Heh. Forgot to add that they are poor because they bought all that stuff. But I bet they have no savings.

My TV is 12 years old and works fine, thanks. (Being from the Midwest, I was raised not to throw things away until they actually break.)

Usetabe if your tv broke it was cheaper to have it fixed then get a new one

Ninety-six percent of poor parents say their children were never hungry during the year due to an inability to afford food.

Nice to know. I hear radio ads about how horrible it is that many children go to bed hungry, and so many live under the poverty line. As I guessed, that was a bit of stretch, but I didn't have numbers to back it up.

And since that 4% matches up with those temporarily homeless, I'm thinking it's the same 4%.

Usetabe if your tv broke it was cheaper to have it fixed then get a new one

It still can be. I took my 42" LCD in to fix last summer because that only set me back $200 instead of $600-$800. If it craps out again[*], I'll just buy a large LED monitor with HDMI inputs, as my satellite box and DVD player have HDMI outputs.

[*] hopefully not any time soon, as much as I would like the upgrade to LED technology instead of LCD.

Josef Stalin allowed very few "decadent" American movies to be shown in Soviet Russia. But he was happy to allow The Grapes of Wrath to be shown since it showcased poverty and want and despair in capitalist America.

But the Russian people living under the yoke of communism didn't get the message. They watched the movie and marveled that in America even the poor had cars.

Or so the story goes.

" . . . and two Macintosh computers (that probably each have more computing power than the bank of computers NASA used to put men on the moon)."

Yes, they do. Actually, a run of the mill smart phone has more computing power than existed in the world (not just NASA) in July of '69.

We went to the moon with slide rules and drafting paper. Now, on the rare occasion when our email goes down, it's national news.

"The Census Bureau defines 2010 poverty as $22,314 for a U.S. family of four."

Words have meaning and defining "poverty" this way is utter bullshit and completely misleading. However, is it the Census Bureau or politicians making this definition?

$22,000 isn't a lot of money, but it goes a hell of a lot further in rural Kansas, Idaho, Utah, etc. than in New York City or San Francisco. Moreover, if someone bought a house, say, twenty years ago and is now making $22,000 a year, that's a big difference from someone paying a mortgage on a house bought three years ago.

Another thing that kills me; people who are struggling, but have a high maintenance pet. That's almost as bad as someone complaining about not having money while they surf the web on their iPhone.

Journalisn sucks--And Alkon has gotten past the age where she could turn a few tricks every month to make ends meet.

Should've packed away the money while you could've.

That was one nasty and uncalled-for comment.....

And on an infinitely more productive note: Ms. Alkon you have a couple of bad links. I noticed Kate Coe (which goes to mediabistro.com) and Nathaniel Branden (which goes somewhere into internet hell).

I've met Amy in person- she'd definitely get top escort dollar for a man looking for a fun, sophisticated, beautiful in killer shape woman.

BOTU- you've gone from one of the gang, the slightly annoying but still one of the gang people, to being a sad, pathetic stain around your own little universe's underpants. Enough with the uncalled for attacks- if you have an opinion, speak it.

Eric--

That is my opinion--that we live in a horribly repressed society and your views reflect that.

Young good-looking women have a decade or two they can cash in.

A young good-looker can marry, or exchange more bluntly, for her favors.

If she does neither, she may be unfeathering her own nest. As in present case.

Oh sure, we can all work for ourselves, and that is a nice sentiment. But of you have a chance to make some easy money, I say go for it....

Citing stats on the technology level poor people have attained isn't helpful in figuring out their level of wealth. Most of this stuff is free or dirt cheap if you are willing to take a lesser model. I had two video game systems and an AC a number of years back, and all three of them were hand-me-downs from people trading up.

Oh, BOTU. Go back into the MRA hole from which you crawled.

Man, you want to feel rich? Go to a Third World country, then come back home. After returning from Africa I sat outside and breathed deeply, because I could, without inhaling burning trash, dust, and diesel fuel. Even turning on the tapwater and knowing I could drink it without getting a disease was wonderful.

Choika-

What is an MRA hole?

And what has African poverty to do with a young woman making sure she is financially set in life in the USA?

BTW, I spend a lot of time in rural Thailand with my family. I am familiar with Third World poverty, although I also enjoy the Thai lifestyle.

But they burn trash heaps at night, and have some open sewers, and I must drink bottled water. It is probably nicer in Thailand as Africans are a bunch of monkeys, judging from their economic progress. Thailand is coming along.

