RUTHFULLY YOURS

Three feet of snow on the streets of New York and Washington is mocking global warming alarmists. The natural sciences tell us that the alarmists got everything wrong: anthropogenic carbon release is not dangerous or even harmful, but extremely beneficial. 15% of the world’s agricultural production is due to the increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the air. What’s more, the global mean temperature has not been increasing for 19 years, and the slight warming expected from the emission of the infra-red absorbing gases is expected to be beneficial in itself. And contrary to the alarmists’ claims, ocean water is alkaline, not acidic. See this short summary of science for more. Listing all the scientific errors made by the alarmists would take many pages, not to mention their logical fallacies, economic delusions, civic blunders, etc. So how did it happen that such a worthless agenda became so powerful? In large degree, it’s because it was worthless!

The weakness (or absence) of scientific support behind climate alarmism became its political strength.

Normally, political issues are real, in the sense that they represent real problems or real conflicts in society. Real issues — drug addiction, poverty, illness, or abortion — allow people to express different views or to take different sides. But the issue that gave birth to climate alarmism is different: the alleged problem (possible harm or danger from carbon dioxide emissions) simply does not exist. Most people are not interested in imaginary problems, and quite a few scientists, statesmen, and journalists came to the correct conclusion that the carbon dioxide/global warming/climate change problem did not exist. Naturally, they did not participate in research or discussion on this topic, which allowed those who believed in the alleged problem to monopolize the topic. And the more strongly somebody believed, the stronger his or her voice was in the discussion. This happened even before they gain enough power and money to chase away sceptics or buy supporters.

Let me clarify a few points before I get into the history. Climate change is real. The climate change problem is not.

Professor Melissa Click of the University of Missouri criminally assaulted an undergraduate student and, though local prosecutors were slow to move on the case — there was video of the incident, and the facts were not in question — she eventually was charged with third-degree assault. She will not be convicted of a crime, and, so far, her tenure-track position is safe.

Ironies abound. Click, a professor of Lady Gaga studies (no, really), enjoyed an appointment in Mizzou’s journalism department, which for mysterious reasons is highly regarded. The undergraduate she assaulted was a student journalist going about his proper business, covering a campus protest of which Professor Click was one instigator.

The subject of what protest was, in part, “white privilege,” which the protesters held up in contrast to the purportedly rough and unfair treatment that African Americans, particularly young men, receive at the hands of the police.

Which brings up the obvious question: What do we imagine would have happened to a young black man who criminally assaulted a white female college professor — and then, as Professor Click did, attempted to instigate mob violence against her? On campus? On video?

There would have been handcuffs, at least. He almost certainly would not have been given the option of performing 20 hours of community service in exchange for deferred adjudication, which is the deal Professor Click is getting from Columbia’s shamefully cowardly prosecutor, Steve Richey. He would not be, as Professor Click is, on track to a lifetime sinecure from which he effectively cannot be fired.

The problem of “inequality” looms over America like a storm cloud. According to our political and journalistic class, inequality is the single biggest problem facing our nation, with the possible exception of climate change. It is a desperate problem demanding sweeping solutions. President Obama calls it the “defining challenge of our time.” Hillary Clinton says we’re living in a throwback to the elitist age of “robber barons.” Bernie Sanders says inequality is the result of a “rigged economy” that favors those at the top while holding down those at the bottom.

In that spirit, I have a modest proposal: Abolish the Ivy League. Because if you’re worried about inequality among Americans, I can think of no single institution that does more to contribute to the problem.

As former Labor secretary Robert Reich recently noted, Ivy League schools are government-subsidized playgrounds for the rich: “Imagine a system of college education supported by high and growing government spending on elite private universities that mainly educate children of the wealthy and upper-middle class, and low and declining government spending on public universities that educate large numbers of children from the working class and the poor.

“You can stop imagining,” Reich wrote. “That’s the American system right now. … Private university endowments are now around $550 billion, centered in a handful of prestigious institutions. Harvard’s endowment is over $32 billion, followed by Yale at $20.8 billion, Stanford at $18.6 billion, and Princeton at $18.2 billion. Each of these endowments increased last year by more than $1 billion, and these universities are actively seeking additional support. Last year, Harvard launched a capital campaign for another $6.5 billion. Because of the charitable tax deduction, the amount of government subsidy to these institutions in the form of tax deductions is about one out of every $3 contributed.”

