Politics

To Save Education, Legislators MUST Fund Home Schools

This post by my friend Barney Brenner suggests a solution to our education system. As Barney opines: “The Left is openly flaunting their grip on our kids and has changed education’s three Rs into racism, reparations and revolution.” Below are the first three paragraphs of the article followed by a link the the whole article.

There’s a window of opportunity and realization which is closing on America’s parents and their school-aged kids. For well over a year, families have had video glimpses of the drivel and anti-American evil being foisted in America’s government-run classrooms. They’ve also gotten a feel for what it takes to educate their children at home. But unless they make their move this summer to exercise their authority in deciding where, what and how their kids are taught, this unprecedented chance will likely be lost. 

Despite many parents not believing that they can educate their own kids, those naysayers are not appreciating the fact that all parents are teachers by definition and necessity. Additionally, Proverbs tells us to train our children in the way they should go, and Deuteronomy says we should diligently teach our children. And that wasn’t just the simple ABCs, but the laws of Moses! 

In truth, the biggest problem for most is money, both in the associated costs as well as the possible lost employment involved in staying home. But there’s a simple solution which can mitigate both drawbacks: state funding. There’s no good reason why parents, or even neighborhoods or other organizations, should not be paid well for taking over the government school mission.

Read whole article

An Alternative to Statehood for Washington, D.C.

On April 22, 2021, the Democrat-led House of Representatives passed a bill paving the way to grant Washington, D.C. statehood. This has long been a Democrat party goal in order to gain two more Democrat Senators. The touted reason for this change is to grant citizens of Washington D.C. the same representation and voting rights as citizens of states.

Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution established a federal district independent of any state. The Founders established such a federal district because they didn’t want states interfering with the seat of federal government. It would probably take a constitutional amendment to change the situation and that is not likely.

There is a simpler processes to provide residents of the federal district the same representation and voting rights as citizens of states. That is to redraw the boundaries of the federal district which Congress can do. Residential and business areas of the District of Columbia could be ceded back to the state of Maryland. Washington, D.C. residents would then become citizens of Maryland with all the voting and representation rights enjoyed by other citizens of Maryland. Only the two to three square miles that contain federal buildings and the National Mall would remain as an independent federal district. That, of course, would frustrate Democrat goals of power. Perhaps the citizens of Washington, D.C. could take a vote on whether to take this alternative or to remain as is.

Jaguars and more junk science

A new study, published by Cambridge University Press, “A systematic review of potential habitat suitability for the jaguar Panthera onca in central Arizona and New Mexico, USA,” claims that large areas of Arizona and New Mexico may be suitable habitat for wild jaguars.

From the study abstract:

“Here we present a systematic review of the modelling and assessment efforts over the last 25 years, with a focus on areas north of Interstate-10 in Arizona and New Mexico, outside the recovery unit considered by the USFWS. Despite differences in data inputs, methods, and analytical extent, the nine previous studies found support for potential suitable jaguar habitat in the central mountain ranges of Arizona and New Mexico. Applying slightly modified versions of the USFWS model and recalculating an Arizona-focused model over both states provided additional confirmation. Extending the area of consideration also substantially raised the carrying capacity of habitats in Arizona and New Mexico, from six to 90 or 151 adult jaguars, using the modified USFWS models. This review demonstrates the crucial ways in which choosing the extent of analysis influences the conclusions of a conservation plan. More importantly, it opens a new opportunity for jaguar conservation in North America that could help address threats from habitat losses, climate change and border infrastructure.” (Link to full paper)

The study has 17 authors, 14 of which (in my opinion) belong to radical environmental groups.

As stated in the abstract, the researchers did no on-the-ground research, but instead used models to “cherry-pick” previous publications. Reports of this study appeared in the Arizona Republic and in the March 19, 2021 print edition only of the Arizona Daily Star.

This study renews a very controversial topic. My take on the study is that the authors are campaigning for establishment of more critical habitat. Even if larger areas of Arizona and New Mexico could support Jaguar habitat, there is still no reason to formally establish “critical habitat” which would have many bad effects on property rights and natural resource production. The natural habitats in Mexico, Central America, South America are sufficient to provide for the species.

