When is science not science?  Apparently when you read about science in a “scientific” journal. It is one thing when demigods proclaim that science and math is racist, it is another thing when professional journals whose articles can impact people’s care and life decide to slant or exclude information which the editors dislike or dispute.  It seems unfortunately, that there are, indeed, individuals who willingly distort scientific papers that do not conform to their individual prejudices and/or political beliefs.

There is a great deal of pressure to publish in the academic and scientific community, and it appears that certain “professionals” have diluted or even changed the results of their studies to conform to these pressures.  That is bad enough, but what is even more ugly is when previously trusted professional journals set out informal or even formal guidelines for approved narratives. And, with the demand for more spectacular findings, a perfect storm is created between the pressure to publish and the demand for adhering to the “correct” narrative.

The attached link will take you to a sad tale that simply fuels the increasing mistrust of our governmental and social institutions.  Printing the truth of findings is not enough; findings must be exciting and adhere to the ideology of the editors.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-preapproved-narratives-corrupt-science-false-studies-covid-climate-change-5bee0844?page=1

As I write this, much of the United States is suffering under a heat wave and accordingly, the usual suspects are on television reminding us that if we do not follow their wonderful directions and stop flying to our vacation destination the temperature will continue to rise until we are all reduced to cinders.  After their forecast of doom, they nobly get on their private jet and hurry off to a luxury location where they are joined by fellow travelers who then congratulate themselves on their noble and brave appearances on television.

Certainly, if you were a member of the baby boom generation, you might take the news that we are all doomed unless we begin to cook using electric stoves with just a bit of skepticism.  Why?  Because we have heard it all before; in fact, we have heard the tales of doom multiple times.  Remember the fact that we were headed to a new ice age?  Or, that billions of people were going to starve due to a shortage of food?  How could we forget that the world would run out of oil sometime in the 1990’s, or that all the polar bears were going to die due to the disappearance of the ice caps?  Strange isn’t it that all of those and other forecasts were wrong and yet we are expected to blindly believe and follow the new messiahs as they want us to march bravely backward into the fourteenth century.

Yet, there may be some degree of truth in their dire forecasts, and if there is, individuals such as Bjorn Lomborg will help us all to put them into the proper perspective.  In the article linked below, Lomborg points out that people are not stupid, and that the history of mankind has been a lesson on how humanity lives with and adapts to the natural world. For example, the number of deaths from climate in the last century is down by over 95%.  How is that possible if the earth is going through a major climate change?  Perhaps it is because we have adapted to the world around us and by taking steps to shape our environment. Or, what about those “super storms” who are bearing down on us?  Actually, the number of hurricanes that have made landfall since 1900 is down slightly.

The article helps to put climate change in perspective, in terms of costs, impact, and realistic options.  It is a bit of fresh air that can help you judge better those talking heads and messiahs who somehow fail to lead by example; they continue to purchase huge houses by the shore, travel in private jets and leave behind the largest of carbon footprints. 

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Imprimis_Apr_8pg_5-23WEB.pdf

Originally published 06.01/2023 on Fox News.com by Alex Epstein

The “green energy” movement claims that it wants cost-effective energy—affordable, reliable, plentiful—just without fossil fuels’ pollution or GHG emissions. But this is contradicted by its hostility toward clean, non-carbon nuclear and hydro—the most proven alternatives to fossil fuels.

You might expect the “green-energy” movement to be the Number 1 supporter of clean, non-carbon nuclear and hydroelectric energy, but instead, it is the Number 1 opponent. “Green” groups have opposed nuclear for decades (leading to crippling costs) and worked to shut down hydroelectric dams. 

Why does the “Green” movement oppose nuclear and hydro?

It is because “green” solar and wind are just so cost-effective and so “green”?

No. Solar and wind have not proven to be cost-effective at all, and in many ways, they are the least “green” form of energy.

“Green energy” isn’t really energy

Calling solar and wind “green energy” makes them seem like other forms of energy, just “green.” But they’re not. All other forms of energy provide reliable energy—real energy—whereas solar and wind are unreliable parasites of reliable energy.

Despite claims that solar and wind are rapidly replacing fossil fuels, they provide less than 5% of world energy—only electricity, one-fifth of energy—and, crucially, even that small percentage depends on huge subsidies and reliable (mostly fossil-fueled) power plants. 

Calling solar and wind “green energy” makes them seem like other forms of energy, just “green.” But they’re not. All other forms of energy provide reliable energy—real energy—whereas solar and wind are unreliable parasites of reliable energy.

