The Global Climate Change Hoax

You'll never hear the following facts on global climate change from the hard-left news media or that despicable huckster, Al Gore.

Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations

Dec. 13, 2007

His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon
Secretary-General, United Nations
New York, N.Y.

Dear Mr. Secretary-General,

Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by ­government ­representatives. The great ­majority of IPCC contributors and ­reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.

Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:

1. Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.

2. The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.

3. Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.

In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.

The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.

The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.

Yours faithfully,

Signatories of an open letter on the UN climate-conference

Published: Wednesday, December 12, 2007

The following are signatories to the Dec. 13th letter to the Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations on the UN Climate conference in Bali:

Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired vice-chancellor and president, University of Canberra, Australia

William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand

Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg

Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany

Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, U.K.; Editor, Energy & Environment journal

Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S.

Reid A. Bryson, PhD, DSc, DEngr, UNE P. Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin

Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta

R.M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand

David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma

Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University

Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia

Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands

Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario

David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of 'Science Speak,' Australia

William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame

Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia

R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa

Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany

Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay

Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden

Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand

William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project

Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut

Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia

Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona

Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA

Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis

Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, NSW, Australia

Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia

Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia

David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand

Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007

William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization's Commission for Climatology Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands

Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands

The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.

Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware

Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand

William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif.

Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors

Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia

Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia

Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany

John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand

Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.

Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph

John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia

Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand

Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University

Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University

Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia

Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden

Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia

David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

James J. O'Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University

Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia

Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia

R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University

Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota

Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan

Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences

Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force

R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology

Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.

Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway

Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA

S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service

L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario

Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden

Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager - Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC

Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia

Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia

Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany

Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia

Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia

A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy

Memo To The Next President

It is common knowledge that the federal government is hopelessly broken on virtually all fronts. Here is a reasonable proposal that would go a long way to fixing that problem if only the next president would take it seriously.

Rx For America: Cost-Benefit Budgeting

By ERNEST S. CHRISTIAN AND BILL FRENZEL

Thursday, December 06, 2007

Rudy Giuliani says he's a turnaround expert, a take-charge guy who came into a bad situation (New York City) and fixed it. Mitt Romney makes the same claim (the Olympics), and he is really smart with money.

If these guys are as good as their records suggest, then what America needs is a good strong dose of Rudy-Mitt in fixing the situation in Washington, where costs are exceeding benefits by a wide margin.

Step one for the next president should be to tell the American people the truth about the federal government. It is not the source of their well-being. Most of the jobs it creates are for lawyers, lobbyists and bureaucrats. Mostly, it spends other people's money.

Congress No Help

When government spending goes up, taxes go up, the private-sector economy suffers and most people who depend on it for a living are worse off. The collateral and direct damage from a dollar of tax increase often exceeds by a factor of two the benefit from a dollar of government spending. Much government spending is simply a waste, and everybody in America knows it.

Step two is to fix the problem — a task that will require an extraordinary effort by an extraordinary president. The Congress will not be of much help. In its present state, it's an institution addicted to spending and dedicated to concealing its cost.

The new president can succeed by directly involving the American people in a new kind of federal budget process that weighs the high cost of taxes against the generally low value of government spending. We call it the Cost-Benefit Budget.

The government's own Office of Management and Budget already has a performance rating technique called PART.

Under the new budgeting procedure, PART would be refined, expanded and used to reveal — for each federal spending program — both the amount spent and the benefit achieved. An independent top-level analytical unit would be established in the Treasury Department to determine the real economic cost of taxes and to inform the public.

Knowing The Score

Armed with this information, the president would identify federal programs to be curtailed or eliminated because their benefit ratings under PART are less than the damage done by taxes necessary to pay for them. At the end of the year, the president would first declare a tax cut "dividend" for the American people — to be paid for by specifically identified spending reductions.

After an appropriate public comment period, he would ask the Congress to cut both taxes and spending accordingly. All this would be conducted out in the open. The voters would know what is going on — what is being given up, what is being gained — and allowed to participate.

All newly enacted spending programs would by law be accompanied by a "cost-benefit impact statement" that states in detail (1) the benefits to be achieved, how and by when and (2) the nominal and real costs in terms of tax cuts foregone or tax increases imposed.