In my previous article on this subject Proposed Jaguar Habitat in Arizona and New Mexico Is Scientifically and Legally Indefensible, I provide a report from the Pima Natural Resource Conservation District (PNRCD): which “shows that the proposal by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) to designate Critical Habitat for the jaguar under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is scientifically indefensible because it is based on flawed data, and it violates laws such as the Data Quality Act.”

PNRCD requested that FWS withdraw its proposed rule “because habitat ‘essential’ to the conservation of the jaguar as a species does not exist in either Arizona or New Mexico under any scientifically credible definition of that term, because designation of critical habitat therein cannot possibly help save jaguars, and because the economic consequences of adding yet another layer of regulation and restriction on national security, resource production, water use, hunting and recreation during the worst recession on record since 1929 far outweigh any possibly discernible benefit to jaguars as a species that might be gained by designating critical habitat for them north of the Mexican border where they are but rarely transient…”

“For Critical Habitat to be established under ESA, the FWS must show that the area in question is essential to the jaguars conservation and survival as a species, not merely whether the area in question could host or has hosted individual, transient jaguars.”

 

White House Brochures on Climate (There is no climate crisis)

[Wryheat note, the brochures linked to below were intended to be posted on the White House website, but since they are politically incorrect, the new administration has banned them. If the original links don’t work, click the “alternate link.”]

[UPDATE: Jan. 13, 2021:

 These briefs demonstrate that climate science has glaring deficiencies as a science when it is used to declare that carbon dioxide is causing dangerous global warming. These deficiencies are unacceptable to any student of the scientific method.

Legates and Ryan Maue, an author of one of the briefs, were promptly removed from their positions by OSTP director and Trump’s science advisor Kelvin Droegemeier was fired. They returned to their positions at NOAA. Applying the scientific method to climate science is not permitted in Washington, regardless of political party. It is clear that conformity conquers all.]

January 8th, 2021 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. 

Late last year, several of us were asked by David Legates (White House Office of Science and Technology Policy) to write short, easily understandable brochures that supported the general view that there is no climate crisis or climate emergency, and pointing out the widespread misinformation being promoted by alarmists through the media.

Below are the resulting 9 brochures, and an introduction by David. Mine is entitled, “The Faith-Based Nature of Human Caused Global Warming”.  

Wryheat note: These brochures never made it to the White House website and have been removed from Dr. Spencer’s website as well. Fortunately, I saved the originals. Note that these brochures are no longer official White House publications.

Introduction(Dr. David Legates)

Alternate link: White House Brochures on Climate (There is no climate crisis) « Roy Spencer, PhD

The Sun Climate Connection(Drs. Michael Connolly, Ronan Connolly, Willie Soon)

Alternate link: WH brochure The-Sun-Climate-Connection

Systematic Problems in the Four National Assessments of Climate Change Impacts on the US(Dr. Patrick Michaels)

Alternate link: WH brochure Systematic-Problems-in-the-Four-National-Assessments-of-Climate-Change-Impacts-on-the-US

Record Temperatures in the United States(Dr. John Christy)

Alternate link: WH brochure record temperatures

Radiation Transfer(Dr. William Happer)

Alternate link: WH brochure Radiation-Transfer

Is There a Climate Emergency(Dr. Ross McKitrick)

Alternate link: WH brochure is there a climate emergency

Hurricanes and Climate Change(Dr. Ryan Maue)

Alternate link: WH brochure Hurricanes-and-Climate-Change

Climate, Climate Change, and the General Circulation(Dr. Anthony Lupo)

Alternate link: WH brochure Climate-Climate-Change-and-the-General-Circulation

Can Computer Models Predict Climate(Dr. Christopher Essex)

Alternate link: WH brochure Can-Computer-Models-Predict-Climate

The Faith-Based Nature of Human-Caused Global Warming(Dr. Roy Spencer)

Alternate link: WH brochure The-Faith-Based-Nature-of-Human-Caused-Global-Warming

See also my Wryheat post: A Review of the state of Climate Science

 

Glass recyclers have concerns over Tucson’s new plan

As I wrote in a previous article, Comments On Tucson City Council’s Plan On Recycling Glass, the City of Tucson plans to stop collecting glass in the recycle bins. Instead the City will provide sites around the city for residents to drop off glass. The glass will be ground to sand and used to fill sandbags or as an aggregate for construction projects. That plan has drawn the ire of glass recycling companies.

