UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS

Why undocumented immigrants don’t just get to the ‘back of the line’

The widening gap between rich and poor at the national level is largely a myth that is fuelled by political propaganda, fake news and conspiracy theories. Rather than a widening gap between individuals in the same country, the gap is only widening between rich and poor countries. No one understands this better than those living in poor countries. That is one reason so many people want to start a new life in a new country.

But their dream is rarely realized. They must overcome restrictive laws and often racial and/or religious prejudice, and the myth that they will take work away from the locals, increase crime rates, or become terrorists, that is, if they can afford to get themselves to the border.

These days, the cheapest way to get anywhere is to fly with an airline, which explains why most immigrants enter at airports rather than land borders. They also understand that they are more likely to be caught and turned back if they try to sneak across a land border undetected. They can enter legally as visitors through an international airport, and just stay on, building a new life.

Nadia Y Flores-Yeffal, an assistant professor in the Department of Sociology, Anthropology and Social Work at Texas Tech University, sums it up perfectly writing for Express News:

 “Why don’t they do it the right way, like my ancestors?” is a common refrain heard from many European-origin Americans when they’re talking about immigration.

This is easily explained. Let’s start with the history.

When the Europeans came to the U.S at the turn of the 20th century, they just had to go through Ellis Island. More than 15 million immigrants were inspected and processed at Ellis Island, and the majority were allowed to stay. Only those with mental problems, those with sickness, those who were too weak to work, or those who were considered a danger to society were sent back — a mere 2 percent of all immigrants.

Immigrants at that time — the ancestors of most Americans — didn’t have to face numerical limitations or the need to have a visa to enter the United States.

This was true until 1924, the year in which the border patrol was established. Immigrants were then required to process a visa at an American consulate before entering the U.S. In 1924, the U.S. also decided to change the immigration law to mostly favor immigration from Western Europe because those from Eastern and Southern Europe were considered “undesirables.”

After World War II, the Bracero Program was implemented. It brought up to 5 million Mexican immigrants who came to do the hard work in the fields, as there was a labor shortage.

This program lasted 22 years and ended in 1964.

In 1965, for the first time, the U.S. had a restriction on visas for the Western Hemisphere. This was the beginning of undocumented immigration. In other words, our laws created this undocumented migration flow by making it exceedingly difficult for many immigrants to come legally to the U.S.

Today, we need immigrants to work in unskilled occupations — jobs that Americans don’t want to do. Would Americans want to pick the grapes in California under a hot sun all day? Or would they want to work in poultry processing industries inside refrigerators for entire shifts?

But our immigration laws only allow for 60,000 temporary visas and only 5,000 visas for unskilled workers annually to fulfill the demand for unskilled labor. All of the rest of the work-related visas are for those who are professionals and those who possess extraordinary abilities.

OK, so what about entry through refugee status? Or family reunification?

Let’s take refugees first. Unfortunately, refugees — particularly those from Central America and Mexico — are less likely to get their cases approved in immigration courts. Only 3 percent of Salvadorans applying for refugee status were approved, compared to 14 percent of all applicants.

Family reunification? People seeking entry through family reunification typically have to wait extremely long periods — often up to 15 years or longer. And the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 made this even more difficult. This law says that those who entered without inspection, regardless of whether they are married to a U.S. citizen and/or have U.S. born children, cannot apply for Legal Permanent Residency (LPR) without first being banned from the country for 10 years.

Beginning to understand why undocumented immigrants risk being suffocated inside a cargo truck or dying of dehydration while trying to get across the desert to here?

If there was a way to “do it the legal way,” believe me, they would have at least tried. There isn’t.

DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) provided a lifeline for Dreamers, who did not have any other option for gaining a path to legalization. The same is the case with Salvadorans who recently lost their Temporary Protected Status (TPS). Most of them have been living in the U.S. for more than 20 years.

Why would they continue to renew their TPS every two years and pay about $500 in processing fees per person each time if there was another way for them to apply and become legal permanent residents?

Right, you’re probably now saying this is a country of laws, and these must be obeyed. By everyone.

OK, but employers are giving jobs to undocumented workers. So, of course, immigrants come to fill those jobs. And the effects of the free market economy also displace workers from jobs in developing nations.

For example, after the elimination of tariffs due to NAFTA, agricultural workers in Mexico suddenly found themselves unable to sell their crops because the corn exported from the U.S. was selling for a cheaper price. So, people suddenly found themselves without jobs and no way to survive — due to U.S. policy.