Seeing such poverty only reaffirms my belief that young people should take steps to assure the economic future. Young women have options guys don't.

Choika, do what you gotta do to not end up like a monkey in Africa.

Choika, the point being made is that "poor" in America is living well compared to poor in other countries, BECAUSE of what you said.

@WayneB - yes, I got that...hence my comment, which I'm not sure how you misinterpreted. I thought it was pretty clear that I agree with Amy. Going to a Third World country gave me a lot of perspective on the relativity of wealth and poverty in a way that I don't think I would have understood without really seeing it up close.

@BOTU - "Africans are a bunch of monkeys?"

Really?

@Choika - Oops, that comment was meant in response to MonicaP.

I DO have reading skills, I promise! Just sometimes my visual orientation goes awry.

Citing stats on the technology level poor people have attained isn't helpful in figuring out their level of wealth.

You highlighted (why not "highlit"?) the problem with these stats -- is poverty relative or absolute?

If absolute, then the poverty rate should give some idea of how many people lack the resources to obtain the housing, food, and clothing required to maintain a healthy life.

In contrast, relative poverty picks some number below which people have offensively (subjectively defined) less income than those above it.

While the US supposedly uses various measures to determine absolute poverty, the result has more than a whiff of the relative about it.

Gets even worse when the dollar value for absolute poverty is adjusted by the CPI, which notoriously overstates inflation.

Most of this stuff is free or dirt cheap if you are willing to take a lesser model. I had two video game systems and an AC a number of years back, and all three of them were hand-me-downs from people trading up.

Thereby proving that poor people are better off in rich societies, regardless of all that relative poverty BS.

Poverty is relative. I got this listening to my parents talk about the Great Depression. They were poor, but nobody felt poor, because everyone around them was living in the same way. I can easily see how resentment would build for a poor American kid surrounded by rich or middle class American kids.

To add:

Objectively, it's better to be poor, on a purely physical level, here in the US than it is anywhere else. Poor people can get food here, as well as medical care and luxuries. But perspective is not irrelevant, and the gap between rich and poor is important to note.

Choika-

You just got back from Africa, which you described as a polluted Third-World hellhole. It was a Third World hellhole 50 years ago, and it will be the same in 50 years.

I hope for much better. But the behavior of people is paramount--they do not behave in such as way as to improve their economic lots in life. Corruption is rampant and the norm. Crime is pandemic in places like Nigeria. Political strife is violent. Rule of law iffy.

Am I supposed to believe Africa is a big monkey plantation due to outside influences?

"Are you really this in need of attention that you have to post stuff like this?"

I'm pretty sure I called it - since others don't mean anything to BOTU, he's forever alone.

But - on topic, I am reminded of the First Lady visiting "the poor":

Overweight Americans snapping pictures of her on their cell phones.

Poverty is relative. I can easily see how resentment would build for a poor American kid surrounded by rich or middle class American kids.

That's as may be; however --

Resentmet != poverty

For many, if not most Americans, wealth = security. There's no absolute guarantee of security for anyone, and I'm not arguing that, but I know that if my husband and I take on an extra $4000 in sudden expenses, as we did several months ago when we blew two tires and our dog needed a lot of veterinary care, we could absorb that without having to sell the car or be evicted. It sucked, but we could take it.

I know people living paycheck to paycheck who would have had to start pawning stuff or go hungry to absorb those losses. And no, it's not like poverty in Africa, but why should we have to let it get that bad before taking it seriously?

If we took a completely objective view of our problems, then none of us would have anything to complain about. After all, no matter how difficult our lives are, we're not running from rape gangs or working 18 hours a day for scraps. If we were, we wouldn't have the resources to be complaining on a blog.

'Oh, BOTU. Go back into the MRA hole from which you crawled.'

He's not concerned about anyone else, he's no MRA.

There are weirdos in every movement, but most people that might be called MRAs that I know are concerned with custody for fathers and other divorce related issues. Issues like paternity fraud, and false rape allegations, as well...

Re: "Per a Heritage Foundation study, he reports that 4 percent of the poor are temporarily homeless, but otherwise, the picture of being poor in America looks pretty good to people who are poor elsewhere:"

I'd be skeptical of figures that come from the Heritage Foundation. The institute's political bias is well-known.

