Understanding the Environmental Religion


This posting is renewable, biodegradable, conflict-free, green, natural, sustainable, fair traded, non-GMO, pesticide-free, recycled, organic and bio-diverse. Whew!
Understanding the Environmental Religion
By: George Noga – April 22, 2017
     Happy Earth Day 2017! The key to understanding environmentalism is to grasp that it is the religion of progressive urban atheists with eerie parallels to Judaism and Christianity. Its pantheon of gods includes everything listed above in the preheader. There is a Garden of Eden where man once existed in unity with nature. Humans then fell from grace by eating from the tree of knowledge and polluting. We all are energy sinners and judgment day is coming unless we earn salvation through sustainability.Â
     The environmental religion has angels (windmills, bio-fuel) and demons (CO2, coal, pesticides). Its dogma is renewability, biodiversity and green energy. It has its sacraments such as Eucharist consisting of non-GMO organic foods. Its chief ritual is recycling, which acolytes view as a morally redemptive exercise. It persecutes apostates, labeling them deniers and seeks to silence or to imprison them. It is the religion for all the right people with the right beliefs and the right intentions.
The Five Biggest Myths About Recycling
      We can’t deal with environmentalism in just two posts, so we must be selective. This post debunks recycling. Businesses voluntarily and profitably recycle, inter alia, steel, aluminum, tires, copper, batteries, clothing, glass and newsprint. Only when validated by markets does recycling make sense economically or environmentally. Government mandated (coerced) recycling is fatuous. The top five myths follow.
1. Recycling is good for the environment. Much recycled waste goes into the same landfills as all other waste and requires additional trucks, crews and fuel. A true cost/benefit accounting would be devastating for recycling. The Office of Technology Assessment reports recycling changes the nature of pollution – and often for the worse.
2. There is a shortage of landfills. If every U.S. county devoted one square mile to landfills, it would be sufficient for 4,000 years. In the past few years, private companies have opened huge new landfills and costs are plummeting. There are a few areas, limited to the northeast U.S., where landfill capacity is scarce – but that is entirely due to  progressive politics. Those few dysfunctional places are able to ship their garbage economically to locales that aggressively compete for their business.Â
3. Packaging is a problem. Far from being a demon, packaging is a blessing for the environment, resulting in less breakage and waste. Less advanced economies, without modern packaging, generate more waste. Mexico has fewer packaged goods but generates 33% more waste than a comparable U.S. household. McDonald’s produces less than two ounces of waste per customer, less than eating at home. Egad.
4. Paper must be conserved to save forests. This is perhaps the biggest green whopper of all time. Trees are a farmed product grown expressly for paper. To conserve paper to save trees makes no more sense than to conserve cloth to save cotton. Paper is natural, organic, biodegradable, renewable and sustainable. Working forests employ millions, provide clean air and water, wildlife habitat and carbon storage. More trees are planted each year than are consumed and there are more trees today than 100 years ago.Â
5. Plastic is evil. Plastic doesn’t decay – but neither do many other things in a landfill. Plastic is so lightweight, it uses less landfill space and is constantly getting stronger, thinner and lighter. Plastic packaging reduces waste and thereby is eco-friendly. Ersatz environmentalists favor cloth shopping bags manufactured in Asia and teeming with bacteria. They smugly and self righteously shun plastic bags while simultaneously quaffing water from a plastic bottle with over 100 times the weight of a plastic bag.Â
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

     Please feel free to print this email and to make copies. In a very real sense, your reluctance to print will discourage commercial tree farming and thereby inexorably hasten the conversion of our forests into parking lots and strip malls. By printing, you can take great satisfaction in knowing that you are doing your part to help the environment and to save our American forests. Thank you for printing.

The next post on April 30th is the final half of our 2017 Earth Day blogging.