These countries don’t have effective safety nets, such as unemployment benefits. Others face deep levels of poverty. Others need to emigrate to save their lives due to the high levels of violence from or extortion by drug dealers and gangs.

Yes, part of the IRCA law in 1986 included employer sanctions, making it illegal to knowingly hire undocumented workers. But, guess what? There has been very little enforcement of that in the last 32 years.

YOU MAY ALSO WANT TO READ:
If All the Illegals Left
The Politics of Immigration
Immigrants and Crime
Fanatics Are Distorting the Truth
Immigration and Economics

If this is a country of laws, why don’t employers set the example and follow the law?

These employers are hiring millions of undocumented immigrants and nobody calls them lawbreakers, much less “illegal employers.” That adjective — “illegal” — is reserved only for immigrants in the harsh anti-immigrant environment we now find ourselves in.

People who believe that today’s immigrants are lawbreakers because their ancestors followed the law and came legally should consider what would have happened if the current U.S. laws had existed when their ancestors wanted to come.

As with many immigrants today, back then many came without skills, were poor, and were escaping punishing economic conditions and war. They also would not have been able to qualify for legal documents.

So, please, stop asking, “Why don’t they just go to the back of the line?”

Let’s make it simple. Practically speaking, there is no line! Which is to say, there is mostly no way most undocumented immigrants can qualify for legal entry. They can’t successfully do it “the right way.”

The last time we had an amnesty program was through IRCA (the Immigration Reform and Control Act) of 1986.

I, along with another 3.5 million immigrants, was able to regularize my immigration status then. After that, a lot of wonderful life opportunities opened up for me. I was able to get my General Education Diploma (GED), attend a community college, transfer to a four-year university, and get my master’s and Ph.D. at an Ivy League university.

Today, I’m an assistant professor of sociology at Texas Tech University.

Without IRCA, I would not have been able to do all these things.

So, why not give the opportunity afforded by legalization — such as the one I had — to all the immigrants who have been satisfying the huge demand in the U.S. for unskilled labor?

The vast majority of these immigrants have been law-abiding, have been working very hard, and have already established their lives in the U.S.

Instead of criminalizing immigrants, we need to understand how, through bad immigration policy, the U.S. has created a huge population of second-class citizens who are now being used by corporations, legislators and our president for political and economic gain.

Nadia Y. Flores-Yeffal is the author of the book, “Migration-Trust Networks: Social Cohesion in Mexican U.S.-Bound Emigration.”

TRUMP'S LAST YEAR

The Trump downfall is playing out like a re-run of Nixon’s exit

It’s worth going back down the memory hole and remembering how swiftly it ended with Richard Nixon. It began in August of 1973 with his vice president, Spiro Agnew, who had been under investigation for taking cash pay-offs for construction contracts awarded when he was Governor of Maryland. The payments, it was alleged, continued into his vice presidency.

On August 6, Agnew and his attorneys met with Attorney General Elliot Richardson, and Agnew denied the charges. The Wall Street Journal broke the story later that day. On August 7, Richard Nixon expressed his support for Agnew, and on August 8, Agnew held a press conference and vociferously denounced the charges as “damned lies.”

Richard M Nixon

Stories about Watergate and Agnew’s pay-offs dominated the news for the rest of the summer and into the fall. Agnew initially took the legal position that vice presidents cannot be indicted, and began giving speeches attacking the prosecution as corrupt and venal. But by early October, Agnew had decided he would not survive and began negotiations to cop a pea.

On October 10, Agnew appeared before a federal court in Baltimore and plead no contest to tax evasion. He was fined $10,000 and given a term of three years probation. After leaving court, Agnew submitted his letter of resignation and was gone.

Ten days later, on October 20, under pressure from congressional investigations and by the Watergate special prosecutor, Richard Nixon undertook what would come to be known as the Saturday Night Massacre. He ordered Attorney General Richardson to fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. Richardson refused, and resigned in protest effective immediately. Then Nixon ordered Deputy Attorney General (now acting attorney general) William Ruckelshaus to fire Cox.

Ruckelshaus refused and also resigned. Nixon then turned to Solicitor General Robert Bork, who had stepped in to assume control of the Department of Justice. Nixon sent a limousine from the White House to pick up Bork, and he was sworn in as acting attorney general. Bork then took the fateful step of firing Cox, and the Saturday Night Massacre was over.

Spiro Agnew

Nixon’s downfall was only beginning. On November 1, under pressure, the White House appointed a new special prosecutor, Leon Jaworski. On November 14, a federal judge found that the firing of Archibald Cox was illegal. On November 17, Nixon gave his famous speech at Disney World defending himself against Watergate charges, assuring the nation, “I am not a crook!”