Everyone would know the cost-benefit score. There would be no more earmarks. No more secret deals. Two years after enactment, each new spending program that passed the initial test would be subject to the regular Cost-Benefit Budget curtailment or elimination process based on benefits achieved in relation to cost.

Telling the voters the truth always has large consequences. Obviously, enactment and successful application of a Cost-Benefit Budget at the federal level would cause an enormous change in public finance all across the board.

Finally, Truth

There could also be a historic realignment of the relationships between government and the governed. Government "spending" no longer would automatically mean "benefits."

Instead, spending increases would become a synonym for higher taxes. Higher taxes would correctly be understood by an informed public to mean a smaller economy and lower incomes. Conversely, in the new lexicon of truth-telling, spending cuts would mean a tax cut, a larger economy and higher incomes.

When it comes to providing the most benefit to the most people for the longest period of time, it is only the best and the most efficient government spending programs that can compete with higher incomes and lower taxes.

A simple exposition of that powerful truth by the next president could change politics in America forever.

Christian, an attorney, was a deputy assistant secretary of Treasury in the Ford administration. Frenzel is a former Republican congressman from Minnesota who served on the Ways and Means and Budget committees.

Iran: National Intelligence Estimate

Abstract: We assess with high confidence that Iran has the scientific, technical and industrial capacity to produce nuclear weapons … We assess with high confidence that Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons despite its international obligations and international pressure … We assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons.

Score: Iran - 1, U.S. - 0.

Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities
Official Statement From The Office Of The Director Of National Intelligence

POSTED: 1:50 pm EST December 3, 2007
UPDATED: 4:59 pm EST December 3, 2007

The Director of National Intelligence serves as the head of the Intelligence Community (IC), overseeing and directing the implementation of the National Intelligence Program and acting as the principal advisor to the President, the National Security Council, and the Homeland Security Council for intelligence matters.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence is charged with:

 Integrating the domestic and foreign dimensions of US intelligence so that there are no gaps in our understanding of threats to our national security;

 Bringing more depth and accuracy to intelligence analysis; and

 Ensuring that US intelligence resources generate future capabilities as well as present results.

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE COUNCIL

Since its formation in 1973, the National Intelligence Council (NIC) has served as a bridge between the intelligence and policy communities, a source of deep substantive expertise on critical national security issues, and as a focal point for Intelligence Community collaboration. The NIC's key goal is to provide policymakers with the best, unvarnished, and unbiased information—regardless of whether analytic judgments conform to US policy. Its primary functions are to:

 Support the DNI in his role as Principal Intelligence Advisor to the President and other senior policymakers.

 Lead the Intelligence Community's effort to produce National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs) and other NIC products that address key national security concerns.

 Provide a focal point for policymakers, warfighters, and Congressional leaders to task the Intelligence Community for answers to important questions.

 Reach out to nongovernment experts in academia and the private sector—and use alternative analyses and new analytic tools—to broaden and deepen the Intelligence Community's perspective.

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ESTIMATES AND THE NIE PROCESS

National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs) are the Intelligence Community’s (IC) most authoritative written judgments on national security issues and designed to help US civilian and military leaders develop policies to protect US national security interests.

NIEs usually provide information on the current state of play but are primarily “estimative”—that is, they make judgments about the likely course of future events and identify the implications for US policy.

The NIEs are typically requested by senior civilian and military policymakers, Congressional leaders and at times are initiated by the National Intelligence Council (NIC). Before a NIE is drafted, the relevant NIO is responsible for producing a concept paper or terms of reference (TOR) and circulates it throughout the Intelligence Community for comment. The TOR defines the key estimative questions, determines drafting responsibilities, and sets the drafting and publication schedule. One or more IC analysts are usually assigned to produce the initial text. The NIC then meets to critique the draft before it is circulated to the broader IC. Representatives from the relevant IC agencies meet to hone and coordinate line-by-line the full text of the NIE. Working with their Agencies, reps also assign the level of confidence they have in each key judgment.

