Washington (CNN) – A majority of Americans think the federal government poses a threat to rights of Americans, according to a new national poll.
Fifty-six percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday say they think the federal government's become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. Forty-four percent of those polled disagree.
The survey indicates a partisan divide on the question: only 37 percent of Democrats, 63 percent of Independents and nearly 7 in 10 Republicans say the federal government poses a threat to the rights of Americans.
According to CNN poll numbers released Sunday, Americans overwhelmingly think that the U.S. government is broken - though the public overwhelmingly holds out hope that what's broken can be fixed.
The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted February 12-15, with 1,023 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for the overall survey.
- FOXNews.com
This isn't the first time people have been able to carry guns in national parks. They were allowed to do so for over two months last year, from January through March, and absolutely no problems were reported.
A two-decade-old ban on loaded guns in national parks ends today. Loaded guns will be allowed in Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, Great Smoky Mountains, and other national parks. Guns will still be prohibited in some areas in the parks, federal facilities that are regularly staffed by National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employees, but everywhere else they will be allowed.
"You're raising the level of risk in the parks, and the chance that people will use the parks less than they have in the past," Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign gun control group warned during February 2009. As evidence for his claim, Helmke pointed to a New York school teacher who said that she would cancel school trips to national parks if guns were allowed. Helmke and others opponents have largely focused on permitted concealed handguns again being allowed in the parks.
Yet, despite the opposition of the Obama administration, the new federal law is hardly radical, as it simply defers to state law. It passed the Congress with about 2-to-1 majorities in both the House and Senate. If a state allows people to carry permitted concealed handguns, permit holders can carry their guns in the national parks in that state.
Opponents worry about the possibility that permit holders will accidentally shoot others or use their guns to commit crimes such as poaching. But this isn't the first time people have been able to carry guns in national parks. They were allowed to do so for over two months last year, from January through March, and absolutely no problems were reported. Nor are the proponents of the ban pointing to any problems when guns were previously allowed in national parks during the 1980s and earlier.
When concealed-handgun laws were originally passed, gun control advocates then also warned that permit holders would lose their tempers and there would be blood in the streets.
Obviously that never happened. We now have a lot of experience with concealed-handgun permit holders. In 2007, about 5 million Americans were permitted to carry concealed handguns.
Take Florida, for example. Between Oct. 1, 1987, and January 31, 2010, Florida issued permits to 1,704,624 people, many of whom renewed their permits multiple times. Only 167 had their permits revoked for a firearms-related violation — about 0.01 percent. Over the last 14 months just one more permit has been revoked for firearms violations, a rate among active permit holders of 0.00014 percent. The pattern is similar in other states. Given the very low rate that permit holders commit any type of crime, it seems very doubtful that permit holders would engage in other crimes such as poaching.
Even though the adoption of right-to-carry laws was highly controversial in some states, the laws were so successful that no state has ever rescinded one. Indeed, no state has even held a legislative hearing to consider rescinding concealed-carry.
Everyone wants to keep guns away from criminals. The problem is that law-abiding citizens are the ones most likely to obey the gun control laws, leaving them disarmed and vulnerable and making it easier for criminals to commit crime.
Police are extremely important in deterring crime — according to my research, the most important factor. But the police almost always arrive after the crime has been committed. In national parks, with vast land areas and few roads, this problem is exacerbated. Even if one can quickly reach park rangers by using a cell phone, it can be hours before they can arrive at the crime scene.
Wild animals also sometimes do attack humans, and guns can come in handy. According to a study by Professor Gary Mauser at Simon Fraser University, guns were used about 36,000 times a year to stop animal attacks in Canada.
Here is a prediction. Just like the ruckus over passing concealed handgun laws, the fears about guns in national parks will soon be forgotten.
John R. Lott, Jr. is a FoxNews.com contributor. He is an economist and author of "More Guns, Less Crime" (University of Chicago Press), the third edition will be published in May.
CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) - The Wyoming House has advanced a bill that would allow residents to carry concealed guns without a permit provided that they can demonstrate they're familiar with firearms.
The House voted 42-15 on Monday to send House Bill 113 to the Senate.