Are you worried about inequality? I am not. You are not supposed to say it, but inequality is an important motor of progress, as James Piereson has shown in The Inequality Hoax. But if the thought of inequality keeps you up at night, you should get behind Glenn Reynolds’ suggestion that we abolish the Ivy League. Really, is there a greater engine for the perpetuation of inequality than those bastions of wealth and (mostly white) privilege?

But perhaps outright abolishing Yale, Harvard, Princeton, and the other top colleges is a step too far. Maybe, as Glenn has also suggested, we should just address the issue by a little redistributive justice. For any college or university with an endowment of more than, say, $1 billion we 1) stop all federal subsidies and 2) require that they send, say, 10% – 15% of their endowment to a college that caters primarily to poor students.

The exact numbers are not critical. Maybe the threshold should be a $500 million endowment. Maybe the required transfer should be set to the current personal income tax floor, which I believe is 28%. The exact numbers are negotiable, but the principle should be obvious. If we’re against inequality, here is a concrete step we can take not only to make a statement but also make a difference. Make a Statement! Make a Difference! It has a nice ring to it, don’t you think? Yale’s endowment, for example, is about $25 billion. I reckon Howard College could do quite a lot with $4 or $5 billion.

There is scientific evidence that anthropogenic (man-made) global warming is not a real phenomenon. Ironically, this evidence is simple, easy to find, has nothing to do with temperature, and is from the United States government. This proof is the proverbial elephant in the living room.

The anthropogenic global warming hypothesis originated from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It is in two steps: “Increasing fossil fuel causes increasing carbon dioxide in the air; and increasing carbon dioxide in the air causes climate change.” Oil, natural gas and coal are called “fossil fuel” by the IPCC.

The first part of the hypothesis, that increasing fossil fuel causes increasing carbon dioxide in the air, has generally been a “given” in the past. Heretofore, it has received practically no scrutiny. It is the second part of the hypothesis, that increasing carbon dioxide in the air causes climate change, which has received many scientific arguments. Predictions into the future require “models” which require assumptions. It is said that assumptions are the mother of all screw-ups. Testing of models by the reliable and venerable Scientific Method has been unable to obtain reproducible test results. The second part of the hypothesis has never been proven.

www.verygoodnewsisrael.blogspot.com

ISRAEL’S MEDICAL ACHIEVEMENTS

Early detection of lung cancer in smokers. Scientists at Tel Aviv University and Rabin Medical Center have discovered they can detect lung cancer early in smokers by performing a CT scan at the time they are admitted as pneumonia patients. Often, the pneumonia is caused by young cancer cells blocking air pathways.
http://nocamels.com/2016/01/lung-cancer-early-detection-smoking-pneumonia/
http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343%2815%2901035-9/abstract

The reason lack of sleep leads to obesity. Researchers at Israel’s Weizmann Institute have detailed for the first time how human biological clocks work in tandem with intestinal gut bacteria to control blood sugar levels. Digestion suffers when the schedules of the gut bacteria are interrupted by late-night wakefulness.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/obesitys-link-to-lack-of-sleep-is-gut-wrenching-problem-study-shows/

Why the blind have better hearing. Scientists at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem have discovered how the brain compensates for the loss of one of the senses (e.g. sight) by improving another (e.g. hearing). They studied the simple roundworm and manipulated synapses to control the sensory ability of the organism.
http://new.huji.ac.il/en/article/28640

US approval for smartphone blood sugar monitor. Israel’s LabStyle has received US FDA approval for its Dario device for measuring blood sugar levels using a smartphone. It already has approval for European sales.
http://www.globes.co.il/en/article-labstyle-innovations-seeks-to-raise-115m-1001096456

Turning rehabilitation into a fun exercise. Israeli startups BioGaming and Motorika use virtual-reality and robotics technology to introduce fun into physical therapy exercises. BioGaming’s algorithms power a Microsoft Kinect 3D motion-capture camera. Motorika’s robotics enable neurological and orthopedic rehab.
http://www.israel21c.org/israeli-companies-put-the-fun-in-physical-therapy/