In the coming months, Nixon’s associates fell one after another. See if any of this sounds familiar:

On January 28, 1974, Nixon aide Herbert Porter plead guilty to committing perjury. Hmmm…seems like I remember a more recent perjury plea deal . . .

On February 25, Nixon’s personal attorney plead guilty to two charges of illegal campaign activities. Sound like Michael Cohen to you? I thought so.

A few days later, on March 1, Nixon was named as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in charges against seven of his aides. I think I might have read something about “Individual 1” in the Cohen guilty plea. OMG! I did!

On March 4, those aides, called “The Watergate Seven” were indicted: former campaign chairman John Mitchell; former White House aides H.R. Haldeman and John Erlichman; former White House counsel Charles Colson; and former White House aides Gordon Strachan, Kenneth Parkinson and Robert Mardian. Indictments piling up . . . hmmmm . . . this is all very familiar.

YOU MAY ALSO WANT TO READ:
Are We Headed Down the Jackboots Highway Again?
Who Is Telling the Truth and Who is Lying
The Truth About the Clinton Foundation
Donald Trump and Trade
Donald Trump's Inauguration Speech Preview

On April 5, White House aide Dwight Chapin was found guilty of lying to a grand jury. And another perjurer bites the dust . . .

Keep reading for the Coming Attractions:

On April 16, Special Prosecutor Jaworski issued a subpoena for 64 White House tapes.

On May 9, the House Judiciary Committee began hearings on the impeachment of Richard Nixon.

On July 24, the Supreme Court issued its decision in U.S. v Nixon, ordering him to release the White House tapes to Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski.

Between July 27 and 30, the House Judiciary Committee passed three articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon.

On August 5, what became known as the “smoking gun” White House tape was released, on which could be heard Nixon and aide H.R. Haldeman planning to obstruct the investigation of the break-in at Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate office complex.

Shortly afterward, Senators Scott, Goldwater, and Rhodes drove to the White House and informed Nixon that he did not have the votes in the Republican caucus to survive trial on impeachment in the Senate.

On August 8, Nixon addressed the nation from the Oval Office, announcing that on the following day, he would resign the presidency.

On August 9, Nixon submitted his formal resignation and departed the White House on Marine One.

Top of Form

HONOUR FOR PILOT

Rescue pilot Denis Hartley awarded New Zealand Order of Merit

Former Wanganui and Hunterville pilot Denis Hartley has been awarded the New Zealand Order of Merit for his services to aviation and rescue services.

Hartley began flight training in 1957 with Wanganui Aero Club after being awarded a grant from the Maori Education Foundation. He later became a topdressing pilot in Taihape for Wanganui Aero Work, owned by the Harding family.

His flying with the Hardings was the stepping stone to a career spanning 60 years. After moving to Hawke's Bay flying for Barr Brothers and following a serious flying accident in 1968, he began flying helicopters.

Denis Hartley NZOM

In his first helicopter rescue 45 years ago in Hawke's Bay the patient stretcher was attached on the outside to the skid of the helicopter and the doctor had to lean out the door to give the patient medical attention.

In 1988 Cyclone Bola hit and isolated the East Cape area north of Gisborne with road closures, low cloud and heavy rain. From that first day Hartley was requested by Ruatoria Civil Defence to rescue people from rooftops and cars immersed in flood waters and help people who needed immediate medical treatment caused by the storm.

As Hartley flew in heavy rain and cyclonic force winds, he also attended to more immediate rescues where people needed to be evacuated to higher ground. Due to many hours of flying, Hartley's helicopter fuel stock became low with no fuel deliveries available and people still required urgent assistance. Fortunately, the naval ship HMNZS Monowai was stationed off the East Cape, riding out the cyclone, and they offered their helicopter fuel because they had no helicopter aboard.

Mr Hartley was familiar with the Monowai due to previous work, so he was permitted to land to collect fuel. Landing on a pitching deck in cyclonic conditions was certainly exciting, especially when the deck was at times pitched at such an angle, he was given the illusion the helicopter was going to slide into the sea but, as standard procedure, on landing the Monowai deck crew immediately roped the helicopter skids to the deck.

See also:
Wings Over Waharoa
New Zealand Tourism
Poison From the Sky
Flying in 1931

Hartley established the East Cape Rescue Trust which equipped community first response rescue squads throughout the East Cape region with equipment including jaws-of-life, stretchers and other emergency equipment.