The House amended the bill to specify that citizens would have to demonstrate their familiarity with guns by passing a certified firearms safety course or have a background of military or police service. . . .
In his inaugural address in August, newly minted Gov. Gary Herbert laid down a marker on states' rights when he declared that, "We should never forget that we, as a nation of united states, created the federal government, not the other way around."
The statement drew the biggest ovation of his address and tapped into the disdain felt among conservative Utahns toward the federal government.
Now, in a legislative session rife with push-back against the federal government and a state sovereignty fervor, Herbert is having his mettle put to the test.
In the coming week, he will make a decision whether to sign or veto SB11, a measure that would exempt Utah-made guns from federal firearms laws.
Supporters argued that if the firearms or ammunition and the materials used to make them don't cross state lines then the federal government has no right to make the state abide by its rules.
Legislative attorneys said there is a high likelihood the bill, modeled after legislation passed in Montana and Tennessee, is unconstitutional.
And it is just one of the issues -- ranging from guns to resistance to federal health reform to seizing federal land -- that pits principles against politics and philosophy versus pocketbook.
Does the governor stick to his guns, sign the bill and potentially commit the state to costly litigation when the state budget is in turmoil?
Or does he veto the measure, bucking his political base
"I certainly wouldn't want to be in his position," said Clark Aposhian, chairman of the Utah Shooting Sports Council, who, along with other groups, has called on gun owners to flood Herbert's office with calls and e-mails, urging him to sign the bill.
If Herbert signs the bill, Aposhian said, he has to be able to communicate that it won't cost money, as the gun advocates argue -- although at least one organization is considering a lawsuit if it becomes law.
If he vetoes it, Aposhian said, "he's going to have to communicate to all the freedom-loving, gun-owning patriots in Utah that, in fact, you can put a price on states' rights."
Rep. Brian King, a Democrat and attorney from Salt Lake City, who called the gun bill "madness" during debate, said the issue boils down to this: "How much are you willing to pay to be a states' rights guy?"
"It's an act of political courage if he chooses not to sign these things," said King.
Herbert was unavailable for an interview this week, but told KSL Radio he is weighing the constitutional and financial issues.
"This is clearly designed to set us up for a court challenge to see if we can get to the Supreme Court and overturn interstate commerce law for the last 70 years," Herbert said. "That may be a laudable goal. The question is: Is it the right time, right vehicle and at what cost to the taxpayers of Utah?"
Herbert said he is concerned that if the Supreme Court ruled against Utah, it could be a setback to the cause of states' rights.
Utah is trying to balance a budget that faces a shortfall of more than $700 million.
But House Majority Leader Kevin Garn, R-Layton, said the Legislature will stand behind the governor if he signs the bill, including funding any litigation, if necessary.
"We're going into this thing with eyes wide open, realizing it may cost the state some money, but we think it's an important cause," he said. "We probably put the governor in a difficult position with some of these bills, but this is the only way we think we've got to express ourselves."
Not only does Herbert have the state's shaky financial situation to consider, but he also has to stand for re-election this year. Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon is challenging Herbert, and a wasteful states' rights battle could provide the Democrat with fodder.
"Clearly it does create a dilemma for him," said LaVarr Webb, who was a policy advisor to former Gov. Mike Leavitt. Webb argues the states should push back against the federal government.
"There are different ways to approach that, and it has to be practical. To pass legislation that is clearly unconstitutional probably isn't the very best way to do it and puts the governor in a difficult situation."
The gun legislation is not the only bill that could challenge Herbert's often stated conservative ideology.
There are, in all, more than 15 various states' rights bills and resolutions. And the dubious constitutionality of many of them have kept legislative attorneys busy.
So far this session, legislative lawyers have cautioned that six bills face a high likelihood of being found unconstitutional by the courts. There were zero such warnings given last session and a total of nine during the past four years.
The Utah-made firearms bill passed anyway, by comfortable margins. A bill that would block the state from implementing federal health insurance reform sailed through the House and is pending in the Senate. And a proposal to seize federal land using eminent domain power is scheduled for a hearing next week.