ZAKA secures official U.N. status. (TY algemeiner and Dan) The Israeli emergency response organization ZAKA has received official consultative status from the United Nations. ZAKA will now be recognized as an official body in the U.N., which will help it to expand its international search, rescue and recovery missions.
http://www.jns.org/news-briefs/2016/1/27/israeli-zaka-rescue-service-gets-official-status-in-un
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/207133

NIS 300 million more for health. Eighty-three new medications and medical technologies were added to Israel’s “health basket” on Thursday, benefiting 108,500 patients at the cost of NIS 300 million. Cancer treatments include myeloma, leukemia, pancreatic, kidney, prostate, breast, ovarian, lung and more.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4750624,00.html

The top Israeli responder. (TY Janglo) The average Hatzalah emergency response volunteer will attend to some 300 calls annually, but 58-year-old Yehuda Londner of Bnei Brak recorded an impressive 2,370 calls last year. In 29 years with Hatzalah and Magen David Adom he has responded to over 45,000 emergency calls.
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/headlines-breaking-stories/375579/israel-58-year-old-hatzalah-member-responds-to-the-most-calls-in-2015.html

Novotalk founder’s startup cured his stutter. The founder Novotalk (see Dec 27 newsletter) Moshe Rot describes how he suffered from stuttering since age 3. Then at age 22 he went for fluency shaping at Jerusalem’s Hadassah hospital. He started up Novotalk to teach and reinforce the skill online at much less cost.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXf6nbTjP9s

One of the least reliable sources for data on climate change is the US federal government. Now, a group of 300 scientists and academics want Congress to investigate the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for cooking the books on climate data in order to erase the pause in the rise in temperature cited by, among other sources, the IPCC.

Incredibly, the NOAA accumulated data by measuring the water temperature from the engine intake valves of ocean going cargo ships. The scientists want Congress to investigate whether the agency violated the Data Quality Act, which seeks to insure the accurate dissemination of scientific information to the public.

Daily Caller:

“We, the undersigned, scientists, engineers, economists and others, who have looked carefully into the effects of carbon dioxide released by human activities, wish to record our support for the efforts of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology to ensure that federal agencies complied with federal guidelines that implemented the Data Quality Act,” some 300 scientists, engineers and other experts wrote to Chairman of the House Science Committee, Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith.

“In our opinion… NOAA has failed to observe the OMB [Office of Management and Budget] (and its own) guidelines, established in relation to the Data Quality Act.”

The Data Quality Act requires federal agencies like NOAA to “ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information, including statistical information.”

Smith launched an investigation into NOAA’s study last summer over concerns it was pushed out to bolster President Barack Obama’s political agenda. Democrats and the media have largely opposed the probe into NOAA scientists and political appointees, but Smith is determined to continue investigating. NOAA officials surrendered emails to congressional investigators in December.

John Horvat II is a scholar, researcher, educator, international speaker, and author of the book Return to Order, as well as the author of hundreds of published articles. He lives in Spring Grove, Pennsylvania where he is the vice president of the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property.

Entering the new year, something tragic happened in the world of grammar and language usage. Over 200 linguists of the American Dialect Society met in Washington, D.C. to choose their “Word of the Year.” They overwhelmingly chose the singular use of the pronoun “they.”

Singular they, as it is called, is not some common usage found in sectors of the American public that has gained a significant following and found its way into the English language. Such is the normal way new word usage gains acceptance. There is certainly nothing wrong with this natural and organic manner of growth.

What happened here, however, was something different. This new usage is politically-correct jargon that is being forced on the public. Singular they now refers to those sexually-confused individuals who do not wish to be called he or she. It has been determined that “they” can now refer to a “known person as a non-binary identifier.” Predictably newspapers like the Washington Post have already included this usage in their style books. In so doing, they (plural) have declared grammatical war upon the language.