Hartley trained the squads which relayed weather and other safety information, especially for the numerous night landings that he did to pick up injured or sick patients who had to be flown to Gisborne, Whakatane or Tauranga hospitals at night. He believed the one-hour concept of receiving medical treatment was crucial.

GPS navigation was not reliable in the region for some years therefore night-time navigation was by helicopter instruments and Denis Hartley's local knowledge. Ngati Porou Radio Station instigated the fundraising for the rescue trust and donations were received from all over New Zealand, Chatham Islands and Australia. This pioneered in New Zealand the concept of a community owned rescue helicopter supported by commercial work.

He acknowledged the trustees who drove and supported the East Coast Rescue Service to become the dedicated Air Ambulance service it is today at the Gisborne Airport, and also to those who have given their skills and abilities under trying conditions to help others.

Denis Hartley thinks his saddest rescue was when he flew to pick up two very young children badly injured in a T-bone car crash. Fortunately, the helicopter was fitted with two stretchers. Four others were left beside the cars.

His happier moments were when he had two babies born in flight on two separate occasions and another just on touchdown at Gisborne Hospital.

Another time and while in bed with the flu, he had an emergency callout to pick up an injured powerline worker. After delivering the patient to the Te Puia Springs Hospital and having been soaked with heavy rain, Mr Hartley went back to bed where his condition worsened. St John Ambulance in Ruatoria delivered him to hospital where he was put in the bed next to a startled injured power-line worker who recognized him, and Hartley stuttered "just checking you are tucked in for the night".

Denis Hartley also established the East Coast Search and Rescue Association and Tokomaru Bay – East Cape marine communications, was a committee member of the Aviation Industry Association (Air Ambulance and Helicopter Divisions) and the Aerial Agricultural Association, was adviser for the Aviation, Tourism and Travel Training Organisation, regional safety officer for the NZ CAA, patron of the Tokomaru Coastguard and is currently a member of Ohope Lions.

As a flight instructor and flight examiner, Hartley has trained numerous pilots in New Zealand, China, Taiwan and India and pioneered methods of helicopter live-line insulator washing and human-sling helicopter live-line maintenance.

Mr Hartley was awarded the Royal Humane Society Bronze Medal for bravery as a 14-year-old when he dived 30 metres into a flooded river to save a passenger in a car crash.

GLOBALIZATION

Jobs dry up for travel 

agents and IT workers

By Peter Blakeborough

“If you’re a travel agent or an accountant, you could be facing extinction by 2017,” wrote Alanah Eriksen in the New Zealand Herald business pages on August 13, 2012.

She predicted also, just as many others often do, that car manufacturers, retail and IT workers would also need to look for new career paths. Eriksen pointed to Balance Recruitment as an agency that had compiled a list of top jobs that would disappear within five years. But two years after the jobs should have disappeared, it is mostly the job seekers that are disappearing as the world economy and employment continue to boom.

When the NZ Herald article predicted that travel agents and accountants would disappear by 2017, they were clearly wrong. The Herald article was one of the most masterly written pieces of doom and gloom ever published. 

It is true that over time some occupations do disappear, but the evolution of business and employment is, in some ways, just like the evolution of nature; as one species becomes extinct many new species take its place. There is a popular saying that as one door closes another opens, but in reality it is often a case of many new doors opening.

Many people like to blame the internet for the so-called hard times that exist today. Let’s examine that.

At the start of the twentieth century, www could have meant wooden wagon wheel because the whole world was busy bemoaning the expected demise of the wooden wagon wheel maker. But the wooden wagon was inefficient, few individuals owned one and, often as not, the wheels fell off between one town and the next. To add to the woes of wooden wagon owners, they needed to own a horse and have somewhere to graze it. If the wagon was needed to transport produce to a market, they needed a team of horses.

Nowadays people will tell you that motor vehicles, and their exhaust fumes, are destroying the world, but think where the world would be without motor vehicles. With today’s population the world would be literally knee-deep in horse manure.  

The evolution of business and employment has been going on for thousands of years and the invention of the wheel and the wagon has been a vital part of that evolution, but the development of motor vehicles has been crucial. Before the Industrial Revolution few people lived beyond the age of 40 and the main causes of death were starvation (chiefly from unemployment) war, plague, murder and suicide. 

Industries and occupations are lost when more efficient industries and occupations take their place and efficiency ultimately puts more spending power into more pockets. Granted, there can be pain during transition but in the end commercial and industrial progress means wealth for more people and that can be seen in the growing range of occupations, products and services available that are available and affordable today.