Solar and wind’s basic problem is unreliability, to the point they can go near zero at any time. Thus, they don’t replace reliable power, they parasitize it. This is why they need huge subsidies and why no grid is near 50% solar and wind without huge parasitism on reliable neighbors.  

The popular idea that we can use mostly or only solar and wind with sufficient battery backup is not being tried anywhere because it’s economically absurd. Batteries are so expensive that just 3 days of global backup using Elon Musk’s Megapacks would cost $600 trillion, about six times global GDP!  

“Green” solar and wind may someday become a part of real energy solutions—if generators using solar and wind are willing to guarantee reliability, instead of generating unreliable power and forcing everyone else to clean up their mess. But today’s “green energy” is not real energy. If solar and wind ever become truly cost-effective, you can be certain of one thing: the “green energy” movement will oppose them as insufficiently “green” given their huge “environmental impacts.” 

“Green energy” isn’t really green

If solar and wind became cost-effective and deployed on a large scale, they would have a level of “environmental impact” from mining and land use that would make the “green movement” oppose them. In fact, this is already happening. “Green” means minimal or nonexistent “environmental impact.”

Because sunlight and wind are dilute sources of energy—they take up more space and use more of many materials than fossil fuels or nuclear. This massive “environmental impact” is not at all “green.”  

Consider the land use requirements of solar. The world uses over 165,000 TWh of energy per year, which requires ~19 billion kW of power on average. An optimistic, real-world power density for solar projects is 10 Watts per square meter. To power the world, you’d need ~1.8 million square kilometers of solar PV projects.  

If 1.8 million square kilometers of solar panels doesn’t seem like much, note that it is more than all cities, towns, villages, and human infrastructure combined (~1.5 million square kilometers).  

And this excludes the huge footprints of solar and battery mining, manufacturing, and transmission. Consider the mining requirements of solar, wind, and batteries. An International Energy Agency projection for a “net zero” scenario shows an increase in mining and processing of minerals such as lithium, graphite, nickel, and rare earths by 4,200%, 2,500%, 1,900%, and 700% by 2040. 

Because “green energy” has so much enviromenatal impact even on today’s small scale it faces huge “green” opposition to its land use, mining, and transmission-line-building requirements. For example, the Biden administration recently shut down a prime “green energy” mining site in Minnesota.  

If “green” solar and wind aren’t really energy, and if they have so much environmental impact that the “green” movement opposes them in practice, then why does the green movement so enthusiastically support them rhetorically? To hide its real goal: radically reducing energy use.

“Green”—”minimal human impact”—is a fundamentally anti-energy idea. Energy is “the capacity to do work,” which means transforming—impacting—our environment. The more energy we use, the more we transform Earth, the more impact we have. If you don’t want us to impact Earth you ultimately must oppose every form of energy.

The fundamental hostility of the “green” movement to energy explains why throughout its history it has never supported current, cost-effective sources of energyand only “supported” imaginary sources of energy that might exist in the future.

“Green” leaders supported nuclear—until it became cost-effective, at which point they demonized and criminalized it. “Green” leaders supported natural gas—until it became cost-effective on a global scale thanks to shale energy tech, at which point they demonized it as “fracking.”

Because the “green” movement is anti-energy any enthusiasm its leaders express for fusion is phony; while they may claim to want clean, cheap, abundant energy before it exists, they will not like the impact it has once it exists. And in the past, green leaders admitted this.  

Amory Lovins, the leader of the modern “green energy” movement, said in the 1970s: “If you ask me, it’d be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we would do with it.”  

The world needs to reject the “green” movement and instead embrace a “human flourishing” movement that embraces intelligent human impact on Earth as a good thing. It’s one that both embraces today’s most cost-effective energy sources—including fossil fuels—and is eager to improve on them.

Alex Epstein is the author of “Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal and Natural Gas,” and the creator of Energy Talking Points on Substack a source of powerful, concise, well-referenced talking points on energy, environmental, and climate issues.

What exactly is the purpose of a university?  Over a thousand years, it has changed in many ways.  At one time, universities were places where religious individuals were educated.  Over time, the curriculum expanded to bring in more secular topics. Each topic, however, was based on certain time-tested precepts and had a rigorous set of standards.  Knowledge of Latin and ancient Greek was often required as the writings of the ancients were thought to provide a basis for both morality and discipline of thought.

Fast forward to today, where the very concepts of merit, objectivity and discipline seem to have gone by the wayside.  Instead, we often find that greater “truths” are being offered based on a view of the world that provides no concrete base of values.  Moral relativism is being offered which if followed to its logical conclusion, creates a system which only provides a shelter for those who are not capable of living a disciplined, logic world.  That is because moral relativism always offers an excuse for one’s failures and shortcomings.  The individual is always a victim.  Ultimately there cannot be any good or bad, for everyone ultimately becomes a victim, of race, sex, economics, height, weight, intelligence, self-discipline, and so forth.  The list is endless.