The Scandal-Free Obama Administration

A MLLG update and preview of blog topics through June 4th. Also, just how “scandal-free” was the Obama Administration? 
The Scandal-Free Obama Administration
By: George Noga – April 20, 2017
      Our climate change series was among the most read and forwarded of all time; thank you. We recently upgraded formatting to make posts more readable on mobile devices which are used by 30% of our readers. MLLG posts are available on Facebook, although readers report it is difficult to forward them. I will work with my technical advisor to make posts more manageable and to review all our options for social media.
      The most frequent comment I receive is to suggest the use of footnotes. I have considered this but decided against doing so. The MLLG blog is not a scientific or academic journal. Most magazines, newspapers and other print and electronic media also eschew citations. Footnotes would add length, which would make the posts less readable. I will do a better job working sources into the body of the text and if readers would like to know a particular source, email me and I will try to provide it. Also, please continue to email me with any thoughts or suggestions for improving the blog.
       We have some pithy and provocative posts scheduled between now and June 4th:
April 22 and 30:  Earth Day series presents our take on environmental issues.
May 6:  The Kentucky Derby – with a uniquely MLLG perspective.
May 14 and 21: America’s 25-year long party is over. Although I have not yet written these posts, I expect them to be among the most consequential I have ever penned.
May 28:  MLLG high school graduation address – with apologies in advance to readers who are teachers or who have a family member who is a  teacher.
June 4: MLLG college commencement address – very hard on the snowflakes.

The Scandal-Free Obama Administration

       As Obama left office, the media drumbeat was about how there were no scandals or embarrassments. That is true only insofar as money or sex scandals are concerned; but there was a cornucopia of other scandals – and that doesn’t even include the great-granddaddy of all scandals – spying on the Trump team. In fact, Obama presided over the worst ethics and scandals of the modern era; following are some of the worst.
1. Benghazi: This really consisted of multiple scandals – the failure to protect despite frequent requests, the failure to come to the aid of besieged Americans – again despite frequent and urgent pleas and, of course, the failure to be truthful about the cause.
2. Veterans Affairs: 50 veterans died waiting for appointments; then Obama lied about it. Despite throwing money at it, the situation got even worse. No one ever was fired.
3. Bowe Bergdahl: Obama freed five terrorists from Gitmo and praised Bergdahl as having served with honor and distinction. It was all a sham to try to empty Gitmo.
4. Fast and Furious: Thousands of guns were transmitted directly into the hands of terrorists and were used against American Border Patrol agents. AG Eric Holder refused to turn over documents to Congress and was held in contempt of Congress.
5. IRS and Lois Lerner: Obama’s IRS targeted political opponents and lied about it.
6. State Department Email: Hillary Clinton’s private email server was used for highly classified information which was easily hacked by our enemies.
7. Other Scandals: Hacking of the OPM; Iran nuclear deal; payment of ransom to Iran for return of sailors; phony recess appointments and ad infinitum.

The next post is on Earth Day – April 22 – and addresses environmental issues.