YOU MAY ALSO WANT TO READ:
The Robots are Coming
Princess Diana and Globalization
The World and Free Trade
Enduring Economic Catchphrases
Conspiracy Theory Facts

When the wooden wagon wheel disappeared cars, aircraft and telephones were rare. Only the exceptionally wealthy owned them. Radio, television, computers and music tapes and discs, play station and thousands of other products and services now available were yet to be launched. Launching those products and services was not just a simple matter of inventing them and selling millions. They would have been next to useless until the masses of people had the money to buy them.

Outsourcing is a dirty word to many but it has positive benefits. It helps reduce the cost of goods and services and bring them within the reach of more people.

India, with more poverty and unemployment than any other country in the world, benefits enormously from outsourcing and that is just part of the evolving economic globalization in which ultimately everyone wins. As India becomes more wealthy, there are spin-offs for the rest of the world. Indians are now travelling more than previously thereby creating jobs in travel and tourism. They are also able to import more products from the rest of the world. 

Everyone ultimately wins from globalization.

FACTS ABOUT WORK HOURS

Second richest man has a radical opinion on work hours

FIRST PUBLISHED IN 2014, THIS ARTICLE IS STILL RELEVANT IN 2019

Carlos Slim, the world’s second richest man wants you to work just three days a week. But don’t get carried away just yet. The 74 year-old, who is chairman of Telmax, didn’t say that he wants to hire you. Telmax is the dominant telecommunications provider in Latin America.

Carlos Slim

According to an article by Jenna Kagel in the Financial Times, Slim wants to slim down the working week to just three days to improve productivity by allowing people more rest and recreation. He says the downside would be that workers may have to work until they are 70 or even 75 years old. Carlos Slim is believed to have a net worth of about $80 billion USD and it can probably be safely assumed that he didn’t acquire his wealth without lots of radical ideas.

But is his suggestion really all that radical, or is he suggesting that progressive trends in working conditions over the centuries are simply due for the next step forward?

We’ve come a long way since the earliest agricultural workers worked in the fields until they fell asleep, where they worked, and when they awoke again they immediately started work again, seven days a week. We hear terrible things about working conditions during the industrial revolution when an 18 hour day was normal, six days a week, and the workers went home after work. That was a miserable existence, but it was an improvement on the earlier work conditions.

A chart from the Economist showing the relationship between work hours and productivity

During the 20^th Century the 40 hour/five day working week became normal for many workers, and nearing the end of the century some workers were allowed to go home for the weekend after only 35 hours. Annual leave not only became normal during the 20^th Century, but the amount of leave increased from two weeks to four weeks a year. Other entitlements that became acceptable during the 20^th Century included sick leave, bereavement leave, maternity leave and long service leave.

Shorter working hours can have many benefits for society other than increased productivity. Not the least of these is work place safety. Take the case of long distance truck drivers in places like the USA, Russia and Australia with vast distances to drive with primitive conditions and laws, compared with Europe. These drivers sleep in their trucks and drive each day until they are ready to fall asleep and there is always pressure to deliver on time. The most common cause of single vehicle truck accidents is drivers falling asleep at the wheel. These drivers are stuck in a time warp somewhere between the first agricultural workers and the factory workers of the industrial revolution.

Another Economist chart showing average working hours for OECD countries

But there are other important benefits to be gained by society from shorter working weeks and work days. Family life is one of the first things to spring to mind. The children of long hours workers often grow up poorly adjusted for life and may embark on a life of crime or anti-social behavior. Long hours workers are more likely to divorce than shorter hours workers, and they are also more likely to have health issues. It is common to hear from people who live to an exceptionally old age, that they achieved their old age with hard work. But the reality is that people who work hard and long generally have shorter lives.

Life expectancy has improved with better working conditions, shorter hours and better wages.

There is one more important benefit of shorter working hours that is often overlooked. In the days when workers slogged from daylight to dark every day for poor wages (or in slavery), they had no discretionary spending power to buy the products that they produced, or any non-essential items.

Starting in the 20^th Century and continuing into the 21^st Century, workers have had discretionary spending power, and the reduced working hours give them the time to spend their surplus wages. This is good for the well-being of the individual and it is good for the national economy.

As workers spend their wages they help keep others in work, and the more a particular product is purchased the cheaper it can be produced and sold. As they used to say about money: It’s made round to go round.