The attached article about a modern-day university, sponsored by tax-payer dollars (so far taxpayers have not been labeled a victim group) should make us all try to image living in a world filled with endless victims and excuses.  That would be a very scary brave new world indeed.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-university-of-houstons-radical-dei-bureaucracy

No one ever said that being a parent was easy, but traditionally the parents were given the benefit of the doubt regarding the raising of their children.  Cases of parental abuse were dealt with by the court system and while not perfect, the welfare of the child as a minor incapable of rational choice was the main concern of the state.  In the public school system, there was a goal of parent/teacher co-operation and trust.

The one benefit of the lockdowns-admittedly at a huge cost-has been a re-examination of the parent-teacher relationship as parents have become more aware of the curriculum which has taken over many public schools with the full support of the teacher’s unions and power forces which are immune to parental concerns and desires.  Amazingly teachers who have failed to provide the three “R” s to students at a time when future employment and self-sufficiency will be more and more dependent on these basic skills more than ever, has seemingly taken onto their broad shoulders’ the sexual lives of children five years old and older. Thank goodness for their expert help! It is clear that teachers in many locations across the country are unable to fulfill the basics of their position so why would anyone believe they are competent to take on the sexual education of the children in their classes?

As if the arrogance of the teachers is not enough, corporate America has also decided that it is their responsibility to jump into the fight and help parents across America raise their children to be happy, responsible, and sexually fulfilled minors. It is obvious that if you take your child to Disney World, you are taking them there so that they will be exposed to the correct sexual role models, not to provide an innocent, if expensive, lapse into fantasy. At the same time, summer camp may now be available for parents to allow individuals with no professional expertise to provide their children with sexual toys, lessons on BDSM and other sexual advice that those foolish parents thought would be best handled by the parents themselves.

The two links to short articles by Christopher F. Rufo should be read by parents so that they may ask pointed questions when they decide to turn their children over to what has traditionally been a time of innocent fun, experience, and growth.  It seems that it is the view of more and more organizations and special interest groups that the role of parents is one to merely provide shelter and food to children and that parents should leave the moral and sexual education to those who know better or at the very least, have a self-serving agenda totally opposed to the will of those foolish parents.

https://www.city-journal.org/kentucky-summer-camp-teaches-sex-liberation

https://www.city-journal.org/disneys-ideological-capture

At no time in history has so much effort, expense and legal aid been expended to encourage the freedom of choice and education of girls and women.  In order to insure that women have an equal opportunity at education, Constitutional guarantees have been ignored and specific laws enacted to ensure that females have equal access to all aspects of education including sports.  At every level, we see amazing numbers for females, in terms of numbers of degrees awarded (“58 percent of all B.A.s in the 2019-2020 academic year…at least 60% of all master’s degrees, and 54 percent of all PhD’s”).  There are more women attending universities than males and half of the highest universities according to Forbes have women as presidents. These numbers all point to the feminization of our centers of higher learning. How is it that in a world where two-thirds of college administrators are women, women at those very schools are subjected to a steady stream of rhetoric on victimhood and unsafety while demanding “safe spaces”, calming corners, etc.

We should be seeing the strongest and most confident generation of women to ever stride this planet, yet somehow, we do not hear about the successes of women, instead we hear of the “mental crisis among young people”.  Somehow there is a great amount of fear, depression, anxiety, and emotional volatility by those who should be the best and the brightest.

Added to this list of problems, either real or perceived, are various studies which show that there are major differences between men and women and the value of academic excellence.  Whereas studies show that nearly three-quarters of university males believe that free speech is more important that promoting “an inclusive society”, only about forty percent of women believe that was a positive value; building an inclusive society was viewed as more important than free speech.  In effect, the quest for intellectual clarity and the pursuit of excellence is of little value to the majority of female students.  What does this hold for the future in a world that is increasingly competitive?  Does this mean that an individuals perceptions are of paramount importance in the areas of math, physical science, etc.?  We have heard mandatory oaths administered to medical students that rather than promising to do no harm, demand that a medical treatment take into account a patient’s world view. How does that help to fix a broken arm or ease the pain of a heart attack?