Titanic Myths – 105 Years Afterward

An iceberg caused the Titanic to sink but not the deaths of 1,513 people. For 105 years we have gotten it wrong; this post shatters Titanic myths. 
Titanic Myths – 105 Years Afterward
By: George Noga – April 16, 2017
     Yesterday marked the 105th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic. In addition to being an enduring and compelling human interest saga, it continues to yield lessons that resonate today. This post debunks the five biggest myths surrounding Titanic.
1. Capitalism (greed) caused the loss of life. No one died when Titanic hit the iceberg; the deaths occurred much later when the ship sank. The media blame White Star Lines for not having enough lifeboats – either because of added cost or aesthetics. The real blame was inept (government) regulation by the British Board of Trade (“BOT”) that regulated shipping. The designer, builder, and White Star all deferred to the BOT about the number of lifeboats as the BOT was the unchallenged authority.
     BOT regulations were enacted 20 years previously when 10,000 tons was the norm and 20 lifeboats adequate; Titanic was 46,238 tons. Regulations had not been updated because government was lazy, inept and rewarded for issuing new regulations and not updating old ones. Once government becomes involved, common sense and personal responsibility disappear; hence, no one seriously questioned the BOT regulations.
2. First class passengers received preferential treatment. When dissecting the data, we find 74% of women and 20% of men survived. However, 44% of first class passengers were women versus 23% third class. After adjusting for gender, it is incandescently obvious the survival rates were about the same between first and third class. A third class female was 41% more likely to survive than a first class male. Also, third class passengers were more reluctant to leave the ship and part with baggage. Survival was not about class; it was about gender and children, nearly all of whom were saved.
3. Male aggression impacted survival of women and children. The number of men who survived is cited as evidence of male aggression. There was lifeboat capacity for all women and children and 550 men. There were many more men than women on board. If the crew had loaded one man for each woman and child, all women and children would have been saved. Moreover, lifeboats would have been loaded quicker, with less fear, keeping families together and saving more lives. Male behavior, far from being aggressive, resulted in 200+ fewer men surviving than should have been the case.
4. The Media fairly report the facts. Most media accounts (then and now) are ignorant and/or dishonest. The DiCaprio film in particular contains egregious errors. It depicts third class passengers forcibly barricaded to keep them from reaching lifeboats; that didn’t happen. Nor was anyone shot. The crew and passengers are stereotyped in the worst possible way despite acting heroically and fearlessly in the face of certain death.
Note: Fox has since apologized to families of those falsely portrayed in the movie.
5. There is no taint of political correctness. Au contraire. Titanic is rife with PC. Capitalism is hammered with greed, hubris and indifference to human life while government is unscathed. First class passengers are portrayed in a demeaning manner while others are elevated in dazzling displays of class warfare. Males are bashed.
* * * *  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
    Titanic’s unnecessary loss of life was a failure of government regulation, not of capitalism. It is easier to blame prominent individuals such as the ship’s designer, builder and owner rather than amorphous bureaucrats. The media still get it wrong after 105 years; they return to their leitmotif of shamelessly flogging politically correct class warfare, assaults on masculinity and, their favorite whipping boy, capitalism.
     The enduring lesson of Titanic is not to repose trust in government or media. The damage government can wreak in an age of terrorism and with North Korea, Pakistan and (soon) Iran as nuclear powers is exponentially worse. Instead of 1,513 deaths on Titanic, the toll could be unspeakable. Oppenheimer’s words (from the Gita) upon the first successful nuclear test are poignant: “I am become death, the destroyer of worlds”.