"They would raise some fairly serious constitutional red flags," said David Law, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis. The Supreme Court has opened the door to states' rights arguments in recent decisions, but the proposals Utah lawmakers are putting forward go well beyond the current jurisprudence.
It's not just states' rights where Herbert has thrown down the gauntlet and could have his resolve tested. He has said repeatedly and forcefully he opposes raising any new taxes. But legislative leaders have not ruled out hiking the cigarette tax by more than $1 per pack to help balance the budget.
Add to that the fact the cigarette tax is popular among voters, 70 percent of whom favor raising the tax.
It is an unenviable, yet not uncommon, conundrum for governors to find themselves, said Webb, especially when they announce hard-line stands on issues.
"That's what governors have to do," said Webb, "and he wanted the job."
The founding document of the United States, the Declaration of Independence, states that governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed." Today, however, just 21% of voters nationwide believe that the federal government enjoys the consent of the governed.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 61% disagree and say the government does not have the necessary consent. Eighteen percent (18%) of voters are not sure.
However, 63% of the Political Class think the government has the consent of the governed, but only six percent (6%) of those with Mainstream views agree.
Seventy-one percent (71%) of all voters now view the federal government as a special interest group, and 70% believe that the government and big business typically work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors.
That helps explain why 75% of voters are angry at the policies of the federal government, and 63% say it would be better for the country if most members of Congress are defeated this November. Just 27% believe their own representative in Congress is the best person for the job.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
Among voters under 40, 25% believe government has the consent of the governed. That compares to 19% of those ages 50 to 64 and 16% of the nation's senior citizens.
Those who earn more than $100,000 a year are more narrowly divided on the question, but those with lower incomes overwhelming reject the notion that today's government has the consent from which to derive its just authority. Those with the lowest incomes are the most skeptical.
Seventy-eight percent (78%) of Republicans say the government does not have the consent of the governed, and that view is shared by 65% of voters not affiliated with either of the major parties. A plurality of Democrats (44%) agrees, but 32% of those in President Obama's party believe the government has the necessary consent.
From an ideological perspective, most moderate and conservative voters say the government lacks the consent of the governed. Liberals are evenly divided.
In his new book, In Search of Self-Governance, Scott Rasmussen observes that the American people are "united in the belief that our political system is broken, that politicians are corrupt, and that neither major political party has the answers." He adds that "the gap between Americans who want to govern themselves and the politicians who want to rule over them may be as big today as the gap between the colonies and England during the 18th century."
The book has earned positive reviews from Larry Sabato, Pat Caddell, Bill Kristol, Joe Trippi and others. In Search of Self-Governance is available from Rasmussen Reports and at Amazon.com.
Sixty percent (60%) of voters think that neither Republican political leaders nor Democratic political leaders have a good understanding of what is needed today. Thirty-five percent (35%) say Republicans and Democrats are so much alike that an entirely new political party is needed to represent the American people.
Nearly half of all voters believe that people randomly selected from the phone book could do as good a job as the current Congress.
Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it's free) or follow us on Twitter or Facebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.
See survey questions and toplines. Crosstabs are available to Premium Members only.
Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.
The Rasmussen Reports Election Edge™ Premium Service offers the most comprehensive public opinion coverage available anywhere.
Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade.
American political and economic leaders have sounded the alarm for years about the red ink rising in reports on the federal government's fiscal health.
But now the problem of mounting national debt is worse than it ever has been before with -- potentially dire consequences for taxpayers, according to a report by the nonpartisan Peterson-Pew Commission on Budget Reform.
"It keeps me awake at night, looking at all that red ink," said President Obama in Nashua, N.H., on Feb. 2. "Most of it is structural and we inherited it. The only way that we are going to fix it is if both parties come together and start making some tough decisions about our long-term priorities."
Obama will sign an executive order tomorrow that establishes a bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform to make recommendations on how to reduce the country's debt.
Over the past year alone, the amount the U.S. government owes its lenders has grown to more than half the country's entire economic output, or gross domestic product.
Even more alarming, experts say, is that those figures will climb to an unprecedented 200 percent of GDP by 2038 without a dramatic shift in course.