That attached article by Heather Mac Donald should make everyone sit up and realize that there is something very wrong with a system that rather than celebrating the achievements of females, leads them to accept a view of the world and actions which is counter-productive and personally demeaning. The sad fact is that it appears that female administrators are creating a system whose chief victims are other females.

https://www.city-journal.org/the-great-feminization-of-the-american-university

The fact that this book was published in 2015 made it that much more attractive to me. Here was an opportunity to learn more about robots but more importantly, it was an opportunity to see how accurate an author and techie who has been involved in the computer industry for twenty years could be with his projections and forecasts.  I found unfortunately, that the field of robotics has moved in many areas, even faster than he predicted, while in other areas, he was right on target. 

In chapter and verse, Mr. Ford lays out specific areas of human industry and demonstrates how the robotic industry is developing answers as to how to replace humans with devastating effect. While we think of how the auto industry has been revolutionized by robots, we forget the lost jobs in the industry and don’t draw a conclusion about other industries. Think again!

While the initial reaction to a computer besting Garry Kasparov in chess was shock, after a while it seemed almost expected as people began to understand that it was a matter of programing the computer with a finate set of options.  What is more difficult for the human mind to accept however, is that we ourselves with our rational ability and physical dexterity might be replaceable.  Could a mundane yet physically demanding job which requires judgment on physical actions be done by a robot? Look at an Amazon warehouse; acres of shelving, reaching stories high hold thousands of items in different sizes, shapes, colors, etc.  Busy worker bees race around on scooters or roller skates, picking items for orders.  Each order might consist of one item or fifteen widely separated items, it is a bookkeeping and inventory bowl of spaghetti. Is it possible to replace a human who can make on the spot adjustments in stacking pulled items so that the pile of orders does not topple over in transit and create a roadblock to other workers.  The answer is yes; robots have been designed and are currently in use who can read the order, follow the map of the warehouse to the shelves for the goods, physically pick the correct item no matter its shape, size, or location, stack it the transportation vehicle, adjust each box so they fit the most efficient and take it to the next step.  Robots cannot only do the job, they can do it faster, more efficiently and at a lower cost than a human worker.  No more taking breaks, bathroom time, meals, vacations, etc. while not needing costly dental or medical coverage and they can work non-stop for a full twenty-four hours with minimal maintenance.

What other human jobs might robots be able to perform in the future?  How about fast food preparation, dispensing of medicines at pharmacies, operations on humans, medical diagnosis in a manner that is faster and based on more information than any doctor alive can possess, elder-care for the elderly, self-driving autos to replace manned taxi services, defending our nation by flying jets faster and in such a way that a human pilot would die, writing sports columns, etc., the list literally goes on and on.  Oh wait, those examples above are already being done by robots.  After all, why would you pay a pharmacist over one-hundred thousand dollars a year for eight hours of work when you can have a robot do the same job on a 24/7 basis?  In short, there are few jobs currently done by humans than cannot and will not be done by robots.

While there will be benefits to such a move, it will simply displace and make unemployable literally tens of millions of humans. A leader of China once said that his first though in the morning was “Today 60,000 new Chinese children will be born; what jobs will they have in eighteen years?”.  If he were to have that same thought today, his answer would give him more of a headache.  Where will tomorrows young people learn the basics of being on time, teamwork and a sense of self-worth when working at a fast-food restaurant, big-box store or the dog walking service will be taken over by robots?  Try to think of some job or profession which eventually cannot be replaced by robotics.  Car mechanic?  Autos today are run by computer and many times rather than repair a part, the old one is pulled out and the replacement can be plugged in. If that is the case today, imagine the mechanics job in five or ten years.  The list goes on and on.

In effect, much of this book is an argument for a guaranteed income.  With the withering of jobs, millions of humans will simply be useless.  How are they to live? What will be their value?  How will they be cared for and what will they do day in and day out?  In effect, the economy as we know it today, may very well disappear.  Robots produce, but they do not consume, so the cost of production may decrease but the ability to earn an income will decrease.  Since the Capitalistic system has created so much wealth, mobility and freedom, a decrease of Capitalism will lead to a top down, decreasing economy; it has been that way in every top-down society and the trend will only accelerate in the future. 

Will our future either be something as pictured in the movie Soylent Green or in The Time Machine?  Either option is not attractive, but will we have the will and strength to avoid those options and allow future generations an opportunity to fully experience the true human condition with all its joys and pains?

Here is a link into an interesting article on cohabitation and the financial cost of such a decision.  It is an interesting phenomenon and one to be considered by anyone thinking of cohabitation. 

“I care a little bit less that I thought I would about marriage” she said. “Once you start living together, it almost feels like you made that commitment.”  So ends a recent article on why unmarried couples face a wealth gap. 

