Kerry for president in 2004 is claimed to be an unrelated coincidence.

There are no such conservatively funded monetary awards that I am aware of. And based upon its historical record, you can bet that a Nobel Prize will never be awarded to the scientist who ever demonstrates that global warming is not the huge threat to mankind that it is advertised to be.

While there are a number of pro-free market organizations that receive funds from big corporations, the dollar amounts pale in comparison to the budgets of environmental organizations. By far the largest supporter of environmental groups and climate researchers is the federal government, with your tax dollars. And the dirty little secret is that many environmental organizations are also funded by Big Oil.

For many years now, well over $100 million a year has been flowing from the federal government to environmental lobby groups. The federal government routinely funds so-called nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that turn right around and lobby the government to support environmental causes that the NGOs depend upon for their survival. Yes, I know this seemingly incestuous relationship would be inconsistent with the high regard you have for politicians, but trust me, it is true.

The environmental movement is indeed a huge financial machine with all the power and influence that comes with money. What happens to this machine if interest in environmentalism wanes? At least for-profit corporations offer goods and services that people will continue to need. In contrast, without a constant supply of environmental scares, environmental organizations will simply die.

I am not claiming that environmental organizations shouldn’t be funded. I am saying that they should not be throwing stones while operating out of glass buildings.

The second accusation about global warming skeptics is that we sow scientific disinformation to undermine the scientific consensus that “global warming is real.” I would call that disinformation. Every scientist-skeptic I know believes that global warming is real. Instead, the central questions being debated are: How much of the Earth’s current warmth is the result of natural processes versus the activities of mankind? How bad will global warming be in the future? And maybe most importantly, what can and should be done about it?

While science can give us some useful information on the threat of global warming, it has nothing to say about our response to it. Science is values-neutral and policy-neutral. Instead, what should be done about global warming comes from people’s belief systems: their opinions of the proper role of government, understanding of economics, and even their religious faith and worldview.

Like previous authors, I could have written a book on the dry, scientific evidence for and against global warming theory, and what scientists currently believe about the threat that global warming poses to mankind. And this book does include explanations of how hurricanes, tornadoes, and less newsworthy weather events relate to global warming. But as scientific understanding changes, such books can quickly become outdated.

While I will refer to a few important works that support my views, I will avoid detailed listings of scientific findings, pro or con. These give the impression that stacks of evidence in the pro-warming or anti-warming pile determine who wins the scientific debate. And while it is true that more scientific findings are supportive of global warming theory than those that aren’t, we will see that this is largely the result of the research funding deck being stacked against us skeptics.

Rather than discussing the latest global warming research and what it means, I will instead address the overriding issues and concepts that will not soon change in the scientific debate. I will describe why I believe that the Earth’s climate system is not nearly as fragile as most computerized climate models tell us it is, and what amounts to the climate system’s thermostatic control mechanism.

An informed public is vital during this age of political pandering to constituent’s views. The mainstream news media not only decides what you should know, but tells you what you should think about it. They uncritically accept every environmental scare. In their imaginary world, environmental regulations have no downside, and we can have all benefits with no risks.

This book is one small effort to help balance those influences in the global warming arena. I am now convinced that currently proposed global warming policies will actually do more harm than good—to both humanity and the environment. I will explain, in simple terms, why so many scientists believe that manmade global warming is a dangerous threat, and why I believe that they are wrong.

I will explain why the theory of manmade global warming will always remain just a theory, despite increasing numbers of people who are trying very hard to convince you it is fact. The emotional attachment that these people have to catastrophic global warming can be traced to a variety of self interests—careers, political and social policies, philosophies and religious beliefs—all masquerading as science.

And since policy decisions are usually economic decisions, unless we understand basic economic principles, it is impossible for us to have any meaningful opinions on what should be done about global warming. Even though environmentalists are insisting that we do something now about global warming, I will demonstrate why the unintended negative consequences of such a view might well do more harm than good. If you read only one chapter in this book, I suggest Chapter 6 (It’s Economics, Stupid)—it really is that important.