YOU MAY ALSO WANT TO READ:
The Cost of Living
Government Blamed for Housing Woes
Voters Hold the Key to Housing Problems
The Rich Are Getting Richer and the Poor are Getting Poorer

However, the suggestion by Carlos Slim that the retirement age may have to go up to 70 or 75 must be challenged. To prove his assumption wrong, we must go back again to the slaves and workers in primitive agriculture. For them there was no retirement. They worked until they died. It was the same during the industrial revolution and it wasn’t until the 20^th Century that workers started receiving a meagre retirement pension. As the century progressed more people qualified for the pension and the qualifying age moved steadily downward.

Retirement itself became an industry, taking from and giving to the national economy. Without pensioners the economy would revert back to the hard times prior to the introduction of pensions. Baby boomers joining the ranks of the retired is no reason to raise the retirement age. In fact most WWII baby boomers are now receiving a pension and the economic effect has been zero.

In summary, shorter working hours leads to improved safety and productivity, better home life, increased industrial creativity or a wider range of products for workers to buy and enjoy. It is better for everyone including governments, businesses and workers. Bring it on!

DR TIM BALL ON CLIMATE

𝐀 𝐒𝐇𝐎𝐑𝐓 𝐋𝐈𝐒𝐓 𝐎𝐅 𝐐𝐔𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐒 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐈𝐏𝐂𝐂
(𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐃𝐫 𝐓𝐢𝐦 𝐁𝐚𝐥𝐥 - 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝟏𝟓, 𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟖)

Dr Tim Ball, aged 80, is a renowned environmentalist and retired professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg. His awards include Clarence Atchison Award for excellence in Community Service and the Clifford J. Robson Memorial Award for Teaching Excellence. He has published several peer-reviewed papers in the field of historical climatology and is the author or co-author of several books.

Dr Tim Ball

1) Why was the definition of climate change used as the basis for the IPCC research limited to only human causes?
2) How did this allow them to ignore water vapor, by far the most important and abundant greenhouse gas?
3) Why were they allowed to build computer climates models when they knew the data was inadequate?
4) Why was the IPCC membership and participation in Reports limited to only those chosen by bureaucratic members of the WMO?
5) Why are almost all the people involved in the IPCC unqualified in climatology?
6) Why did the IPCC only examine temperature and warming?
7) Why didn’t the IPCC report on the positive effects of warming?
8) Why don’t they release the Working Group I (WGI) Physical Science Report first?
9) Why did they set up a separate group of politicians and bureaucrats with a few selected scientists to produce the Summary for Policymakers?
10) Why was it released before the scientific evidence of WGI?
11) Why were the forecasts made in the first IPCC Report in 1990 so wrong?
12) Why did the second Report in 1995 stop providing forecasts?
13) Why did they switch to providing scenarios or projections after 1990?
14) Why did they ignore all the legitimate critiques of the early Reports?
15) Why did they finally establish a method of feedbacks and critiques?
16) Why did most of these never make it into the Reports?
17) Why did approximately 30,000 attend the recent climate conference in Poland?
18) Why were a majority of them environmental activists with no qualifications in climatology?
19) Why were industry and business so poorly represented from the start?
20) Why does that continue at the recent climate conference?
21) Why is the IPCC the source of e annual production of human CO2 for their computer models?
22) Why does a CO2 increase cause a temperature increase in their computer models when it doesn’t exist in the empirical data?
23) Why are similar computer models unable to forecast weather much beyond 72 hours?
24) Why were all the IPCC projections from 1995 to the present incorrect?
25) Why has most of the global temperature record been altered?
26) Why did all these alterations only change the record in one direction?
27) Why did those adjustments only lower early temperatures?
28) Why do major agencies that calculate the annual average global temperature get different results?
29) Why did skeptics become deniers?
30) Where is the evidence that climate change deniers deny climate change?
31) Why, in fact, do all the deniers claim that climate change occurs?
32) Why do the media never ask Al Gore about his climatology qualifications?
33) Why in IPCC AR4 did they provide a completely different definition of climate change that they claimed, falsely, they used in their Reports? They didn’t even use it in the one in which they claimed it.
34) Why, if the science is so clear, do most nations act hesitatingly or fail to act?
35) Why did the Kyoto Protocol fail?
36) What replaced the Kyoto Protocol?
37) Why is China entitled to and now demanding $2 billion from the IPCC through the Paris Climate Agreement?

YOU MAY ALSO WANT TO READ:
Overpopulation and Deadly Myths
Failed Climate Predictions
Global Cooling Could Be Devastating
Peer Review Not the Holy Grail
Warmer Could Be Better