IC reps discuss the quality of sources with collectors, and the National Clandestine Service vets the sources used to ensure the draft does not include any that have been recalled or otherwise seriously questioned.

All NIEs are reviewed by National Intelligence Board, which is chaired by the DNI and is composed of the heads of relevant IC agencies. Once approved by the NIB, NIEs are briefed to the President and senior policymakers. The whole process of producing NIEs normally takes at least several months.

The NIC has undertaken a number of steps to improve the NIE process under the DNI.

These steps are in accordance with the goals and recommendations set out in the SSCI and WMD Commission reports and the 2004 Intelligence Reform and Prevention of Terrorism Act. Most notably, over the last year and a half, the IC has:

 Created new procedures to integrate formal reviews of source reporting and technical judgments. The Directors of the National Clandestine Service, NSA, NGA, and DIA and the Assistant Secretary/INR are now required to submit formal assessments that highlight the strengths, weaknesses, and overall credibility of their sources used in developing the critical judgments of the NIE.

 Applied more rigorous standards. A textbox is incorporated into all NIEs that explains what we mean by such terms as “we judge” and that clarifies the difference between judgments of likelihood and confidence levels. We have made a concerted effort to not only highlight differences among agencies but to explain the reasons for such differences and to prominently display them in the Key Judgments.

S c o p e N o t e

This National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) assesses the status of Iran’s nuclear program, and the program’s outlook over the next 10 years. This time frame is more appropriate for estimating capabilities than intentions and foreign reactions, which are more difficult to estimate over a decade. In presenting the Intelligence Community’s assessment of Iranian nuclear intentions and capabilities, the NIE thoroughly reviews all available information on these questions, examines the range of reasonable scenarios consistent with this information, and describes the key factors we judge would drive or impede nuclear progress in Iran. This NIE is an extensive reexamination of the issues in the May 2005 assessment.

This Estimate focuses on the following key questions:

 What are Iran’s intentions toward developing nuclear weapons?

 What domestic factors affect Iran’s decisionmaking on whether to develop nuclear weapons?

 What external factors affect Iran’s decisionmaking on whether to develop nuclear weapons?

 What is the range of potential Iranian actions concerning the development of nuclear weapons, and the decisive factors that would lead Iran to choose one course of action over another?

 What is Iran’s current and projected capability to develop nuclear weapons? What are our key assumptions, and Iran’s key chokepoints/vulnerabilities?

This NIE does not assume that Iran intends to acquire nuclear weapons. Rather, it examines the intelligence to assess Iran’s capability and intent (or lack thereof) to acquire nuclear weapons, taking full account of Iran’s dual-use uranium fuel cycle and those nuclear activities that are at least partly civil in nature.

This Estimate does assume that the strategic goals and basic structure of Iran’s senior leadership and government will remain similar to those that have endured since the death of Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989. We acknowledge the potential for these to change during the time frame of the Estimate, but are unable to confidently predict such changes or their implications. This Estimate does not assess how Iran may conduct future negotiations with the West on the nuclear issue.

This Estimate incorporates intelligence reporting available as of 31 October 2007.

What We Mean When We Say: An Explanation of Estimative Language

We use phrases such as we judge, we assess, and we estimate—and probabilistic terms such as probably and likely—to convey analytical assessments and judgments. Such statements are not facts, proof, or knowledge. These assessments and judgments generally are based on collected information, which often is incomplete or fragmentary. Some assessments are built on previous judgments. In all cases, assessments and judgments are not intended to imply that we have “proof” that shows something to be a fact or that definitively links two items or issues.

In addition to conveying judgments rather than certainty, our estimative language also often conveys 1) our assessed likelihood or probability of an event; and 2) the level of confidence we ascribe to the judgment.

Estimates of Likelihood. Because analytical judgments are not certain, we use probabilistic language to reflect the Community’s estimates of the likelihood of developments or events.