I've heard enough reports about life in third-world countries to believe it's true that being poor in the U.S. is far better than being poor in, say, Kenya.

However, life is far from easy for many of America's poor. My state has the 6th highest rate of people relying on food assistance. Demand at food pantries has risen steadily in recent years, as has homelessness. Poor, unemployed people without a phone, Internet access or a car are quite handicapped in seeking the limited opportunities for employment without them. Where I live, the winters are very cold and inclement at times, and shelters have to turn away some people for lack of space, including children.

In August, 1978, I was homeless for 3 days and it sucked, 'twas experience I never want to repeat. My mother and her family lived on the edge of complete destitution for much of the 1930s, and there were millions like her in the U.S. then.

Two other thoughts: one reason the stresses of poverty are so hard on people in third-world countries, and worrisome for the future outlook, is that global warming is making the world less agriculturally productive. So don't blame it all on the natives. Second, our gov't, both the do-gooder liberals and cynical conservatives, have gone overboard in providing assistance and trying to stimulate the economy for decades. Unfortunately, a prime consequence is that people become too unafraid of financial risk. It's these sorts of things that produce giant housing bubbles like the one that's put our economy in the dumps for now.

"My TV is 12 years old and works fine, thanks. (Being from the Midwest, I was raised not to throw things away until they actually break.)"

You don't have to throw a tv away that still works if you decide you'd like to get a newer model- lots of charities would be happy to have the old one.

"...as we did several months ago when we blew two tires and our dog needed a lot of veterinary care,..."

That's a mighty tough dog!

"Ninety-six percent of poor parents say their children were never hungry during the year due to an inability to afford food."

Because of the large and growing number of people on food stamps. If you're going to tout statistics regarding the number of poor children who didn't go hungry; at least be intellectually honest enough to also mention the cause. In this case a government assistance program that you've repeatedly said you're opposed to.

On a somewhat related note, yes outdated electronics are inexpensive. Too bad you can't ride electronics to work or live in them.

I'd be skeptical of figures that come from the Heritage Foundation. The institute's political bias is well-known.

Then post a similar study from sources you trust that refute the study.

However, life is far from easy for many of America's poor. My state has the 6th highest rate of people relying on food assistance. Demand at food pantries has risen steadily in recent years, as has homelessness.

As it has all over. But the food stamp programs usually provide more than enough money if you aren't buying almost prepared food ready to go. Buying store brands and conservative foods are cheap. A store brand of plain oatmeal is about $1.40 for a large container. Various additional ingredients to give nice flavorful options are about another $4. They should last about two weeks. A box of store brand cereal is about $4 and will last maybe 3 days. The commercial brand is about $5-6 each. That simple choice will save about $15 a month. Repeat those similar choices for other meals and you will end up saving money. Then you won't need the food pantry.

Poor, unemployed people without a phone, Internet access or a car are quite handicapped in seeking the limited opportunities for employment without them.

I have walked into my local grocery store(s) -- they all have a kiosk for applying for a position. The Chipotle's I usually go to has a table with applications and information about the company. All the local convenience stores have signs saying "Now Hiring". When I lost my last job, I didn't have internet access at home. I went to the local library for one-two hours per day and used their internet connection. As for not having a cell phone -- most states now have programs for the disadvantaged that give them 250 minutes and a cell phone. As far as traveling to your job -- I was without a car for over a year. I rode the bus a minimum of 45 minutes each way, every working day, to go to a graveyard shift job that was above minimum wage, but not by much. That was in addition to taking my lady to her appointments. If you can't be responsible to show up -- why should you warrant a job?

Where I live, the winters are very cold and inclement at times, and shelters have to turn away some people for lack of space, including children.

So are my winters. But why are you, and your family, homeless?

Two other thoughts: one reason the stresses of poverty are so hard on people in third-world countries, and worrisome for the future outlook, is that global warming is making the world less agriculturally productive. So don't blame it all on the natives.

That you still believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming let alone that actual global warming and not cooling is occurring just tells me you aren't up on the news. Right now we should be in an ice age if the scientists from the 70's were right. Look at the links below.

www.oism.org/pproject/
oregoncatalyst.com/2415-Global-Warming-No-It-Is-Now-Called-Climate-Change.html

Second, our gov't, both the do-gooder liberals and cynical conservatives, have gone overboard in providing assistance and trying to stimulate the economy for decades. Unfortunately, a prime consequence is that people become too unafraid of financial risk. It's these sorts of things that produce giant housing bubbles like the one that's put our economy in the dumps for now.