"Within 12 years…the largest item in the federal budget will be interest payments on the national debt," said former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker. "[They are] payments for which we get nothing."
Economic forecasters say future generations of Americans could have a substantially lower standard of living than their predecessors' for the first time in the country's history if the debt is not brought under control.
Government debt, which fuels the risk of inflation, could make everyday Americans' savings worth less. Higher interest rates would make it harder for consumers and businesses to borrow. Wages would remain stagnant and fewer jobs would be created. The government's ability to cut taxes or provide a safety net would also be weakened, economists say.
While much attention has been focused on the government's deficit-spending surge during the recession, many economists agree short-term budget overruns -- as ominous as they may seem -- are not particularly problematic.
"What threatens the ship are large, known and growing structural deficits," said Walker, a problem that few politicians seem eager and readily able to fix.
In a recent ABC News poll, 87 percent of Americans said they are concerned about the federal budget deficit and national debt, and most strongly disapprove of how their political leaders are handling the situation.
But public dissatisfaction has not proven enough to compel members of Congress or current and previous Administrations to set aside their partisan differences to achieve a balanced budget.
Most Republicans don't want to raise taxes; most Democrats don't want to cut spending. The result is a stalemate on how to put America back in the black.
Questions continue to mount over the science behind years of studies that say humans are chiefly to blame for global warming. But reflecting a trend that has been going on for more than a year, just 35% of U.S. voters now believe global warming is caused primarily by human activity.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 47% think long-term planetary trends are mostly to blame, down three points from the previous survey in January. Eight percent say there is some other reason, and 10% aren't sure. . . .
Email this StoryWASHINGTON (AP) - Vice President Joe Biden says "Washington right now is broken" and the country is in "deep trouble" unless it attacks ballooning federal deficits.
Asked about the political climate across the country, Biden said in a nationally broadcast interview that "we understand why they're angry. ... We get it."
Speaking of intense partisanship in the capital, Biden said on CBS's "The Early Show" that "I've never seen it this dysfunctional." He said the message coming from the stunning Republican upset in the recent Massachusetts election was, 'Hey guys, get your act together. Get something going.'"
The government-school establishment has said the same thing for decades: Education is too important to leave to the competitive market. If we really want to help our kids, we must focus more resources on the government schools.
But despite this mantra, the focus is on something other than the kids. When The Washington Post asked George Parker, head of the Washington, D.C., teachers union, about the voucher program there, he said: "Parents are voting with their feet. ... As kids continue leaving the system, we will lose teachers. Our very survival depends on having kids in D.C. schools so we'll have teachers to represent."
How revealing is that?
Since 1980, government spending on education, adjusted for inflation, has nearly doubled. But test scores have been flat for decades.
Today we spend a stunning $11,000 a year per student -- more than $200,000 per classroom. It's not working. So when will we permit competition and choice, which works great with everything else? I'll explore those questions on my Fox Business program tomorrow night at 8 and 11 p.m. Eastern time (and again Friday at 10 p.m.).
The people who test students internationally told us that two factors predict a country's educational success: Do the schools have the autonomy to experiment, and do parents have a choice?
Parents care about their kids and want them to learn and succeed -- even poor parents. Thousands line up hoping to get their kids into one of the few hundred lottery-assigned slots at Harlem Success Academy, a highly ranked charter school in New York City. Kids and parents cry when they lose.
Yet the establishment is against choice. The union demonstrated outside Harlem Success the first day of school. And President Obama killed Washington, D.C.'s voucher program.
This is typical of elitists, who believe that parents, especially poor ones, can't make good choices about their kids' education. Continued...
The firehouse was built in 1906. It was the former home of a unit of the Fire Patrol, a private firefighting organization backed by the insurance industry.
A key scientist has conceded that there has been no "statistically significant" rise since 1995
Monday February 15,2010
THERE has been no global warming for 15 years, a key scientist admitted yesterday in a major U-turn.
Professor Phil Jones, who is at the centre of the "Climategate" affair, conceded that there has been no "statistically significant" rise in temperatures since 1995.
The admission comes as new research casts serious doubt on temperature records collected around the world and used to support the global warming theory.