Terms such as probably, likely, very likely, or almost certainly indicate a greater than even chance. The terms unlikely and remote indicate a less then even chance that an event will occur; they do not imply that an event will not occur. Terms such as might or may reflect situations in which we are unable to assess the likelihood, generally because relevant information is unavailable, sketchy, or fragmented. Terms such as we cannot dismiss, we cannot rule out, or we cannot discount reflect an unlikely, improbable, or remote event whose consequences are such that it warrants mentioning. The chart provides a rough idea of the relationship of some of these terms to each other.

Remote Very Even Probably/ Very Almost unlikely Unlikely chance Likely likely certainly Confidence in Assessments. Our assessments and estimates are supported by information that varies in scope, quality and sourcing. Consequently, we ascribe high, moderate, or low levels of confidence to our assessments, as follows:

 High confidence generally indicates that our judgments are based on high-quality information, and/or that the nature of the issue makes it possible to render a solid judgment. A “high confidence” judgment is not a fact or a certainty, however, and such judgments still carry a risk of being wrong.

 Moderate confidence generally means that the information is credibly sourced and plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence.

 Low confidence generally means that the information’s credibility and/or plausibility is questionable, or that the information is too fragmented or poorly corroborated to make solid analytic inferences, or that we have significant concerns or problems with the sources.

Key Judgments A. We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program1; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons. We judge with high confidence that the halt, and Tehran’s announcement of its decision to suspend its declared uranium enrichment program and sign an Additional Protocol to its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement, was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran’s previously undeclared nuclear work.

 We assess with high confidence that until fall 2003, Iranian military entities were working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons.

 We judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. (Because of intelligence gaps discussed elsewhere in this Estimate, however, DOE and the NIC assess with only moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran's entire nuclear weapons program.)

 We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.

 We continue to assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapon.

 Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005. Our assessment that the program probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure suggests Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged previously.

B. We continue to assess with low confidence that Iran probably has imported at least some weapons-usable fissile material, but still judge with moderate-to-high confidence it has not obtained enough for a nuclear weapon. We cannot rule out that Iran has acquired from abroad—or will acquire in the future—a nuclear weapon or enough fissile material for a weapon. Barring such acquisitions, if Iran wants to have nuclear weapons it would need to produce sufficient amounts of fissile material indigenously—which we judge with high confidence it has not yet done.

C. We assess centrifuge enrichment is how Iran probably could first produce enough fissile material for a weapon, if it decides to do so. Iran resumed its declared centrifuge 1 For the purposes of this Estimate, by “nuclear weapons program” we mean Iran’s nuclear weapon design and weaponization work and covert uranium conversion-related and uranium enrichment-related work; we do not mean Iran’s declared civil work related to uranium conversion and enrichment. Enrichment activities in January 2006, despite the continued halt in the nuclear weapons program. Iran made significant progress in 2007 installing centrifuges at Natanz, but we judge with moderate confidence it still faces significant technical problems operating them.

 We judge with moderate confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon is late 2009, but that this is very unlikely.

 We judge with moderate confidence Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame.

(INR judges Iran is unlikely to achieve this capability before 2013 because of foreseeable technical and programmatic problems.) All agencies recognize the possibility that this capability may not be attained until after 2015.

D. Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so. For example, Iran’s civilian uranium enrichment program is continuing. We also assess with high confidence that since fall 2003, Iran has been conducting research and development projects with commercial and conventional military applications—some of which would also be of limited use for nuclear weapons.

E. We do not have sufficient intelligence to judge confidently whether Tehran is willing to maintain the halt of its nuclear weapons program indefinitely while it weighs its options, or whether it will or already has set specific deadlines or criteria that will prompt it to restart the program.

 Our assessment that Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to international pressure indicates Tehran’s decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic, and military costs. This, in turn, suggests that some combination of threats of intensified international scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways, might—if perceived by Iran’s leaders as credible—prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear weapons program. It is difficult to specify what such a combination might be.

 We assess with moderate confidence that convincing the Iranian leadership to forgo the eventual development of nuclear weapons will be difficult given the linkage many within the leadership probably see between nuclear weapons development and Iran’s key national security and foreign policy objectives, and given Iran’s considerable effort from at least the late 1980s to 2003 to develop such weapons. In our judgment, only an Iranian political decision to abandon a nuclear weapons objective would plausibly keep Iran from eventually producing nuclear weapons—and such a decision is inherently reversible.