The difference between the Repubicans and the Dimocrats is how they want to spend our money. Quite frankly I think they both can go to hell. Do not pass Go! Do not collect anything!

> at least be intellectually honest enough

"Intellectual honesty" is for bullshit artists. If you can't handle regular old-fashioned honesty, you're not good for much anyway.

> be intellectually honest enough to also
> mention the cause.

Here, Amy, let me: A lot of people got fed by food stamps.

Should they have been? Is the Republic better for it? Does your correspondent seriously contend that in an economy that rocks as hard as America does, they'd have had no access to nutrition otherwise? Or does he just think it would have been inconvenient for them?

I think he LIKES making people oblivious and dependent, especially minorities.

Damn! I love being right about everything!

It's gratifying as Hell... You all should try it.

Slate's explainer provides this answer to the question of whether the poor are better off than they were fifty years ago:

Much better, in absolute material terms. Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation recently published an analysis of the lifestyle of people below the poverty line in 21st-century America. He found that many poor people have amenities that were available only to the wealthy (if they existed at all) in 1959. The typical household at the poverty line includes air conditioning, two color televisions with a cable or satellite feed, a DVD player, and a microwave. Poor children usually have a video game system. More than 38 percent of poor people have a personal computer.

(For those who are skeptical that such a thing as trickle-down exists, note the second sentence in the preceeding para.)

In the late 1950s, annual per capita caloric consumption reached a low point (PDF) for the 20th century. While food choices and the availability of fresh food in certain areas are major concerns, undernourishment is rare in the United States today. More than 92 percent of poor households always have enough food to eat, and poor children get about the same quantity of nutrients as middle-class children. Rector points out that poor children now "grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II."

Much of the improvement in the quality of life among the poor comes down to increased government assistance. The Census Bureau's poverty threshold—based on the cost of a bare minimum diet multiplied by three—is adjusted for yearly inflation, but it doesn't account for the expansion of noncash income sources like Medicaid or Medicare, which didn't exist until 1965. It also ignores tax credits that can increase a poor family's income. Nor are food stamps, which have expanded significantly since 1959, taken into account. (emphasis added) Public housing is more widely available today than 50 years ago. There are also a range of less obvious government programs that bolster the lives of people living at or below the poverty line like Head Start, subsidized school lunches, energy assistance, and Pell Grants for college tuition. All of these free up money for other uses. A general decline in the relative price of food has also helped the poor, although costs have drifted upward over the last four years.

Despite the many luxuries now enjoyed by many below the poverty line, Rector's argument that the Census Bureau overstates the number of poor in America is controversial. Many economists believe that poverty should be measured relative to the wealth of a society (PDF), not in terms of absolute deprivation, as Rector suggests. This isn't some bleeding-heart liberal view. Adam Smith made the same point in The Wealth of Nations: "A linen shirt, for example, is, strictly speaking, not a necessary of life. The Greeks and Romans lived, I suppose, very comfortably, though they had no linen. But in the present times, through the greater part of Europe, a creditable day-labourer would be ashamed to appear in public without a linen shirt, the want of which would be supposed to denote that disgraceful degree of poverty which, it is presumed, nobody can well fall into without extreme bad conduct."

Slate neglected to take on board what Adam Smith actually said. The italicized phrase means that, in Smith's view, only poverty so severe as to appear the consequence of lousy lifestyle decisions qualifies as "relative poverty".

I'll bet the vast majority of those experiencing that kind of poverty in the US today prefaced it with really lousy lifestyle decisions.

Obviously, more penalizing virtue to subsidize vice will fix that.

I think the government welfare programs are not the whole problem, but rather the way they are used. Food stamps are awesome if you or your spouse loses a job for awhile or some other problem comes along. I know a lady whose husband died and she was left behind with a mentally-disbled son who required her round-the-clock care. The social security she collected just wasn't enough to make ends meet. With the housing authority giving her help with a quarter of her mortgage and about $200/month in food stamps, she didn't have to sell the house her son had become acclimated to or sacrifice any of his care to find a full-time job. It's the people who grow up and decide they don't have to work because the government will take care of them that are the real problem. I don't know how anyone can be proud of a lifestyle that involves their whole grocery budget being based on their food stamp allotment for the rest of their lives, but people do it every day. I understand getting a little help, but the "temporary" part of assistance has been lost somewhere. I had Medicaid and $120 cash assistance monthly for my son and I because I was young and admittedly irresponsible when I got pregnant with him, but have not had Medicaid since he was around 3. The cash assistance lasted only a year. By then I was making too much money at Taco Bell to qualify. That's the kind of help the system was meant for: TEMPORARY Assistance for Needy Familes as it is called, not Meal Ticket Forever as it is becoming known.