The next post April 23rd contains a collection of MLLG short takes

Climate Change Part V – Putting It All Together

Stanford University researchers estimate we will spend at least 100 trillion dollars to reduce temperature three-tenths of one degree by the end of this century.
Climate Change Part V – Putting It All Together
By: George Noga – April 9, 2017
      In case you missed the preheader, the Stanford University Energy Forum (as well as other scientists) believes mankind will spend $100,000,000,000,000 (one hundred trillion) to achieve a temperature reduction of .3 degrees (three-tenths of one degree) by the year 2100. Despite this insanity, progressives embrace man-made warming as their chosen means to achieve government control over every aspect of our lives. They can succeed only by scaring enough people to believe warming threatens life on Earth. That’s why debunking man-made warming is the most important issue of our time!
      MLLG’s position, first stated in 2007, is that Earth is in the midst of a secular, solar caused warming trend that began circa 1850 and is a normal part of alternate warming and cooling cycles throughout history. Increases in CO2 from human activity may add a small and inconsequential amount – perhaps 10% – to warming. Moreover, we believe moderate warming (as predicted by the UN-IPCC) would be a net benefit to mankind. Even if warming were a real problem, all of our current solutions are wrongheaded.
     The case against anthropogenic warming is strong. NASA documented warming in 10 other places in our solar system; the probability of this occurring if Earth’s warming is man-made is over 1,000 to 1 (2^10) against. There has been a hiatus in warming for 20 years and every computer model is laughably wrong. No model has been corrected since 1998 because it is impossible. There was warming from 1910-1945, cooling 1946-1975, warming 1976-1998 and nothing since. Try fitting that into a model. About 75% of the warming last century occurred from 1910 to 1945 when CO2 was low.
    Despite compelling evidence to the contrary, many people continue to believe warming is man-made and presents an existential threat; why is this so? Such people ignore numerous and powerful warning signs they are wrong. In addition to the evidence noted in the preceding paragraph, they choose to ignore the refusal of politicians and scientists to debate, an increasing antarctic icecap, failure of oceans to rise as expected, the decrease in extreme weather and serious frauds perpetrated by climate scientists. People misplaced their trust in the media, government-funded science and politicians – just as they did for 100 other junk science scares since 1950.
    Even if humans are responsible for warming, everything we are now doing is wrong. We should use strict cost-benefit analysis, maximize economic growth, prioritize spending programs, fund research for renewables, correctly apply the precautionary principle, stop exporting pollution, encourage debate and keep an open mind to new science. We must be fact based, principled and objective instead of fanatical and emotional. We must stop the utter insanity of spending more than $100 trillion to (perhaps – maybe) reduce temperature by a mere .3 degrees 80 years from now.
     Furthermore, we must vigorously challenge the assumption that warming is bad. It is true warming will cause fatalities, but far more people will be saved from the cold. On a net basis, millions more will live because of warming. In the US and worldwide, people prefer warmer temperatures; they don’t retire from Florida to Minnesota. A warmer planet also is better for agriculture, energy costs and biodiversity.
    Finally, Singapore has much to teach us. The average maximum daily temperature in Singapore is 55 degrees warmer than the global average. Singapore transformed itself from a third world swampy island into an uber-modern, clean, high tech city with per capita GDP of $65,000 (7th in the world). It is ethnically diverse and one of the most peaceful places on earth. If Singapore achieved all this despite being 55 degrees warmer, the rest of the world should easily cope with just a degree or so of warming.
    This concludes our climate change series. If you still believe in man-made warming, you must ignore, inter alia, 1,000 to 1 odds against, the failure of all climate models, no warming since 1998, the climate pattern since 1910 and Singapore. And don’t forget the record population of polar bears. I bet you thought I had forgotten about them!

The 105th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic is the subject of our next post

Climate Change Part IV – If Humans Cause Warming 

We are spending trillions to achieve an uncertain, infinitesimal benefit in the distant future. What actions should we take today if warming is man-made? 
Climate Change Part IV – If Humans Cause Warming
By: George Noga – April 2, 2017
      Assuming (for purposes of this posting only) that MLLG believes human activity is responsible for global warming, this post presents the ten most critical policies and actions (in approximate order of priority) that mankind should take in response.
1. Use cost-benefit analysis. EPA carbon regulations cost $100 billion over five years. The putative benefits are reductions of 1 part per thousand per year in carbon and 2.35 ten-thousandths of one degree per year in temperature. Costs are real, immediate and certain whereas the benefits are microscopic, remote and uncertain. Europe’s diesel regulations cause thousands of deaths each year due to increased soot, but the benefit is only 4 one-thousandths of one degree in 50 years. Current climate policies cost trillions and will make no detectable difference in climate even 100 years in the future.
2. Maximize economic growth. A wealthy planet is better able both to alter and to mitigate the effects of warming. In fact, mitigation may be a much better and less costly strategy to combat warming versus trying to lower temperature. This conserves resources if warming proves to be solar caused or is less problematic than expected.
3. Fund research for renewable energy and conservation. Today, wind, solar, bio-fuels and other renewables are not cost effective. Rather than squander scarce resources as described in number one supra, redirect spending toward research for the future.
4. Prioritize spending. Government spending (US and foreign) must achieve the most good for the most people – again based on cost-benefit analysis. Independent scientists and economists rank many priorities ahead of climate including third world projects for clean water, sanitation and immunization. Hundreds of millions of lives could be saved today versus the possibility of some infinitesimal and uncertain future climate benefit.
5. Don’t export pollution. Measures to reduce CO2 imposed only by rich nations result in the shifting of production to poorer countries without such regulations. This process exports pollution and exacerbates warming. Earth is better off when production takes place in the US versus India or China. The US should abandon unilateral actions that waste money and export warming. Carbon reduction must be global to be effective.
6. Correctly apply the precautionary principle. It is sensible to exercise caution but nonsensical to assert that one can’t be too careful. The worst case scenario should never dictate policy; under that logic, no one would ever get into an automobile. It is a grotesque misapplication of the precautionary principle to bankrupt ourselves today in order to lavish money on a possible but uncertain problem in the distant future.
7. Fund research in an unbiased manner. All public funding should be devoid of politics and not biased in favor of scientists with any particular point of view. Our objective is to get at the truth, not to advance an agenda. The UN-IPCC should be non political with scientists, not politicians, writing all the reports and summaries.
8. Science is never settled. Scientists should continue to study all aspects of climate change including: (1) the linkage between CO2 and temperature as well as any amplification or dampening effects; (2) whether warming is positive or negative for humanity understanding that warming kills far fewer people than cooling; (3) warming throughout the solar system; and (4) climate models that incorporate the past 20 years of data. Finally, because there is so much hullabaloo about scientific consensus, there should be an independent and anonymous poll conducted of climate scientists.
9. Encourage debates. Scientists should publicly debate each other as should politicians in unbiased media environments. That would be very enlightening.
10. Be objective and eschew emotion and fanaticism. Scientists, politicians, media and educators all should be strictly objective and dispassionate. We all seek the truth.
    Not even one of the above 10 policies is now being followed; instead, antithetical policies are in effect. There is no cost-benefit analysis, robust economic growth, prioritization of spending, debate or objectivity and we are exporting pollution.
    It is in the interest of all, believers and deniers alike, dispassionately and objectively to seek the truth, even if it ultimately shatters our current beliefs. Even those who passionately believe in man-made warming must recognize that what we are now doing is not only wrong but incredibly wasteful, counterproductive and dishonest!

