Displaying posts published in

August 2023

Climate Change Hasn’t Set the World on Fire It turns out the percentage of the globe that burns each year has been declining since 2001. By Bjorn Lomborg

https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-hasnt-set-the-world-on-fire-global-warming-burn-record-low-713ad3a6?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

One of the most common tropes in our increasingly alarmist climate debate is that global warming has set the world on fire. But it hasn’t. For more than two decades, satellites have recorded fires across the planet’s surface. The data are unequivocal: Since the early 2000s, when 3% of the world’s land caught fire, the area burned annually has trended downward.

In 2022, the last year for which there are complete data, the world hit a new record-low of 2.2% burned area. Yet you’ll struggle to find that reported anywhere.

Instead, the media acts as if the world is ablaze. In late 2021, the New York Times employed more than 40 staff on a project called “Postcards from a World on Fire,” headed by a photorealistic animation of the world in flames. Its explicit goal was to convince readers of the climate crisis’ immediacy through a series of stories of climate-change-related devastation across the world, including the 2019-20 wildfires in Australia.

This summer, the focus has been on Canada’s wildfires, the smoke from which covered large parts of the Northeastern U.S. Both the Canadian prime minister and the White House have blamed climate change.

Yet the latest report by the United Nations’ climate panel doesn’t attribute the area burned globally by wildfires to climate change. Instead, it vaguely suggests the weather conditions that promote wildfires are becoming more common in some places. Still, the report finds that the change in these weather conditions won’t be detectable above the natural noise even by the end of the century.

Why Universities Should Get Rid Of DEI Statements Tom Hafer and Henry I. Miller

https://issuesinsights.com/2023/08/01/why-universities-should-get-rid-of-dei-statements/                                                                                                        

Many U.S. universities, including MIT, our alma mater, now require Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) statements in applications for tenure-track professorships, and even for graduate students.  In many cases it is the first filter for applicants, so you may be the new Einstein but if your DEI statement says something like, “I treat all people equally regardless of race or gender,” you will be out of luck.  As discussed below, that isn’t what is meant by DEI, which demands fealty to equity – that is, equal outcomes – not equal opportunity free of discrimination.

Mandatory political pronouncements such as the anti-Communist oaths of the 1950s and 1960s were long ago ruled unconstitutional by U.S. courts. And given the recent Supreme Court decisions regarding affirmative action and freedom of speech, mandatory DEI statements should also be eliminated.

What is DEI, and why might there be objections, legal and ethical, to it?

Let’s start with the words themselves. Here is what Google (via Oxford Languages) says for Diversity: “the practice or quality of including or involving people from a range of different social and ethnic backgrounds and of different genders, sexual orientations, etc.”  

Note what is not there: anything about a range of different ideas or viewpoints. But it is new ideas that will define future progress, not superficial differences such as skin color, ethnicity, or gender. And how does this comport with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s invocation to judge men not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character? Have we abandoned that?

What Happened to Robert Malley? The downfall of the White House’s favorite Iran whisperer is a mystery wrapped inside a cover-up BY Lee Smith

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/what-really-happened-to-robert-malley-lee-smith

In late June, reports started circulating that White House heavy Robert Malley had been suspended from his job in the Joe Biden administration. That was surprising. Before he was pushed out, Malley had been seen as the visionary architect of the Democratic Party’s Middle East policy. He’d been Barack Obama’s conduit to Iran before Biden named him to do the same thing for his White House. For someone in his position to lose that job amid renewed talks with Iran was notable, but the most intriguing detail, hidden by the Biden team for months, was the reason why he was sidelined: He had reportedly mishandled classified documents.

So what was Malley doing that compelled the Bureau of Diplomatic Security to open an investigation on him before passing it to the FBI? Security clearances are a kind of currency in Washington and it’s unusual for a senior official to lose access to his colleagues’ secrets, especially a policymaker of Malley’s status. Had he been amassing boxes of documents in his home like former President Donald Trump? Had he taken classified documents from secure facilities and moved them to private work and residential spaces like Biden?

A large part of Malley’s work was to circulate information throughout the U.S.-based Iranian diaspora that eventually found its way to Tehran. According to Iran press reports that have foreign policy circles talking, those contacts are what got him in trouble. And the fact that the details about Malley’s suspension are coming from Iranian rather than U.S. media is a big clue that something big is missing from the White House’s highly minimized account.

At the beginning of July the Tehran Times, an Iranian regime English-language media outlet, published an article with insider details but no definite answer to the central mystery. According to the article, Malley’s clearance was suspended on April 21, two months before the news went public. Since then he’s met with CIA Director William Burns and National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan to try to resolve his situation but, according to the article, has not yet been granted an audience with Secretary of State (and high school classmate) Antony Blinken.

The Uninvited Backbone of Israel’s Anti-Reform Movement by Steve Apfel

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19853/ackbone-israel-anti-reform-movement

In the war of words over Israel’s judicial reform, irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the disputants, the word “democracy” appears to have suffered a bit of a roughing-up.

“… Biden was wrong to intervene in the debate over Netanyahu’s proposed judicial reforms…. otherwise, Israeli officials may start commenting on Hunter Biden’s plea deal.” – Former National Security Advisor John Bolton, Twitter, July 31, 2023.

So, the Biden Administration delivered an “either-or” threat: stop the judicial reform or break our special relationship. The break had actually already begun with President Barack Obama, who became quixotically committed to a policy to finance and enable Israel’s self-declared arch-enemy — “Death to Israel” should probably qualify one as an arch-enemy — unlimited nuclear weapons, billions of dollars to manufacture them; ballistic missiles to deliver them, and loose change for Iran’s mullahs to continue “exporting” their Revolution into Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and Latin America.

“… the lawyers were all on one side, and they were all working to help Hunter Biden. The were all working to hide a blanket immunity agreement from the judge…” — Former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe, Fox News, July 28, 2023.

“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” then-presidential candidate Barack Obama declared a few days before the 2008 presidential election, somehow neglecting to say what he was planning to transform it into.

FBI agents, in an illegal “state action,” attempted an end-run around the First Amendment, dishonestly colluding with Facebook and other tech companies to censor news reports about Hunter Biden’s 2020 election-altering “Laptop from Hell.”

Team Biden, in the person of Antony Blinken, had reportedly called Mike Morell to get what ultimately turned out to be 51 former intelligence officials to sign a letter falsely alleging that the Hunter Biden laptop had “all the earmarks of a Russian intelligence operation.” That letter, it turned out, was the real disinformation.

It was countered immediately on Fox Business by former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe. “Let me be clear,” Ratcliffe said, “the intelligence community doesn’t believe that because there is no intelligence that supports… that Hunter Biden’s laptop is part of some Russian disinformation campaign. It’s simply not true.”

What it all comes down to is that one party seemingly decided that Obama’s promise to radically transform America was too important to trust to the electorate.

Now Blinken and Biden are supposedly qualified to give Israel’s coalition government a lecture on judicial probity and democracy?