Martin/Brown: Ending Racism

Saying that certain races can’t be expected to live up to the standards of white folk is the very essence of racism.

Stately McDaniel Manor

Trayvon Martin in aspiring pilot livery, a great potential discovered years after his death.

Race relations in America circa 2019 are, to put it mildly, fractious. If one listens to the Left, it’s all President Trump’s fault.  He’s a racist!  He’s a hater! He’s, he’s TRUMP!  Just look, he’s TRUMP!  Can’t you see that?!  He’s established a climate!  A climate of race and hate and TRUMP!

View original post 2,386 more words

The Case for Trump

Victor Davis Hanson has written a book with his take on how the man managed to get elected President, the first time he ran for anything.

Some people are responding in ways that are less than useful.

….
Most voters, admirably or not, do not always believe that their president must be morally perfect to do good, but only that, in practical terms, he must at least appear better than the alternative. A prior generation wanted the mercurial General George S. Patton leading the Third Army in France, and thereby saving American lives — a rare military genius who made Trump’s personal life, speech, and behavior appear quite tame in comparison.
The final irony? Schoenfeld claims that The Case for Trump indicts me as a treasonous sophist. But at least I can say that as a realist I seek to advance conservative causes that are transparent about their agendas and funding.
Schoenfeld was once a professed conservative who now conveniently adopts positions he once refuted, and he does so while in pay to a billionaire leftist who in large part underwrites The Bulwark’s invective to damage conservatives.
166
Since the malleable Schoenfeld is fond of historical allusion, so be it. There was once a proper Cold War term for what he has sadly turned into — a useful idiot, whose loud but transient and minimal utility to the Left will abruptly cease when Donald Trump leaves office.
And then what?

The Bulwark and Never Trump

The global warming risk premium….or not.

When the City of Los Angeles started adding fluoride to its water, we got lots of calls from people concerned that fluoride would cause all kinds of nasty health effects. One of the things I pointed out was that if it did, big cities that that were already fluoridating would be subject to higher insurance premiums on account of those nasty health effects.

The Curmudgeon

YES INDEED!

I got my Masters degree in Ecology in 1974. Barely 40 years ago, we were on the precipice of “The Ice Age Cometh”…Scientists were warning about a coming Ice Age. The cover of Science News, March 1, 1975, featured the headline THE ICE AGE COMETH? with a lurid drawing of NYC skyscrapers being swept away by glaciers. Somewhere along the line, the winds of climate research funding shifted, and global warming became the next new great fear of the future. But the phrase “global warming’ was just not adequate marketing, and what if those winds were to shift again back to cooling….? Aha, call it climate change and you cover both bases.

So whom to look to for objective evidence of the seriousness of climate change-global warming? I spent the last 25 years of my professional life in financial planning, which included an emphasis on risk management. The

View original post 457 more words

Trumping The Bible

Stately McDaniel Manor

We find ourselves, gentle readers, in a rapidly heating cultural cold war, and one of the primary battlefields is the sacred versus the secular.  However, not the secular as it is traditionally understood–a sort of benign not-of-God declination to participate in faith.  We battle over faith, particularly Christianity, and the political faith of socialists and their intersectional allies.  Trump Derangement Syndrome is a primary contemporary socialist article of faith, as Fox news reports:

View original post 1,309 more words

Civilians, Police, and Active Shooters.

The Writer in Black

Looking through FaceBook “Memories” today, I saw one from last year  in the aftermath of the Stoneman Douglas school shooting.  Many people have been pointing out that places like Utah have had apparent success with allowing school staff and faculty who so choose, and who are licensed to carry concealed in the State of Utah, to do so at school.  None of the horror stories about what would happen if that were permitted. (Really?  A teacher upset at student misbehavior would draw a gun and start shooting?  A teacher would be so careless as to leave the gun where a student could get it?  Basically, teachers are stupid with poor impulse control?  If you’re serious about those arguments, then I need my kids out of those teachers’ hands right now–guns or no guns.)

Someone made the “counter argument” as follows:

“How would you like to be a black armed teacher…

View original post 605 more words

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: Should White Boys Still Be Allowed to Talk? Proper response: Fuck…

Blacks and other minorities refuse to see this kind of thing as racist, yet can pick up the tiniest motes of racism when attributed to whites.

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: Should White Boys Still Be Allowed to Talk? Proper response: Fuck off, bigot. But this more nuanced response from the comments is good: “It’s not often that racist and sexist thoughts are married so well on the page, so kudos to the writer for creating this perfect storm of hate.

Source: HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: Should White Boys Still Be Allowed to Talk? Proper response: Fuck…

Message Received

Message Fiction strikes again

Shoplifting in the Marketplace of Ideas

One of the greatest dividing lines in current Science Fiction is the debate over “Message Fiction”. It was an issue that began to rear its ugly head decades ago, long before it became the genesis of the Sad Puppies. But this isn’t yet another Sad Puppies post. I want to look at the topic of Message Fiction because I recently came across a particularly arch example.

Now, when it comes down to it, short of pure action-adventure stories, almost all science fiction has some kind of idea or message behind it – the “What if” that makes the fiction speculative. Exploring those possibilities is what drives the story. 1984 was a dystopia that asked the question “What would life be like if the UK became the ultimate expression of an authoritarian socialist state?” But to have a story, one needs a conflict. Thus, 1984 has Winston Smith, a cog in…

View original post 3,371 more words

Will Happer “Climate Denier”

The Hoover Institution has a piece highlighting the bad science underlying global warming climate change.