F. We assess with moderate confidence that Iran probably would use covert facilities—rather than its declared nuclear sites—for the production of highly enriched uranium for a weapon. A growing amount of intelligence indicates Iran was engaged in covert uranium conversion and uranium enrichment activity, but we judge that these efforts probably were halted in response to the fall 2003 halt, and that these efforts probably had not been restarted through at least mid-2007.

G. We judge with high confidence that Iran will not be technically capable of producing and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015.

H. We assess with high confidence that Iran has the scientific, technical and industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so.

Key Differences Between the Key Judgments of This Estimate on Iran’s Nuclear Program and the May 2005 Assessment 2005 IC Estimate 2007 National Intelligence Estimate

Assess with high confidence that Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons despite its international obligations and international pressure, but we do not assess that Iran is immovable.

Judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program. Judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. (DOE and the NIC have moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran's entire nuclear weapons program.) Assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons. Judge with high confidence that the halt was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran’s previously undeclared nuclear work. Assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons. We have moderate confidence in projecting when Iran is likely to make a nuclear weapon; we assess that it is unlikely before early-to-mid next decade.

We judge with moderate confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium (HEU) for a weapon is late 2009, but that this is very unlikely. We judge with moderate confidence Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame. (INR judges that Iran is unlikely to achieve this capability before 2013 because of foreseeable technical and programmatic problems.)

Iran could produce enough fissile material for a weapon by the end of this decade if it were to make more rapid and successful progress than we have seen to date.

We judge with moderate confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium (HEU) for a weapon is late 2009, but that this is very unlikely.

Illegal Aliens Cost You A Lot of Money

Wave Of Illegals Turns Into Tsunami

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
November 29, 2007

Immigration: A new study suggests that the wave of illegal aliens is having a more serious impact — particularly on welfare spending — than commonly believed. Is anyone in Washington listening?

---

Related Topics: Immigration

---

The study by the Center for Immigration Studies notes that the estimated 10.3 million people who've come here since 2000 represent the greatest-ever migration to the U.S. over a seven-year period. Over the next decade, at current rates, another 15 million will arrive — the largest immigrant wave in our history.

Not bad for a country that supposedly is one of the most unpopular on Earth. That said, the study also notes that more than half the newcomers so far this decade — 5.6 million — have come illegally.

Of America's 39 million immigrants, representing 12.6% of our total population, at least 12 million are illegal. Most, but not all, come from Mexico and Central America.

What exactly do the numbers mean? Well, for one thing, they mean we're importing a lot of poverty — and it's skewing the debate over key public policy issues.

How often, for example, have we been hit over the head with the scary statistic that "48 million Americans don't have health insurance." But the statement is only partly true.

According to CIS, 34% of all immigrant households — or 13.3 million — don't have health insurance. And of those, 8.3 million are here illegally. They make up 18% of the nation's uninsured, if you count their American-born children.

The crisis of the uninsured, in other words, is in significant part an imported one — one that is costing untold billions.

That flies in the face of at least one widely reported recent study that claimed the U.S. spends only $1 billion on the uninsured. Even assuming that illegals use only half the health-care resources per person as the rest of the country, the total is more like $30 billion.

CIS also reckons that immigrants and their U.S.-born children account for 71% of the increase in the uninsured since 1989 — a fact that usually goes unremarked upon in the debate over health-care reform.

In addition, 59% of the illegal population and their children are at or near poverty. That comes to 8.7 million people, and compares with 19% of native households.

This translates into higher use of welfare. Nationwide, 40% of all households headed by illegal aliens use one or more major welfare programs. The share in cash programs is actually quite small — less than 1%. But 33% of all illegal households get food aid, and another 27% are on Medicaid.

Again, this means billions spent each year — and that doesn't include the growing costs associated with jailing and policing illegals who have turned to crime or gangs.