The next post on April 9th is the final in our climate change series

Climate Change Part III – Why People Believe

There is no shortage of reasons people cling to their belief in man-made warming.  
Climate Change Part III – Why People Believe
By: George Noga – March 26, 2017
      Progressives dogmatically embrace man-made climate change because it is the key to realizing their global agenda. Whether or not climate change is real is irrelevant to them because it is the only issue that can enable them to force their agenda on all of humanity. They need us to believe climate change threatens the existence of life on Earth and only government can prevent it. If people accept that premise, they will cede total power to liberal elites to impose a carbon tax, VAT and Draconian regulations, the end result of which is absolute government control over every aspect of our lives!
    This is so critical, it bears restating. Liberals see man-made climate change as a wedge issue to gain total control, which they can’t achieve via the ballot box. We never will change progressive minds because they don’t give a hoot about climate change; to them it is only a means to an end. Liberals succeed only if they can convince enough others that climate change is real. That is how the battle of our time will be decided.
      Let’s look at the top 5 reasons other people, including many of good will, continue to believe in man-made global warming despite all the evidence to the contrary.
1. Warning signs were ignored. There have been numerous and powerful warning signs warming is not man-made. The refusal of scientists and politicians to debate was a bright red flag; if the science truly was settled, they should have been eager to debate. Warming throughout our solar system yields powerful (1,000 to 1) evidence of solar causation. The 20-year hiatus in warming and the failure of computer models are dispositive. The increasing antarctic icecap, failure of seas to rise as expected and the decrease in extreme weather are compelling evidence. Frauds were promulgated by climate scientists to show more warming. They altered data (infamous hockey stick graph) and recently, NOAA scientists substituted flawed data for correct data.
2. People wanted to believe. They uncritically accepted warming just as they did other junk science: fluoridation, pesticides, Laetrile, overpopulation, acid rain, organic food, ozone holes, Alar, silicon implants, killer bees, GMOs, vaccines, global cooling, Mad Cow, SARS, Avian Flu, Thimerosal, Swine Flu, dioxin, PCBs, BPA, pink slime, fracking and acrylamide to name but a few of the 100 cases of recent junk science.
3. They trusted the media. There is the thinnest reed of truth (a tenuous link between CO2 and temperature) to beguile even people of good will. But believers forgot that the media carry water for progressives; they are the opposite side of the same coin.
4. Science is politicized; never settled. Government funds $3,000 to every $1 funded by others for climate research; you get what you pay for. President Eisenhower said the following: “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by federal allocations and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.” Newton discovered gravity in 1665; it was settled until Einstein 240 years later. People accepted that 97% of climate scientists believe in man-made causation; the real figure is less than 50% and falling rapidly despite the torrent of government money.
5. They misunderstand data. It always is the warmest year somewhere. It is true 2012 was the hottest year in the continental US (1.58% of Earth’s landmass) but 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 all were cooler than 1998 (warmest recent year) by a greater margin than 2012 was warmer than 1998. Most (nearly 75%) of the warming in the 20th century occurred from 1910 to 1945 with low CO2 levels.
    For progressives, man-made warming is a religion replete with sacraments (bio-fuel, windmills) and demons (CO2, coal). It labels apostates deniers and seeks to silence or imprison them. They are impervious to facts or logic. Non-progressives misplace their trust in politicians, the media and government-funded science. They ignore abundant and compelling red flags that they are wrong and fail to use every day horse sense.