It is war, but a dirty war. One cannot help but be struck by the utter mediocrity and cowardice of the august assembly of linguistic warriors. Had these linguists had a bit of courage they might have adopted any of the numerous “gender-neutral” ridiculous-sounding pronouns such as “jee,” “ney” and “thon” that have already been created by activists to promote their cause. They (plural) could even have gone farther by making up their own new pronouns and challenging the world to use a novel new creation to accommodate the sexually unsure.

EU Labels: A French Oleh Writes …Here’s a post on European double standards by French oleh Jean Vercors.
The European Union (apart from the Czech Republic, which has all my respect) approved without hesitation Wednesday the implementation of the labeling of products originating ” Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories “.

What is immediately striking is that the EU is not at all embarrassed that its decision closely resembles the Nazi boycott of 1933. The old demons die har . In 1933, an economic boycott against the Jews was decided by the Nazi leadership, just weeks after coming to power on 30 January that year.

For the EU, these exports to label sources “Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories”, that is to say the geographical areas annexed by Israel after the 1967 war: the Golan Heights , Gaza Strip, West Bank and East Jerusalem.

The Jews, we must say, dared to defend itself in a war that Europe believed lost to Israel: remember the embargo of Charles de Gaulle and his statements after Israel crushed the enemy [in 1967]. They dared to reclaim their historic lands of Judea and Samaria, and Jerusalem! Who can forgive the Jews for refusing to submit? Certainly not Europe.

The European measure involves mainly agricultural products: fruits and vegetables, wine, honey, olive oil, eggs, dates, chicken … because the vast majority of industrial exports “colonies” consists of components or spare parts then assembled in finished products, which makes them difficult to trace.

Cosmetics from the Dead Sea are also targeted, but the EU still does not know that the Ahava company was bought by the Chinese (Chinese investment firm Fosun ) and that the Chinese do not perhaps hear with the same ear.

Will EU technocrats, one day soon, draw signs on Jewish shops in Europe that sell these products, as did the Nazi SA (Sturmabteilung or Storm Troopers ) in 1933?

The Star of David was painted in yellow and black across thousands of doors and windows , accompanied by anti-Semitic slogans such as ” Do not buy from Jews,” “Jews are our misfortune .”

Acts of violence were perpetrated against Jews and Jewish property across Germany, the police intervening only rarely .

According to the directive given by the European Commission, the mention of the country of origin must take into account the heading under which the territories are most commonly known.

The indication ” Israeli settlement ” should be specified in brackets, for example.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has to provide proof for significant human-caused climate change; yet their climate models have never been validated and are rapidly diverging from actual observations. The real threat to humanity comes not from any (trivial) greenhouse warming but from cooling periods creating food shortages and famines.

Burden of proof

Climate change has been going on for millions of years — long before humans existed on this planet. Obviously, the causes were all of natural origin and not anthropogenic. There is no reason to think that these natural causes have suddenly stopped. For example, volcanic eruptions, various types of solar influences, and atmosphere-ocean oscillations all continue today. We cannot model these natural climate-forcings precisely and therefore cannot anticipate what they will be in the future.

But let’s call this the “Null hypothesis.” Logically therefore, the burden of proof falls upon alarmists to demonstrate that this null hypothesis is not adequate to account for empirical climate data. In other words, alarmists must provide convincing observational evidence for anthropogenic climate change (ACC). They must do this by detailed comparison of the data with climate models. This is of course extremely difficult and virtually impossible since one cannot specify these natural influences precisely.

We’re not aware of such detailed comparisons, only of anecdotal evidence — although we must admit that ACC is plausible; after all, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and its level has been rising mainly because of the burning of fossil fuels.

Yet when we compare greenhouse models to past observations (“hindcasting”), it appears that ACC is much smaller than predicted by the models. There’s even a time interval of no significant warming (“pause” or “hiatus”) during the past 18 years or so — in spite of rapidly rising atmospheric CO2 levels.

There seems to be at present no generally accepted explanation for this discrepancy between models and observations, mainly during the 21st century. The five IPCC reports [1900 to 2014] insist that there is no “gap.” Yet strangely, as this gap grows larger and larger, their claimed certainty that there is no gap becomes ever greater. Successive IPCC reports give 50%, 66%, 90%, 95%, and 99% for this certainty.