We're not immigrant-bashing here. We agree America is a nation of immigrants, and uniquely so. Nor do we wish to end immigration.

But uncontrolled illegal immigration is a big problem, especially for states such as California, Texas, Arizona and Florida.

Together, they have 54% of all the illegals and bear the brunt of the problem. States together spend $20 billion a year on illegals' welfare costs alone.

That spending has become a kind of subsidy, luring ever more illegals to the U.S. Those that come have fewer skills and less education than the rest of the population. Anyone who thinks waving a magic wand over the illegal population and making them legal will solve the problem is dreaming.

"Legalized illegals will still be overwhelmingly uneducated," the CIS report points out, "and this fact has enormous implications for their income, welfare use, health-insurance coverage and the effect on American taxpayers."

In short, they've becoming a semi-permanent, welfare-dependent underclass.

Unfortunately, when anyone brings this up, charges of "xenophobe" and "racist" get thrown around. But that only keeps us from an honest discussion — and accounting — of both the benefits and costs of our burgeoning illegal population.

Democrats Support Terrorists!

Coming to a neighborhood near you: ISLAM: Religion of Peace

Read below to learn how Democrats provide support to terrorists in this country.

CAIR's Savior In The Congress

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
November 27, 2007

Homeland Security: The Council on American-Islamic Relations has enlisted Democratic Rep. John Conyers to help repair its terror-tainted image. But his help only invites more doubt.

---

Related Topics: Religion

---

Terrorists would be hard-pressed to find a better friend in Washington. The House Judiciary Committee chairman wants to kill the Patriot Act, prevent the FBI from profiling Muslim suspects in terror probes, and even criminalize the "disrespect" of Islam.

Conyers represents the largest Arab population in the U.S. His district includes Dearborn, Mich. — nicknamed "Dearbornistan" because of its large influx of Middle Eastern immigrants and its constant focus of counterterror investigations.

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., has long been a foe of tighter security laws. Now CAIR is turning to him for assistance.

Last decade, Conyers fought FBI outreach efforts in the Arab and Muslim community there, even though they were designed to gather intelligence on potential terror cells and protect the home front.

Conyers and other Detroit-area Democrats threatened to hold hearings unless the FBI stopped counterterror interviews. Bureau officials tried to explain the national security benefits of the program, but Conyers would have none of it. In the end, they backed off.

Today, Hamas, Hezbollah and the al-Qaida-tied Muslim Brotherhood are all active in the area.

As one of the top recipients of donations from the Arab-American Leadership PAC, Conyers not surprisingly has a long history of pandering to Arab and Muslim voters.

According to FEC records, Conyers has raked in at least $11,500 from the Arab-American PAC since 2000.

Little wonder that CAIR turned to the lawmaker for help in pressuring the Justice Department to change the group's status as a co-conspirator in a terrorism case.

CAIR officials recently met with Conyers and wrote a letter asking him to lobby the new attorney general on behalf of the group, the Washington Times reports.

CAIR and its founder, Omar Ahmad, were named as members of the Muslim Brotherhood and unindicted co-conspirators in a recent federal terror trial in Dallas targeting the Holy Land Foundation. Prosecutors say that's a terror front for Hamas. A founding director of CAIR, already serving time in another terror case, was charged in the case, which ended in a mistrial. But prosecutors say they will retry it.

CAIR says it's suffering negative publicity from the case, which is hurting membership and fundraising.

It can't get a federal judge to remove its name from the co-conpirators' list. So it's secretly collaborating with Conyers to clear its name. There's even talk of holding hearings to achieve that end.

Actually, that might not be a bad idea, assuming Conyers won't limit the scope of questions from the minority GOP counsel. It's been difficult to pin CAIR down on all the terror-related charges swirling around it, because its leaders in the past have refused invitations to testify under oath.

They've denied allegations they support terrorism. But now there's new evidence, thanks to declassified transcripts of wiretaps and other documents presented in the Holy Land case.

For instance, CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad has denied supporting Hamas. But for the first time, an FBI wiretap puts him at a secret meeting last decade in a Philadelphia hotel, where Hamas leaders joined Holy Land leaders in allegedly plotting to funnel money to the Palestinian terror group under the cover of charity.