Researchers said yesterday that warming recorded by weather stations was often caused by local factors rather than global change.
MORE FROM EXPRESS.CO.UK ON THE CLIMATE CHANGE DEBATE...
* CLIMATE CHANGE 'INDUSTRY' IN DEEP TROUBLE
* CLIMATE SCEPTICS ARE PLAYING RUSSIAN ROULETTE
* GLOBAL WARMING 'TO BECOME' GLOBAL COOLING
The revelations will be seized upon by sceptics as fresh evidence that the science of global warming is flawed and climate change is not man-made.
The Daily Express has led the way in exposing flaws in the arguments supporting global warming.
Last month we revealed how the UN's International Panel on Climate Change was forced to admit its key claim that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 was "speculation" lifted from a 1999 magazine article. The influential IPCC then admitted it had got the key claim wrong and announced a review.
The Daily Express has also published a dossier listing 100 reasons why global warming was part of a natural cycle and not man-made.
Yesterday it emerged that Professor Jones, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, had admitted he has trouble "keeping track" of the information.
Colleagues have expressed concern that the reason he has refused Freedom of Information requests for the data is that he has lost some of the crucial papers.
Professor Jones also conceded for the first time that the world may have been warmer in medieval times than now. Sceptics have long argued the world was warmer between 800 and 1300AD because of high temperatures in northern countries.
Climate change advocates have always said these temperatures cannot be compared to present day global warming figures because they only apply to one specific zone.
But Professor Jones said: "There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not.
The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.
"For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the southern hemisphere. There are very few climatic records for these latter two regions.
"Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th century warmth would not be unprecedented."
Professor Jones first came under scrutiny when he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit in which leaked emails were said to show scientists were manipulating data.
Researchers were accused of deliberately removing a "blip" in findings between 1920 and 1940, which showed an increase in the Earth's temperature.
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama and a former lead author on the IPCC, said: "The apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development."
Ross McKitrick, of the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited to review the IPCC's last report said: "We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC's climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias."
Sen. Chris Buttars isn't talking about dropping 12th grade any more.
Now, he's talking about making 12th grade optional for those students who finish their required credits early -- and some lawmakers are listening to the idea with interest.
"I like thinking outside of the box like this," said Sen. Howard Stephenson, R-Draper, who co-chairs the Public Education Appropriations Subcommittee. "I think it really makes us examine what we're doing."
Now, instead of trying to eliminate 12th grade, Buttars, R-West Jordan, is proposing the state save up to $60 million by giving students the option of graduating from high school early. Students who finish their high school requirements early are already allowed to graduate early, but Buttars' proposal would provide more incentives for students to do that and make that option clearer, he said.
Buttars said he's working on a bill on the concept.
"There are some [students] that really have a great 12th grade, but you talk to 100 kids and their parents, and I believe the majority of them will say, 'Well, my kid didn't do much in the 12th grade,'" Buttars said. "Everybody wants to talk about change ... But to tell you the truth, they're scared to death of it."
Several lawmakers praised Buttars on Monday for his creativity in trying to think of ways to ease the state's budget troubles.
"Why not do it if it's something we already do, and it's not that drastic?" Rep. Greg Hughes,
Several parents also spoke in support of the idea.
"We got killed last year with a 20 percent tax increase," said Janalee Tobias, a parent who lives in the Jordan District. "I don't think anyone in here can afford another tax increase and if this can stop a tax increase, I would urge you to consider that."
Aleta Taylor, a parent of seven and a South Jordan City Council member, said lawmakers must set an example for local school boards by adopting innovative ideas.
"If we let parents know ahead that this is an option they can plan with their students," Taylor said. "It's a very, very practical way to cut the budget."
Some lawmakers and education officials, however, weren't sure how Buttars' proposal would be any different from what's already available. Since the 1990s, the state has offered Centennial Scholarships of up to $1,000 for students who graduate from high school early.
"If it is a waste of time for seniors or their parents think it's a waste of time then they don't have to do it," said Brenda Hales, state associate superintendent.
Ron Wolff, superintendent of the Morgan County School District, said the vast majority of Morgan High seniors are taking some core classes. Of the school's 170 seniors, he said 160 are taking English, 157 are taking social studies and 119 are taking math.