In response to that article, I recently received an email from Laura Hennemann, Vice President, Strategic Materials, the largest glass recycler in North America. The email contained three attachments, all letters to the Tucson City Council, that show the folly of the City plan.

Ms. Hennermann writes, “We are saddened to also learn the City’s glass will be pulverized and used as aggregate, ending the life of glass. Glass is 100% recyclable, endlessly. Glass does not belong in the ground or the landfill.” Read her full letter (click back arrow to return): View Fullscreen

The second letter is from Angus E. Crane, Executive Vice President, General Counsel, NAIMA (North American Insulation Manufacturers Association). His main point is that recycled glass is necessary to manufacture fiberglass insulation. Since 1992, when NAIMA started collecting recycled data, 61.8 billion pounds of recycled material have been diverted from the waste stream.

Read his letter: View Fullscreen 

The third letter is from Scott DeFife, President of the Glass Packaging Institute. His 4-page letter goes into detail on the flaws of Tucson’s plan. “The glass reuse plan is missing several key points in the underlying facts and analysis concerning removal of glass from curbside recycling, including its positive impact on carbon emissions, versus the proposed alternative, downcycling glass for sand substitute.” Read his letter: View Fullscreen

Tucson City Council members should rethink their plan. As I wrote before, I am skeptical that most residents will bother to find one of the city’s planned drop-off bins. I think that under the proposed plan, most glass will wind up in the landfill.

Bjorn Lomborg on how to deal with climate change

Dr. Bjorn Lomborg is president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and visiting professor at Copenhagen Business School. The Copenhagen Consensus Center is a think-tank that researches the smartest ways to do good.

His new paper: Welfare in the 21st century: Increasing development, reducing inequality, the impact of climate change, and the cost of climate policies

Abstract:

Climate change is real and its impacts are mostly negative, but common portrayals of devastation are unfounded. Scenarios set out under the UN Climate Panel (IPCC) show human welfare will likely increase to 450% of today’s welfare over the 21st century. Climate damages will reduce this welfare increase to 434%.

Arguments for devastation typically claim that extreme weather (like droughts, floods, wildfires, and hurricanes) is already worsening because of climate change. This is mostly misleading and inconsistent with the IPCC literature. For instance, the IPCC finds no trend for global hurricane frequency and has low confidence in attribution of changes to human activity, while the US has not seen an increase in landfalling hurricanes since 1900. Global death risk from extreme weather has declined 99% over 100 years and global costs have declined 26% over the last 28 years.

Arguments for devastation typically ignore adaptation, which will reduce vulnerability dramatically. While climate research suggests that fewer but stronger future hurricanes will increase damages, this effect will be countered by richer and more resilient societies. Global cost of hurricanes will likely decline from 0.04% of GDP today to 0.02% in 2100.

Climate-economic research shows that the total cost from untreated climate change is negative but moderate, likely equivalent to a 3.6% reduction in total GDP.

Climate policies also have costs that often vastly outweigh their climate benefits. The Paris Agreement, if fully implemented, will cost $819–$1,890 billion per year in 2030, yet will reduce emissions by just 1% of what is needed to limit average global temperature rise to 1.5°C. Each dollar spent on Paris will likely produce climate benefits worth 11¢.