My own skepticism about global warming goes back at least a decade and is captured in my 2010 article, Carbon Dioxide: Our Newest Pollutant, which I stand by to this day. I became friends with Happer in 2016 when I critiqued on scientific and legal grounds then-New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s ill-advised attack against Exxon-Mobil for concealing information about the incipient risks of global warming. Happer’s own views are well set out in a key publication,“A Primer on Carbon Dioxide and Climate.” It would do well for the critics to answer his arguments rather than engage in name-calling that reflects only badly on themselves. Unlike his nasty critics, Happer is a learned and judicious man.

In recent work I have indicated some of the evidence that goes against consensus views on the subject. As I noted in my critiqueof the Green New Deal, none of the recent attacks on Happer reference the global cooling in the last two years of about 0.56° C—the most rapid two-year decline in the last hundred years. Events like this are not supposed to happen as CO2 levels increase. That number is especially telling because the near-hysterical report issued by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) concluded that it was necessary by 2030 to reduce the targeted level of temperature increase to 1.5° C above pre-industrial levels. Without any real explanation, that report lowered the acceptable temperature increase by 0.5° C from the previous target of 2.0° C. To put this number in perspective, the world would be only 0.137° C cooler by 2100 if the United States cut all carbon emissions. Even if we assumed every other industrialized country would be equally on board, this would merely avert warming by 0.278° C by the turn of the next century. 

….

The establishment’s misunderstanding of both the science and economics of global warming quickly leads to serious policy blunders. In order to explain why Happer is such a dangerous appointment, The New York Times offers an elaborate graphic titled “To Cut Emissions Faster, U.S. Can Apply These Policies.” The graphic is based on a model by the firm Energy Innovation Policy and Technology LLC. The entire presentation is a powerful testament of the sorry state of the dominant views on climate science. 

The initial difficulty with that graphic lies in its estimate of the future decline in CO2 emissions. From 2000 to 2018, U.S. emissions declined from about 6.7 gigatons (one billion metric tons) to about 5.5 gigatons, a decrease of about 18 percent. This occurred during a period when the US population increased from 282.16 million in 2000 to about 328.3 million as of July 1, 2018, an increase of 16.3 percent. The net decline in emissions per person is around 42 percent. The model projects that the total level of CO2 emissions will remain roughly flat for the next 32 years, as if all technology innovation has been exhausted. But if one keeps the same rate of improvement for the next 32 years, it amounts to a further decline of 32 percent to a level of about 3.8 gigatons, which, with an estimated population of 438 million people by 2050, works out to a decline of emissions per person of over 50 percent. 

The model then lists a series of seven changes in climate policy that it believes are needed to cut that 5.5 gigaton total down to about 3.1 gigatons. The first six of these are estimated to reduce emissions to 3.5 gigatons. These are, in order, the imposition of a carbon tax on the model of British Columbia, which has already ceased to be revenue neutral despite its advocates’ promises. The tax was abandoned in Australia as “political poison” in 2014, two years after it was enacted. The next proposal requires utilities to produce all their energy from zero-carbon sources, which would require a massive retrofitting of American industry amounting to trillions of dollars in new expenditures in order to create an intrinsically unstable system. The third measure is the use of electric cars, which also require heavy subsidies to work. In principle, these cars should be welcome if they require no subsidies, as non-electric vehicles do indeed involve emissions, of which CO2 is not the most dangerous. The next three proposals involve setting various CO2 emission standards for heavy industry, without noting that the most important administrative measures should be directed to other pollutants, including the dirty coal that is burnt if the use of relatively clean natural gas succumbs to regulatory pressures.
None of these proposals are needed if the projected decline in CO2 from current technologies keeps pace with the developments of the last 18 years. Worse still, at no point does The New York Times’ model try to estimate the horrendous costs that come from the simultaneous implementation of policies that in all likelihood turn out to be counterproductive or unnecessary. Nor does The Times indicate what it thinks will be the decrease in temperature levels from the faithful implementation of these policies, especially if it turns out that, with the widespread breakdown of the Paris Accords, the rest of the world continues to increase its output of CO2 as the United States engages in fruitless action to reduce its CO2 emissions. Sadly, with the current state of intolerance in climate science, the U.S. needs Will Happer now more than ever. 

Hoover Institution

And from the comments:

I don’t follow this stuff closely, but to my way of thinking, IF the climate establishment truly believed in the consequential changes it asserts are inevitable, it would be theorizing the best methods and technologies to TAKE ADVANTAGE of those changes: e.g., building construction in areas it forecasts would be newly habitable, buying up acreage in the now-desert-soon-to-be-agriproductive areas. No one ever seems to discuss the potential positive consequences of a changing climate — it’s only ever stories of dire devastation, the avoidance of which has sky-high costs with no assurances of effective results.

I’m reminded of the young earth creationists who insist processes that geologists think took millions of years, such as the formation of slate and the separation of radioisotopes that give the appearance of long periods of radioactive decay, all happened as the result of natural processes during the year of the Noachic Flood.

Yet none of the young earth creationist organizations are doing any research to try to replicate these processes in the lab. The patent on hydrologic radioisotope separation would be worth millions — easily enough to fund any further research.