In Part IV of this series on April 2nd, I become a climate change believer 

Climate Change Part II – Computer Models

No computer models of climate change have been updated to incorporate the actual temperature record of the past twenty years. Why is this true?
Climate Change Part II – Computer Models
By: George Noga – March 19, 2017
       Computer models predicting sharply higher temperatures were not only wrong but drastically so. And the models were wrong about much more than temperatures. They predicted antarctic ice would decrease; instead, it has increased and it is ten times larger than the arctic icecap. The predicted rise in sea levels is not materializing and the rate is slowing. Extreme weather has declined as proven by decreased insurance claims. Oh, and those disappearing Pacific islands – some are actually increasing.
      Despite their serious flaws, models have not been updated with results of the past 20 years. Why is this true given the gusher of government money available for such purposes? Moreover, the first scientist to update a model with actual temperatures since 1998 and still show alarming global warming would become an instant climate warrior rock star. Everything else has been improved in the past 20 years; compare your present cell phone to 1997 models the size of a brick and with long antennas.
      Are scientists too dumb or too lazy to update and to correct their computer models? Do they lack the necessary funding? Are they too busy teaching or performing other research? Do they lack either the incentive or the desire? Following are the five main reasons why no computer models have been updated for at least 20 years.
1. It simply cannot be done. As noted in Part I, temperatures increased sharply from 1910 to 1945 then cooled 1946-1975, then warmed moderately 1976-1998 and then paused beginning in 1999. Try fitting those data into a computer model.
2. Models rely on powerful CO2 feedback loops. To show alarming future warming, models assume ultra high levels of CO2 feedback amplification. Research shows such strong feedback may be wrong by up to 10 times. Even if they continued to use 300% amplification, they still could not make models mesh with observed temperature data.
3. Accurate models would show man-made warming is not a problem. Scientists could construct a plausible computer model showing a modest amount of anthropogenic warming; however, that is unsuited to their need to portray a cataclysmic and imminent global crisis as expected and demanded by their government patrons.
4. Funding for future climate and other research would evaporate. In addition to perpetual loss of funding, scientists who updated a model to show little, if any, man-made warming would experience all-out attacks on their work, methods, motives and ad hominem attacks as well. They may even be charged with thought crimes.
5. Scientists disavowing human causation would be savaged. Instead of their current status as moral warriors occupying the high ground fighting an imminent global crisis, they instantly would be regarded as bottom-feeding pariah. They would incur the wrath of those proven wrong, would become persona non grata on campus and would be shunned by their peers. The environmental religion is unforgiving to apostates. Instead of media darlings who do no wrong, they would be tarred as heretical climate deniers.
    I turn to Occam’s Razor (simplest explanation is the most likely one) to revisit the question of why computer models have not been corrected or updated. The simplest answer clearly is that a valid climate model cannot be constructed that explains the temperature record since 1910 including the pause in warming since 1998 and still show the desired results. In this case however, I also am going to turn to Noga’s Razor, which states that when there is only one plausible answer, it is the correct one.
    The absence of updated or corrected computer models for two decades constitutes dispositive and prima facie evidence human activity does not cause climate change.
Research note: I have invested considerable time researching this post. There are many climate models and some may have been updated, at least in part. It is possible there may exist climate models which include data for the past 20 years. What I do believe is that there are no updated computer models showing the same sharply rising temperatures as the original models. If such models existed, they would be widely touted by media and climate warriors.