Long-term impacts of climate policy can cost even more. The IPCC’s two best future scenarios are the “sustainable” SSP1 and the “fossil-fuel driven” SSP5. Current climate-focused attitudes suggest we aim for the “sustainable” world, but the higher economic growth in SSP5 actually leads to much greater welfare for humanity. After adjusting for climate damages, SSP5 will on average leave grandchildren of today’s poor $48,000 better off every year. It will reduce poverty by 26 million each year until 2050, inequality will be lower, and more than 80 million premature deaths will be avoided.

Using carbon taxes, an optimal realistic climate policy can aggressively reduce emissions and reduce the global temperature increase from 4.1°C in 2100 to 3.75°C. This will cost $18 trillion, but deliver climate benefits worth twice that. The popular 2°C target, in contrast, is unrealistic and would leave the world more than $250 trillion worse off. *

The most effective climate policy is increasing investment in green R&D to make future decarbonization much cheaper. This can deliver $11 of climate benefits for each dollar spent.

More effective climate policies can help the world do better. The current climate discourse leads to wasteful climate policies, diverting attention and funds from more effective ways to improve the world.

This article will outline how to establish a rational climate policy in the context of many other, competing global issues. Read full paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162520304157 

*Wryheat comment: I disagree with Lomborg’s stance on “carbon taxes” because where they have been imposed show that they fail to deliver advertised benefits, see:

Carbon Tax Failures – Lessons from Australia and Germany

See also:

A Review of the state of Climate Science

The Fortuitous Link Between CO2 Emissions and Economic Growth (video)

Is Rising Atmospheric CO2 Causing Dangerous Global Warming? (video)

Many people are concerned about the potential impacts of rising levels of atmospheric CO2. For years they have been bombarded with claims that unless its concentration is slowed or even reduced, dangerous global warming will ensue, producing all sorts of undesirable consequences with little to no positive effects. Watch this video to lean why this scenario is unlikely to occur and why CO2 is not the all-important driver of temperature that climate alarmists make it out to be.

Tucson City Council and the “Climate Emergency”

On September, 9, 2020, the Tucson City Council unanimously passed a very politically correct resolution that declares a “climate emergency” and vows that Tucson will become “carbon neutral” by 2030. You can read the entire 14-page resolution here. In my opinion, this quixotic resolution demonstrates the incredible ignorance of the council on matters of climate and energy. So far, I have not seen any figures on what this quest will cost the taxpayers.

The first eight pages of the resolution contain the “whereas” clauses citing the reasons for the resolution, most of which are political propaganda that have been scientifically debunked.

For instance: “WHEREAS, in April 2016 world leaders from 175 countries recognized the threat of climate change and the urgent need to combat it by signing the Paris Agreement, agreeing to keep global warming “well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels” and to “pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C;”

Debunked: If the Paris Agreement were to be fully implemented by the whole world it will cost only $12.7 Trillion and prevent global warming of 0.17°C by 2100. (Source)

See also: Who Is Afraid of Two Degrees of Warming?s (We’ve been there and done that already.)

The “be it further resolved” section begins on page 9. These are what the Council hopes to do.

A sample: “…the City of Tucson commits to a citywide urgent climate mobilization effort to reverse global warming and the ecological crisis, which, with appropriate financial and regulatory assistance from local, state and federal authorities, reduces citywide greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as possible towards carbon neutrality by 2030; immediately initiates an effort to safely draw down carbon from the atmosphere through massive tree planting…and the Tucson Million Trees campaign. ” Where will the water come from? One of the “whereases” is to reduce water use.

The effort will be very, very politically correct: “BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City of Tucson recognizes that the full participation, inclusion, support, and leadership of community organizations, faith communities, youth, labor organizations, academic institutions, businesses, non-profits, Indigenous groups, and racial, gender, family, immigrant, and disability justice organizations and other allies are integral to the climate emergency response and mobilization efforts;”

 

For some real science, see my blog article: A Review of the state of Climate Science

This will give you an overview of climate issues and provide links to more detailed articles.

Cornavirus – politics and science

Here are some recent (as of Sep 4, 2020) stories about medical findings and politics concerning the way we should be handling the pandemic.