If CAIR officials have nothing to hide, they shouldn't have any problem answering questions from Republicans under oath. That would help clear their name more than any planned lovefest with Conyers.

So What The Heck Can We Do?

My Message to the Republican Governors

by Newt Gingrich (more by this author)
2007 November 27

The Republican Governors Association (RGA) meets this Thursday in California. They've asked me to lead a program on transforming government for them, and I am honored to accept.

I'm excited about this opportunity because governors are in a powerful position to help lead their citizens to expect -- and receive -- more effective, efficient policies from government. Washington may be trapped in red-versus-blue partisan bitterness, but many state governments are more open to a dialogue about new solutions and new approaches.

I am especially grateful to Gov. Sonny Perdue (R) of my home state of Georgia for inviting me. Gov. Perdue helped us launch the American Solutions movement in September, and he is determined to play a similar role in developing a revolution in productivity and effectiveness for government at the state level.

Ten Key Steps to Fundamental Transformation of the Bureaucracy

On Thursday, I will be outlining for the governors 10 key steps to fundamental transformation of the bureaucracies and systems we rely on today.

My entire presentation will be on C-SPAN (just go to cspan.org for scheduling details).

My thoughts on transformation of government have been shaped by the beliefs of the American people. To see what I'm talking about, go to AmericanSolutions.com/Research. There you will find $428,000 in research data from six national surveys for you to study and think about.

The 10 topics I will cover at the Republican governors' meeting are:

1. Moving from the world that fails to the world that works: See the "FedEx vs. Government Bureaucracy" video on youtube.com for a simple three-and-a-half-minute explanation.
   

2. The coming revolution in science and technology: There will be four to seven times more scientific innovation in the next 25 years than there was in the last quarter century. This explosion of innovation will lead to the potential for new solutions in energy, the environment, health, learning and other fields.
   

3. Prizes as a model for accelerating new ideas and new developments: Prizes, as opposed to bureaucratic government programs, allow everyone to compete in actually making things work.
   

4. Using a system of values, vision and metrics to establish what people want from their lives, their society and their government: We need to create open, transparent and accountable measures of whether the current systems are achieving these goals. We have to be willing to rethink everything until the goals are achieved.
   

5. Learning from the Giuliani-Bratton success in New York and Los Angeles: Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton transformed New York and Los Angeles by applying a system of evidence-based government to dramatically reduce crime (New York is the safest large city per thousand people in America today, and Los Angeles is second). They also applied this same model to other aspects of government (see Dennis Smith's workshop at AmericanSolutions.com for details).
   

6. Developing a commitment to legal immigration and learning English: Understanding and protecting American civilization requires assimilation into American culture, English as the official language of government, intensive English language instruction for new immigrants that need it and a renewed commitment to American history.
   

7. Creating a 21st-Century personal intelligent health system: This is the basis for better health, longer lives, lower costs and an opportunity to insure every American at a reasonable cost (go to HealthTransformation.net for more information).
   

8. Developing a new, entrepreneurial, science- and technology-based green conservative solution to the environment: "Green conservatism" is outlined in my recent book Contract with the Earth (with Terry Maple as my coauthor).
   

9. Launching a new contract with younger Americans: More younger Americans need to be engaged and challenged to a better future than methamphetamine addiction, dropping out of school and boredom.
   

10. Focusing intensely on cultural change where it's most needed: Changing the destructive cultures in the poorest and least healthy parts of America, including our prisons.

After covering these ideas, we will have an hour for discussion on how to apply them to state government.

Coming Next Week: A 'Platform for the American People'

Finally, at the RGA meeting this Thursday, I will outline the concept of a "Platform for the American People," which is something I will write you about next week. I will also be discussing this topic December 4 in Iowa.

I hope you will take a few minutes later this week to view the Republican Governors Association meeting, either on C-SPAN (go to cspan.org for scheduling information) or at AmericanSolutions.com. It is going to be filled with ideas and proposals for a more effective and more prosperous future.