Nearly fifty-nine percent of adults aged 18 to 44 are living with a partner, sharing rent and food costs, but maintaining separate checking and investment accounts.  Yet, despite their two income lifestyles, the “net worth of cohabiting couples age 25 to 34 was … a quarter of that for married couples.”  Why is that?  Unmarried couples are willing to purchase a home jointly, but they are not willing to mingle their assets on an everyday basis.  And they wonder if there is some magical reason why their married friends are doing so much better than they.

This wealth gap also exists in Black and Latino groups, where marriage rates are lower than among Whites and Asians.  Yet, in addressing poverty in these two groups, planners and leaders seem to ignore this glaring fact.  Why?  Is the truth too difficult to hear?  Perhaps bringing it up is an act of white privilege?  Can poverty in these groups ever been really attacked until this issue is addressed in an adult manner, regardless and despite those who shun the concept of personal responsibility.

As the comment in the opening paragraph shows, living together may feel like a commitment, but it is only a convenient means of splitting expenses.  The secret that married couples know that seems to be beyond the comprehension of the individuals mentioned in the article linked below, is that actual marriage is a commitment.  In that commitment, a couple begins to focus less on themselves and more on that commitment.  There is a shift in one’s mindset as one believes that an error, and there are plenty of errors to be made in marriage, can destroy years of work and compromises in planning for a future together.

The amazing thing about the article is that the interviewed woman does not seem to have any idea of what happens in a marriage. There is an old dialog where a man says to a woman that marriage is only piece of paper and that he really loves her.  She turns and say that if marriage is “only a piece of paper”, then he should not be afraid of it.  Could the value of marriage not be appreciated because it is considered judging someone?  Then perhaps it should be taught as an exercise in economics.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/moving-in-together-doesnt-match-the-financial-benefits-of-marriage-but-why-11667761626?page=1

One of the most hotly contested rules of the Covid lockdown was the various mask mandates. Wearing a mask was a mark of subservience to the unscientific political whims of elected officials who suddenly seemed to believe that they had secret knowledge of Covid. The rules and exemptions were often silly and illogical, such as being allowed to not wear a mask when dining out, but if you went to the washroom, you needed to wear the mask while in transit. Or, if on an airplane, keep the mask on during flight service but you could quickly slip it down while taking a sip of your beverage. Somehow Covid would be too slow to attack you or slip past your uncovered mouth during those couple of seconds. It always struck me as odd that healthcare workers often had to wear hazmat suits while treating patients, but we could all help stop Covid by wearing a cheap piece of cloth for days on end.

Finally, we are seeing some studies which show that wearing masks may be a wonderful way to be virtue signaling, but aside from puffing up one’s ego, it does little if anything to successfully fight off Covid.

In his excellent novel, A Gentleman in Moscow, the author, Amor Towles writes about early Soviet equalitarianism. The main character (the Gentleman) having placed his luncheon meal of a fennel and orange salad, followed by osso buco, ordered a bottle of San Lorenzo Barolo, 1912. The waiter asked if it was a red wine and the Gentleman, a bit taken aback for he was in a fine hotel restaurant, confirmed it with good grace.

Before the wine arrived, the Gentleman had an opportunity to speak to the manager who explained that the waiter was brought on as an employee “because he knew someone.”  Then the manager asked his guest to follow him to the wine cellar, which was one of the best in Moscow with over ten thousand cases of wine. To the dismay of the Gentleman, he found the labels had been soaked off every bottle, so there were only white wines and red wines. The explanation was that under the new Soviet system, it was unfair for one wine to cost more than another, hence the stripping of the labels. Now, all wines were equal.

I mention this tale as it leads quite well into the column by Heather Mac Donald on the great levelling in our medical schools. Under the cover of battling racism and providing equity, many schools are dropping grades based on levels of knowledge and replacing them with the simple pass/fail system. This is because the universities are demanding medical students be actively involved in the battle against racism based on the goal of wanting to, “prioritize an integrate the voices and ideas of people and communities experiencing great injustice and historically excluded, exploited and deprived of needed resources such as people of color, women, people with disabilities, LGBTQ, and those in rural and urban communities.”  These concepts are pushed so hard, that the medical students do not have sufficient time to study medicine. Hence, the dumbing down of a profession. Are Maoist self-critical confessions next?

There use to be a good argument for getting a younger doctor as they could be more open to new medicines, procedures, and technology. Those days may be behind us. More and more it appears that diversity+equity=lowering standards.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/woke-medical-organizations-are-hazardous-to-your-health-equity-scientific-progress-social-justice-medical-organizations-11659707075?page=1