So, while we are waiting for the predicted meltdown of planet Earth, I would like to guide you through not only the science issues, but also the philosophical, economic, political, and even religious elements that can not be separated from how we view the global warming problem.

Critics of this book will say that my treatment of global warming is obviously biased. And they are right. I have studied the issues enough to have developed some very strong biases on the subject. But it is not a question of whether bias exists—for we are all biased. It is a question of which bias is the best bias to be biased with.

I began reading not only the economics of Thomas Sowell (our greatest contemporary philosopher) but Milton Friedman, Paul Johnson, and Shelby Steele, and a host of conservative writers, and found that I agreed with them: a free-market understanding of the world meshes more perfectly with my experience than that idealistic vision I called liberalism.

And that’s in the pages of the Village Voice no less (?!) If your mind is not sufficiently blown you’ll want to read the whole thing.

(Mamet and Alec Baldwin)

Roger Kimball says “it gives one faith in human nature”:

Mamet’s account of his achievement of what a friend of mine calls “political maturity” is noteworthy. It is a chrysalis-to-butterfly evolution I’ve witnessed often in intelligent people of good will and sound instincts. “I took the liberal view for many decades,” Mamet admits, “but I believe I have changed my mind.”

Who’s next? Kushner, Nichols? Babs?

Well he doesn’t look blind.

Here’s the roundup:

Non-Judgemental Nonsense, TownHall, by Thomas Sowell
“What was he thinking of? That was the first question that came to mind when the story of New York governor Eliot Spitzer’s involvement with a prostitution ring was reported in the media. It was also the first question that came to mind when star quarterback Michael Vick ruined his career and lost his freedom over his involvement in illegal dog fighting. It is a question that arises when other very fortunate people risk everything for some trivial satisfaction…”

What’s the Matter with New York?, Kansas Liberty, by Dennis Boyles
“I’ve been doing lots of radio interviews recently talking about my latest book, Superior, Nebraska, and the ways people vote in the Midwest. The common question, borrowed from William Allen White (and purloined by everybody from Harrison George to Thomas Frank, and always to argue against White’s brittle views of arrogant outsiders), is by now trite: “What’s the matter with Kansas?”…”

David Paterson’s Unusual Rise, New York Post, by Fred Siegel
“NEW York may be about to have its first African- American governor - and not a minute too soon. The “dirty tricks” scandal - Gov. Spitzer’s attempt to use the State Police to “steamroll” state Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno, and his subsequent clumsy coverup - now looks like small potatoes…”

The Cost of Crime, RealClearPolitics, by Thomas Sowell
For more than two centuries, the political left has been preoccupied with the fate of criminals, often while ignoring or downplaying the fate of the victims of those criminals. So it is hardly surprising that a recent New York Times editorial has returned to a familiar theme among those on the left, on both sides of the Atlantic, with its lament that “incarceration rates have continued to rise while crime rates have fallen.”…”

Don’t Let Elliot Spitzer Get Away with Being Called a Hypocrite, RealClearPolitics, by Roger Kimball
“Having just learned the news about New York Governor Eliot Spitzer’s expensive taste in tarts, a friend emailed to ask me what was the fancy word was that meant taking malicious pleasure in the misfortune of others: “Spitzer?” he suggested…”

If Europe is still democratic, and if it still embraces the free market, why should anyone care that Judaeo-Christian religious beliefs are slipping across the region? Of course, the tide of faith has been going out for a long time — since the Enlightenment — and the rise of science is a good reason why. But Prof. Thornton says this is particularly worrisome today because of the coinciding rise of radical Islam.

Listen to it here.

Or read this recent Wall Street Journal interview with Mr. Sowell:

Q: What’s an example of a fallacy from your book?

A: One is the income gap between rich and poor. It’s maddening to me to keep hearing how the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, and so on. The fundamental difference is the difference between talking about abstract statistical categories and talking about flesh-and-blood human beings. Since the book came out, for example, there’s been a study released by the Treasury Department based on income tax returns. There, they are talking about following the same human beings over a span of years, which is wholly different from following income brackets over a span of years, because in all the brackets more than half the people change in the course of a decade. So what happens to a bracket is an abstract question; what happens to the flesh-and-blood human beings is different.