Coronavirus tests: which one should you take?

New coronavirus tests are being developed every day. The Trump administration just ordered 150 million rapid antigen tests from Abbott Laboratories, but how do they stack up against other tests like the Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test? Top infectious disease doctors from Harvard and Johns Hopkins break down the differences between the two tests to determine which diagnostic tool might be better at curbing transmission rates.

Rapid antigen tests have around a 97% sensitivity to detect people in the first week of infection of symptoms. And that, we know, is when people are most likely to transmit to other people. An antigen test looks for proteins of the virus or the actual shapes of the molecules that make up the virus. The test is done with a nasal or throat swab at a hospital or doctor’s office, but the hope is that these tests will soon be available for home testing in the near future. The biggest benefit, some say, is the fact that the test costs $5 and can deliver results within 15 minutes.

The diagnostic tool that is considered the “gold standard” for COVID-19 testing is the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test. PCR tests, also known as molecular tests, are performed at a hospital or medical office. One of the biggest differences between PCR and antigen tests is the speed of the test. The sample taken during a PCR test is typically sent to a lab where results are turned around between 24-hours up to a week, depending on lab capacity. Although antigen tests may not be as sensitive as PCR tests, frequent testing will be key to staying ahead of the curve. (Read more)

Charts compare COVID deaths in countries that used hydroxychloroquine early and those that didn’t

By James Stansbury

The bottom line is that total deaths to date per million for countries using HCQ averages over 80% lower than in countries with limited use. (Read more)

The Big COVID Con Exposed

By Brian C. Joondeph, M.D.

In the past week, two pillars of the COVID Con collapsed: deaths and positive tests. The first crack in the pillar occurred in early May when task force member Dr. Birx claimed, “There is nothing from the CDC that I can trust.” She believed the CDC was inflating Wuhan flu mortality by as much as 25 percent.

The pillar of COVID deaths crumbled just days ago when the CDC updated their mortality numbers to reflect deaths “from COVID” versus deaths “with COVID.”

Death with COVID means that George Floyd is counted a COVID death because he tested positive at autopsy. This is similar to the case of a Colorado man dying of alcohol poisoning but the death was later blamed on COVID. Washington public officials counted gunshot fatalities as COVID deaths.

The new CDC statistics show that only 6,640 deaths are due to COVID alone, rather than the commonly reported 164,280 deaths allegedly associated with COVID. In other words, only 4 percent of media sensationalized deaths were due solely to COVID and not other underlying medical conditions. (Read more)

Dr. Fauci’s Hydroxychloroquine Denial

By Mikko Paunio

As an epidemiologist, I believe that America has been profoundly ill-served by the contribution of its public health authorities to the debate on the efficacy of treating vulnerable COVID-19 patients with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). It is a debate with a direct link to whether America’s schools should reopen next month. Even those who reject the World Health Organization’s misleading comparison of COVID-19 with the horrendous 1918 Spanish flu pandemic and its presumption that humans lack any immunity against SARS-CoV-2 would welcome improvements in our ability to treat patients with COVID-19, in order to reduce the risk in reopening schools.

Distinguished Yale epidemiologist Harvey Risch has written extensively on the meticulous research demonstrating the efficacy of the early administration of HCQ in combination with the antibiotic azithromycin and zinc. Conclusions from this research are based on criteria developed by British epidemiologist Sir Bradford Hill and Sir Richard Doll, two of the first scientists to discover the causal link between tobacco smoking and lung cancer, criteria that laid the foundations of modern epidemiology and that are used to this day to determine whether an observed association can be ascribed to causation. (Read more)

It seems that the Wuhan virus’s risks have been grossly exaggerated

By Andrea Widburg

Without the Wuhan virus, the Democrats have no meaningful opposition to Trump. Not only have the Democrats weaponized the Wuhan virus to destroy the economies under their aegis, but they’ve also repeatedly claimed that Trump killed 161,000 Americans. However, new CDC data show that, of those Americans who died in the past seven months, only 6% died from the virus alone. The other 94% had serious comorbidities that (sadly) put them at a higher risk of death from anything that came along — and certainly from having sick people funneled into their nursing homes. (Read more) See also: The Latest CV19 Conspiracy Theory — Only 9,210 Dead

The vast majority of CV19 deaths would not have occurred without comorbidity risk factors triggered by the virus. But according to the CDC, there have been 9,210 deaths where no other risk factor or cause of death was noted. As the CDC page in question makes clear: “Table 3 shows the types of health conditions and contributing causes mentioned in conjunction with deaths involving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned.”