Our next post March 26th is Part III of our climate change series

Climate Change Part I – Causation

Climate change is the key for progressives to impose their agenda which they can’t
achieve via elections. If they succeed, government will control every aspect of our lives.
That is the reason MLLG is publishing this fact-based and principled five-part series.
Climate Change Part I – Causation
By: George Noga – March 15, 2017
     Anyone who reads our entire five-part series on man-made climate change may never look at that subject the same way again. Following is a summary of each part.
Part I – Overview and the role of human activity in climate change
     Summary of MLLG position: Earth has been in a secular, solar-caused warming trend since circa 1850; this is a normal part of alternate warming and cooling cycles throughout history. Increases in CO2 resulting from human activity may contribute to warming to a small and inconsequential extent – perhaps 10%. Moreover, the moderate warming predicted by the UN-IPCC is a net benefit to mankind. Present attempts to lower CO2 incur ruinous costs to achieve infinitesimal benefits and are disastrous. Bottom Line: Warming is likely about 90% solar and only about 10% anthropogenic.
The Five Main Arguments Against Anthropogenic Warming
1. Warming throughout solar system: NASA has documented warming on our moon, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Triton, Pluto, Enceladus, Dysmonia and Eris. (Specific temperature data are on our website.) Much of this warming has a similar pattern to Earth’s and there is not a single instance of observed non-warming anywhere in our solar system. The odds are over 1,000 to 1 (2^10) against this occurring in all ten out of ten other places (where data exist) in our solar system if temperatures on Earth were rising due to human activity. This is nearly irrefutable evidence of solar causation.
2. No warming for 20 years: There has been no net global warming at least since 1998 except possibly for the El Nino years of 2015 and 2016. Most (nearly 75%) of the warming in the 20th century occurred from 1910 to 1945 when CO2 was low.
3. Temperature patterns are consistent with solar causation: Weather since at least 1910 fits a secular warming paradigm. Temperatures increase in fits and starts; there are long pauses and even intervals of cooling. Temperatures increased from 1910-1945, cooled from 1946-1975, warmed from 1976-1998 and paused from 1999 to now. These data are consistent with solar causation but inconsistent with CO2 causation and all models.
4. Climate models are wrong: Models have not come even remotely close to predicting temperatures for the past 20 years. They haven’t been updated because it is impossible for them to account for the hiatus in warming since 1998. As shown infra, models rely on 300% amplification of CO2 feedback to achieve the high future temperatures predicted. Such feedback now appears wrong. Also, if warming is solar caused and behaves as shown in number 3 above, then no computer model could ever predict it.
5. CO2 feedback is much less than believed: Climate models assume increases in CO2 are amplified (increased) through feedback by 300%; instead, current research (now being peer reviewed) shows it could be dampened (decreased) by more than 50%. That difference means the effect of CO2 increases on climate change is lower than predicted by all climate models by a factor of up to 10 times. Increases in CO2 still may impact temperatures but by up to 10 times less than that shown in the models. Thus, CO2 can explain only about 10% of climate change, meaning the other 90% is solar. Note: Even if the amplification/dampening effects cited herein ultimately are found to be different, it would not change the fact that temperatures cannot be explained by changes in CO2.
      There is much more to the case against man-made warming, but I’ll close with this vignette. Ever since man trod this earth, climate change was 100% due to nature. Now, the climate consternation folks want us to believe that starting 40 years ago climate change is 100% due to human activity and has nothing to do with nature. Go figure.

Part II on March 19th – Why Climate Models Have Not Been Updated

Restoring Confidence in Police

Confidence in police began to decline decades ago and now is low across all demographic groups. This post presents a practical plan to restore confidence.
Restoring Confidence in Police
By: George Noga – March 12, 2017

      Our September 25th post Crisis of Confidence in Police (online at www.mllg.us) was highly critical of policing in America and we received push back from some readers. When we criticize, we also like to proffer solutions; hence, we present this 10-part plan – in rough order of importance – for restoring confidence in police.