"The senior year ... is a valuable thing for our students," Wolff said.
Rep. Lorie Fowlke, R-Orem, wondered if it would take a few years for the state to see any savings. Buttars' projection that the state could save $60 million is based on half of the state's high school seniors choosing to graduate early. But Fowlke and others pointed out that it might take years of planning for students to reach that point.
Also, Buttars is proposing that students who graduate from high school early be allowed to pay the same amount of money to take college classes during their first year of college as they would have paid to take concurrent enrollment, Advanced Placement and distance learning classes in high school.
Sen. Lyle Hillyard, R-Logan, said it can be more expensive to teach kids college courses in college than in high school, and sending all those students to college early would have a "serious impact" on higher education.
State Superintendent Larry Shumway, however, said, "If students are prepared to graduate at the end of their junior year or whenever they're prepared to graduate, I don't have an objection to [early graduation]."
He said Buttars' idea raises important questions about the effectiveness of 12th grade, which is why he's decided to create a task force to examine the issue over coming months.
"There is a lot of productive work seniors can do and my aim is ensuring that seniors take courses of study that prepare them for the career or higher education pursuits they'll have after high school," Shumway said.
Buttars' proposal is just one part of his 10-part plan to downsize state government in order to deal with the state's budget troubles. Buttars is also proposing making high school busing optional for districts, which he projects could save up to $15 million, and he's proposing consolidating some university programs to save money.
The academic at the centre of the 'Climategate' affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble 'keeping track' of the information.
Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is 'not as good as it should be'.
The data is crucial to the famous 'hockey stick graph' used by climate change advocates to support the theory.
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no 'statistically significant' warming.
The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.
Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.
The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.
Following the leak of the emails, Professor Jones has been accused of 'scientific fraud' for allegedly deliberately suppressing information and refusing to share vital data with critics.
Discussing the interview, the BBC's environmental analyst Roger Harrabin said he had spoken to colleagues of Professor Jones who had told him that his strengths included integrity and doggedness but not record-keeping and office tidying.
Mr Harrabin, who conducted the interview for the BBC's website, said the professor had been collating tens of thousands of pieces of data from around the world to produce a coherent record of temperature change.
That material has been used to produce the 'hockey stick graph' which is relatively flat for centuries before rising steeply in recent decades.
According to Mr Harrabin, colleagues of Professor Jones said 'his office is piled high with paper, fragments from over the years, tens of thousands of pieces of paper, and they suspect what happened was he took in the raw data to a central database and then let the pieces of paper go because he never realised that 20 years later he would be held to account over them'.
Asked by Mr Harrabin about these issues, Professor Jones admitted the lack of organisation in the system had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics, which he regretted.
But he denied he had cheated over the data or unfairly influenced the scientific process, and said he still believed recent temperature rises were predominantly man-made.
Asked about whether he lost track of data, Professor Jones said: 'There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but it's probably not as good as it should be.
'There's a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data, so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more.'
He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.
He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no 'statistically significant' warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.
And he said that the debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled.
Sceptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now because of evidence of high temperatures in northern countries.
But climate change advocates have dismissed this as false or only applying to the northern part of the world.
Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: 'There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.
'For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.
'Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.'
Sceptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now.
Professor Jones criticised those who complained he had not shared his data with them, saying they could always collate their own from publicly available material in the US. And he said the climate had not cooled 'until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend'.
Mr Harrabin told Radio 4's Today programme that, despite the controversies, there still appeared to be no fundamental flaws in the majority scientific view that climate change was largely man-made.
But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Jones's 'excuses' for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and 'mates'.
He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates.
He added that the professor's concessions over medieval warming were 'significant' because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.
The US's most Republican state passes bill disputing science of climate change, claiming emissions are 'essentially harmless'
Carbon dioxide is "essentially harmless" to human beings and good for plants. So now will you stop worrying about global warming?
Utah's House of Representatives apparently has at least. Officially the most Republican state in America, its political masters have adopted a resolution condemning "climate alarmists", and disputing any scientific basis for global warming.