Only slightly off topic. Please do not feed the trolls! Trolls are like coyotes; feed them and they stay around. Stop feeding them and they go and bother someone else. Sometimes it is possible to shoot coyotes, but trolls not so much.

"Um...I drove a 1960 pink car for a number of years."

Good for you. So... what is your point exactly?

"Who is opposed to food stamps, and has your mind-reading skill made you rich?"

No they hasn't. Actually no mind reading skills were required. You admitted as much repeatedly on one of the comment sections of a previous blog post.

Slate's explainer provides this answer to the question of whether the poor are better off than they were fifty years ago:

Much better, in absolute material terms. Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation recently published an analysis of the lifestyle of people below the poverty line in 21st-century America. He found that many poor people have amenities that were available only to the wealthy (if they existed at all) in 1959. The typical household at the poverty line includes air conditioning, two color televisions with a cable or satellite feed, a DVD player, and a microwave. Poor children usually have a video game system. More than 38 percent of poor people have a personal computer.

(For those who are skeptical that such a thing as trickle-down exists, note the second sentence in the preceeding para.)

In the late 1950s, annual per capita caloric consumption reached a low point (PDF) for the 20th century. While food choices and the availability of fresh food in certain areas are major concerns, undernourishment is rare in the United States today. More than 92 percent of poor households always have enough food to eat, and poor children get about the same quantity of nutrients as middle-class children. Rector points out that poor children now "grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II."

Much of the improvement in the quality of life among the poor comes down to increased government assistance. The Census Bureau's poverty threshold—based on the cost of a bare minimum diet multiplied by three—is adjusted for yearly inflation, but it doesn't account for the expansion of noncash income sources like Medicaid or Medicare, which didn't exist until 1965. It also ignores tax credits that can increase a poor family's income. Nor are food stamps, which have expanded significantly since 1959, taken into account. (emphasis added) Public housing is more widely available today than 50 years ago. There are also a range of less obvious government programs that bolster the lives of people living at or below the poverty line like Head Start, subsidized school lunches, energy assistance, and Pell Grants for college tuition. All of these free up money for other uses. A general decline in the relative price of food has also helped the poor, although costs have drifted upward over the last four years.

Despite the many luxuries now enjoyed by many below the poverty line, Rector's argument that the Census Bureau overstates the number of poor in America is controversial. Many economists believe that poverty should be measured relative to the wealth of a society (PDF), not in terms of absolute deprivation, as Rector suggests. This isn't some bleeding-heart liberal view. Adam Smith made the same point in The Wealth of Nations: "A linen shirt, for example, is, strictly speaking, not a necessary of life. The Greeks and Romans lived, I suppose, very comfortably, though they had no linen. But in the present times, through the greater part of Europe, a creditable day-labourer would be ashamed to appear in public without a linen shirt, the want of which would be supposed to denote that disgraceful degree of poverty which, it is presumed, nobody can well fall into without extreme bad conduct."

Slate neglected to take on board what Adam Smith actually said. The italicized phrase means that, in Smith's view, only poverty so severe as to appear the consequence of lousy lifestyle decisions qualifies as "relative poverty".

I'll bet the vast majority of those experiencing that kind of poverty in the US today prefaced it with really lousy lifestyle decisions.

Obviously, more penalizing virtue to subsidize vice will fix that.

The "Otherwise Would Be" Poor
(See the link at upper right)

Fred:  I'm out of work. I collect unemployment.
Mike:  Let me help. I didn't know it was bad for you.
Fred:  No way. When the checks run out, I'll have to get a job. Feel sorry for me then.

09/14/11 - EconLib by David Henderson   [edited]

Tim Worstall:  The federal government counts people who are poor without considering many of the benefits the poor receive. If those benefits were included, many millions of those people would not be considered poor.

David Henderson:  There is a proposal to increase the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) by applying it to people with larger incomes. Workers at the new upper end would likely cut their work hours. They would recieve less in wages, offset partly by more income through the EITC.
  They would be better off than before, counting the subsidy and more leisure, but their before-tax incomes would fall. Statistics would show an increase in poverty, and advocates might call for even larger EITC subsidies.