An Epidemic of Lunacy

The radical left is not letting a crisis go to waste and are using it to foment the destruction of the United States as a Constitutional Republic. We now hear cries to “defund the police,” and claims about “white privilege and “systemic racism.” We have portions of cities taken over by radical groups and destruction of private property with little response from officials in charge of the cities.

I recommend that you read the following commentaries about our current situation (click on the titles for the full article).

The True Plight of Black Americans

by Walter E. Williams, Townhall

While it might not be popular to say in the wake of the recent social disorder, the true plight of black people has little or nothing to do with the police or what has been called “systemic racism.” Instead, we need to look at the responsibilities of those running our big cities.

Some of the most dangerous big cities are: St. Louis, Detroit, Baltimore, Oakland, Chicago, Memphis, Atlanta, Birmingham, Newark, Buffalo and Philadelphia. The most common characteristic of these cities is that for decades, all of them have been run by liberal Democrats. Some cities — such as Detroit, Buffalo, Newark and Philadelphia — haven’t elected a Republican mayor for more than a half-century. On top of this, in many of these cities, blacks are mayors, often they dominate city councils, and they are chiefs of police and superintendents of schools. ☼

In a world of sheep-like conformity, Hillsdale College takes a stand

By Andrea Widburg

Concluding paragraph: “There is a kind of virtue that is cheap. It consists of jumping on cost-free bandwagons of public feeling — perhaps even deeply justified public feeling — and winning approval by espousing the right opinion. No one who wishes the College to issue statements is assumed to be a party to such behavior. But the fact that very real racial problems are now being cynically exploited for profit, gain, and public favor by some organizations and people is impossible to overlook. It is a scandal and a shame that compounds our ills and impedes their correction. Hillsdale College, though far from perfect, will continue to do the work of education in the great principles that are, second only to divine grace, the solution to the grave ills that beset our times.” ☼

Class, Not Race, Divides America

By Victor Davis Hanson, American Greatness

Nothing is stranger in these tense days than the monotony of the inexact and non-descriptive mantra of “white privilege” and “white solidarity”—as if there is some monolithic white bloc, or as if class matters not at all.☼

Reds Exploiting Blacks: The Roots of Black Lives Matter

by James Simpson, Accuracy in Media

The Black Lives Matter movement casts itself as a spontaneous uprising born of inner-city frustration, but is, in fact, the latest and most dangerous face of a web of well-funded communist/socialist organizations that have been agitating against America for decades. Its agitation has provoked police killings and other violence, lawlessness and unrest in minority communities throughout the U.S. If allowed to continue, that agitation could devolve into anarchy and civil war. The BLM crowd appears to be spoiling for just such an outcome. ☼

Three generations of brainwashing are paying off for the left

By Newt Gingrich, Fox News

As we watch radicals tear down statues, deface monuments, intimidate people who want to stand for the national anthem, and demand the firing of people who write or say something deemed inappropriate to the Leftist Anti-American Theology, it is utterly clear that many Americans today hate America. ☼

Every Drop of Blood

By Dan Truitt, American Thinker

America’s sin debt for slavery was paid for long ago. Between 1525 and 1866, about 388,000 Africans were shipped to North America as slaves. The commonly accepted death toll for participants in the American Civil war which freed the slaves is 618,000. That figure was recently reliably revised upward to 750,000. ☼

Read more here: https://wryheat.wordpress.com/people-for-the-west/2020-archive/2020-07-july/