The measure, which passed by 56-17, has no legal force, though it was predictably claimed by climate change sceptics as a great victory in the wake of the controversy caused by a mistake over Himalayan glaciers in the UN's landmark report on global warming.
But it does offer a view of state politicians' concerns in Utah which is a major oil and coal producing state.
The original version of the bill dismissed climate science as a "well organised and ongoing effort to manipulate and incorporate "tricks" related to global temperature data in order to produce a global warming outcome". It accused those seeking action on climate change of riding a "gravy train" and their efforts would "ultimately lock billions of human beings into long-term poverty".
In the heat of the debate, the representative Mike Noel said environmentalists were part of a vast conspiracy to destroy the American way of life and control world population through forced sterilisation and abortion.
By the time the final version of the bill came to a vote, cooler heats apparently prevailed. The bill dropped the word "conspiracy", and described climate science as "questionable" rather than "flawed".
However, it insisted – against all evidence – that the hockey stick graph of changing temperatures was discredited. It also called on the federal government's Environmental Protection Agency to order an immediate halt in its moves to regulate greenhouse gas emissions "until a full and independent investigation of climate data and global warming science can be substantiated".
As Noel explained: "Sometimes ... we need to have the courage to do nothing."
OSLO (Reuters) - The U.N. panel of climate experts overstated how much of the Netherlands is below sea level, according to a preliminary report on Saturday, admitting yet another flaw after a row last month over Himalayan glacier melt.
A background note by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said a 2007 report wrongly stated that 55 percent of the country was below sea level since the figure included areas above sea level, prone to flooding along rivers.
The United Nations has said errors in the 2007 report of about 3,000 pages do not affect the core conclusions that human activities, led by burning fossil fuels, are warming the globe.
"The sea level statistic was used for background information only, and the updated information remains consistent with the overall conclusions," the IPCC note dated February 12 said.
Skeptics say errors have exposed sloppiness and over-reliance on "grey literature" outside leading scientific journals. The panel's reports are a main guide for governments seeking to work out costly policies to combat global warming.
The 2007 report included the sentence: "The Netherlands is an example of a country highly susceptible to both sea level rise and river flooding because 55 percent of its territory is below sea level."
"A preliminary analysis suggests that the sentence discussed should end with: 'because 55 percent of the Netherlands is at risk of flooding'," the IPCC note said.
The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, the original source of the incorrect data, said on February 5 that just 26 percent of the country is below sea level and 29 percent susceptible to river flooding.
The IPCC said the error was widespread -- it quoted a report from the Dutch Ministry of Transport saying "about 60 percent" of the country is below sea level, and a European Commission study saying "about half."
The panel expressed regret last month after admitting that the 2007 report exaggerated the pace of melt of the Himalayan glaciers, which feed rivers from China to India in dry seasons, in a sentence that said they could all vanish by 2035.
The 2035 figure did not come from a scientific journal.
(Editing by Louise Ireland)
WASHINGTON — With much of his legislative agenda stalled in Congress, President Obama and his team are preparing an array of actions using his executive power to advance energy, environmental, fiscal and other domestic policy priorities.
The president may focus on energy and the environment.
The latest on President Obama, his administration and other news from Washington and around the nation. Join the discussion.
Mr. Obama has not given up hope of progress on Capitol Hill, aides said, and has scheduled a session with Republican leaders on health care later this month. But in the aftermath of a special election in Massachusetts that cost Democrats unilateral control of the Senate, the White House is getting ready to act on its own in the face of partisan gridlock heading into the midterm campaign.
"We are reviewing a list of presidential executive orders and directives to get the job done across a front of issues," saidRahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff.
Any president has vast authority to influence policy even without legislation, through executive orders, agency rule-making and administrative fiat. And Mr. Obama's success this week in pressuring the Senate to confirm 27 nominations by threatening to use his recess appointment power demonstrated that executive authority can also be leveraged to force action by Congress.
Mr. Obama has already decided to create a bipartisan budget commission under his own authority after Congress refused to do so. His administration has signaled that it plans to use its discretion to soften enforcement of the ban on openly gay men and lesbians serving in the military, even as Congress considers repealing the law. And theEnvironmental Protection Agency is moving forward with possible regulations on heat-trapping gases blamed for climate change, while a bill to cap such emissions languishes in the Senate.