AMG:  Statistics which include people who would be poor without benefits ignore the help they are already getting and exaggerates actual poverty. We should know three figures, the fraction of people in poverty despite aid, the number who are not in poverty because of aid, and the estimated amount people choose not to earn because they are receiving aid.

"In fact, 42% own their own home."

Own outright or own a mortgage? Are they underwater on the houses they "own"? Was the negative equity taken into account?

Anyway, I'm not sure possession of modern devices is a good measure of relative poverty, if the home still has the same lowlife dysfunction as the worst *urban* environments. We keep hearing that it's the "low income" students who are falling behind in school...does it matter if they have an LCD tv and XBox?

> does it matter if they have an LCD tv and XBox?

Yes.

" Where I live, the winters are very cold and inclement at times, and shelters have to turn away some people for lack of space, including children."

Jim P. "So are my winters. But why are you, and your family, homeless?"

I'm not homeless, nor are my children, nor are we in any danger of becoming homeless anytime soon.

Two other thoughts: one reason the stresses of poverty are so hard on people in third-world countries, and worrisome for the future outlook, is that global warming is making the world less agriculturally productive. So don't blame it all on the natives.

Jim P. "That you still believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming let alone that actual global warming and not cooling is occurring just tells me you aren't up on the news. Right now we should be in an ice age if the scientists from the 70's were right. Look at the links below.

www.oism.org/pproject/
oregoncatalyst.com/2415-Global-Warming-No-It-Is-Now-Called-Climate-Change.html "

In the 1970s there was widespread uncertainty on whether or not an ice-age might reoccur rather soon, but no consensus. Earth, after all, has had many ice ages in its history for reasons that are uncertain. If earth is cooling, than it's pretty weird that ice accumulations all around the world are diminishing now. Unless, of course, an international conspiracy of government agencies is fooling people. But that's a notion that a lot of American conservatives would fall for.

An Aug. 20 article, "Climate-change science makes for hot politics", by The Washington Post stated: "A 2010 study in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences surveyed 1,372 climate scientists and found that 97 to 98 percent agreed that humans are contributing to global warming."

While it's not EXACTLY on-topic, this video has some very interesting information:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkebmhTQN-4

An Aug. 20 article, "Climate-change science makes for hot politics", by The Washington Post stated: "A 2010 study in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences surveyed 1,372 climate scientists and found that 97 to 98 percent agreed that humans are contributing to global warming."

Yeah? Let's see the whole survey, including the questions and the methodology. How were the questions phrased? "contributing to global warming" is a pretty broad basket - taking it to the basest extremes, you're contributing to global warming merely by breathing. However, if you ask if humans are contributing significantly to global warming, what would the responses have been?

Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming

Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday, Sept. 13, from the premier physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that "global warming is occurring."

nation.foxnews.com/global-warming/2011/09/15/nobel-prize-winning-physicist-resigns-over-global-warming

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

Did you even notice this small line in the Petition Project (www.oism.org/pproject/) link?

This petition has been signed by over 31,000 American scientists.

How many of those 31,000 are in feild speifically related to climatology?

Re: "Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming".

This is just one professor's judgment.

Perhaps this Dr. Giaever no longer lives in Troy, N.Y. where Rennselaer is located. It's been a lousy summer in the northeast for many people. The aftereffects of Hurricane Irene caused major flooding in Vermont, eastern N.Y. and New Jersey. Last week rain from Tropical Storm Lee badly flooded the Susquehanna River valley from south central N.Y. state southwards. The D.C. area also got pummeled by rain.

Simply physics tell us that a warmer atmosphere will hold more moisture. When conditions are suited for condensation, you get worse flooding and bigger snowfalls. The stepped-up incidence of flooding in the river valleys of the northeast over the last 10 years is just the sort of effect one would expect in this era.

The Binghamton, N.Y. area sustained its 2nd major flood in 5 years last week. I grew up there. I would've not expected another flood in the Susquehanna Valley to top the 1972 Tropical Storm Agnes flood for several generations. It's now happened twice.

Scientists tell us that no particular flood or drought can be attributed to global warming, but a greater frequency of these events are due to the phenomena.

It sure seems to be happening these days, and gosh is it ever costly for people.