In an effort to demonstrate forward momentum, the White House is also drawing more attention to the sorts of actions taken regularly by cabinet departments without much fanfare. The White House heavily promoted an export initiative announced by Commerce Secretary Gary Locke last week and nearly $1 billion in health care technology grants announced on Friday by Kathleen Sebelius, the health and human services secretary, andHilda L. Solis, the labor secretary.
White House officials said the increased focus on executive authority reflected a natural evolution from the first year to the second year of any presidency.
"The challenges we had to address in 2009 ensured that the center of action would be in Congress," said Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director. "In 2010, executive actions will also play a key role in advancing the agenda."
The use of executive authority during times of legislative inertia is hardly new; former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush turned to such powers at various moments in their presidencies, and Mr. Emanuel was in the thick of carrying out the strategy during his days as a top official in the Clinton White House.
But Mr. Obama has to be careful how he proceeds because he has been critical of both Mr. Clinton's penchant for expending presidential capital on small-bore initiatives, like school uniforms, and Mr. Bush's expansive assertions of executive authority, like the secret program of wiretapping without warrants.
Already, Mr. Obama has had to reconcile his campaign-trail criticism of Mr. Bush for excessive use of so-called signing statements to bypass parts of legislation with his own use of such tactics. After a bipartisan furor in Congress last year, Mr. Obama stopped issuing such signing statements, but aides said last month that he still reserves the right to ignore sections of bills he considers unconstitutional if objections have been lodged previously by the executive branch.
Another drawback of the executive power strategy is that actions taken unilaterally by the executive branch may not be as enduring as decisions made through acts of Congress signed into law by a president. For instance, while the E.P.A. has been determined to have the authority to regulate carbon emissions, the administration would rather have a market-based system of pollution permits, called cap and trade, that requires legislation.
Still, presidents have logged significant accomplishments through the stroke of a pen. In 1996, on his own authority, Mr. Clinton turned a 2,600-square-mile section of southern Utah into the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, in what was called at the time his boldest environmental move. Mr. Bush followed suit in 2006 by designating a 140,000-square-mile stretch of islands and ocean near Hawaii as the largest protected marine reserve in the world, in what some see as his most lasting environmental achievement.
The use of executive power came to a head this week when Mr. Obama confronted Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, about nominations held up in the Senate. In a meeting with Congressional leaders at the White House on Tuesday, Mr. Obama turned to Mr. McConnell and vowed to use his power to appoint officials during Senate recesses if his nominations were not cleared.
By Thursday, the Senate had voted to confirm 27 of 63 nominations that had been held up, and the White House declared victory. Two administration officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said Friday that the White House had drafted a list of about a dozen nominees for the president to appoint during the recess that just began, but most were among those cleared.
Mr. McConnell's office denied that the president's threat had anything to do with the confirmations, pointing out that the Senate regularly passes a batch of nominees before going on recess.
"All presidents get frustrated with the pace of nominations, and all Congresses say they're doing their best, so it's not a surprise," said Don Stewart, a spokesman for Mr. McConnell. "But the fact is nominees are being confirmed, particularly those nominated since December."
The recess appointment power stems from the days when lawmakers were in session only part of the year, but in modern times presidents have used it to circumvent opposition in the Senate. Mr. Clinton made 139 recess appointments, 95 of them to full-time positions, while Mr. Bush made 171, with 99 to full-time jobs. Mr. Obama has yet to make any.
Those given such appointments can serve until the end of the next Congressional session. As a senator, Mr. Obama was less enamored with recess appointments. When Mr. Bush used the power to install John R. Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations, Mr. Obama called Mr. Bolton "damaged goods."
But the White House argued that Mr. Obama's choices have been held up more than Mr. Bush's and left open the prospect of giving recess appointments to some of those still held up, including Craig Becker, a labor lawyer whose nomination for a seat on the National Labor Relations Board has been blocked.
"If the stalling tactics continue," said Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, "he's not ruling out using recess appointments for anybody that he's nominated."