1. Engage in self-evaluation. In the post Vietnam era, the military was in shambles. Like the police today, they were poorly perceived by the public. They took a critical look at themselves and transformed the military into the most trusted institution in America. Police must perform a similar realistic and critical review to understand why there is such a wide trust gap and then take all the necessary corrective actions.
2. Create a West Point for police. In another lesson from the military, a national police service academy should be created exactly like the others. This would attract many of the best and brightest into policing and provide leadership and professionalism.
3. Enhance professionalism at all levels. Advancement to sergeant, lieutenant, captain and senior levels should require further education and training. This is another lesson from the military, where advancement to each rank requires professional development. To advance to a senior police command position should require graduation from something akin to the War College, required for all military general officers. Under no circumstances should advancement ever be linked to the number of tickets or arrests.
4. Embrace citizen review boards. All jurisdictions should have non-political review boards and then work closely with them to build better community relations. Such boards should not be viewed as inimical but rather as a valuable resource. Use every possible opportunity to learn from community leaders and to build trust.
5. Abolish the us-versus-them attitude. Police form insular cliques, walling themselves off from their communities. They protect each other, even against accusations of wrongdoing, with a blue wall of silence. In the military there is no green wall of silence despite combat situations. Duty to the public always must come before police loyalty to their buddies. Until that happens, police never will earn the full respect of the public. This means that the practice of testilying (police lying under oath) also must end.
6. Use SWAT teams only when absolutely necessary. Currently SWAT teams are used over 50,000 times a year – sometimes to serve routine subpoenas. Such lethal force should be used sparingly and only when deemed absolutely essential.
7. Police should be non-union. It is inconceivable the military would be unionized, go on strikes, engage in job actions or tomfoolery regarding pay and benefits such as overtime spiking. This same paradigm should apply to police. Public unions create enormous resentment among private sector workers, only 6% of whom are unionized.
8. Abolish civil asset forfeiture. This is an incredibly sleazy, self-serving, extra legal practice that likely is unconstitutional. It reflects incredibly poorly on police, creates widespread resentment with the pubic and can’t be terminated soon enough.
9. Clean up the atmospherics. As part of heightened police professionalism, abolish telephone solicitations which grate on the public. Uniforms should be basic, no-frills with high ranking officers wearing civilian clothes; save the five-star general uniforms for rare formal occasions. At public events be modest and avoid self aggrandizement.
10. Use broken-window policing. Implement legal and appropriate measures proven most effective at preventing and lowering crime, regardless of any political pressure to the contrary. This means fully embracing broken-window policing.

   The erosion of confidence in the police to its present low level happened over decades and has myriad causes. The ten-part plan presented herein will not be quick or easy but it will restore the public’s confidence in the police to protect and to serve!

On March 17th MLLG begins its five-part series about climate change 

Trump Derangement Syndrome

TDS, or Trump Derangement Syndrome, is a mental disorder that causes loss of all sense of proportion, civility and ability to think or act in a controlled manner.
Trump Derangement Syndrome
By: George Noga – March 5, 2017
     Trump Derangement Syndrome or “TDS” is a mental illness with a known cause but no known cure. It’s most prevalent on both coasts and college campuses. Sufferers avoid treatment because the malady releases endorphins, makes them feel smug about themselves and is virtue signalling. The main symptom is uncontrollable expressions of outrage at even the slightest non provocation. Victims lose all sense of proportion, civility and ability to think or act in a controlled manner. In the disease’s end stages, victims lose their grip on reality and can’t tell fact from fiction. TDS sufferers are mired in a state of denial. Note: there are no electoral votes in the state of denial.
      TDS struck the 60 Democrat congressmen boycotting the inauguration. Madonna had a severe case, making her muse about blowing up the White House. Meryl Streep became unglued with TDS during the Golden Globes. The Rockettes were afflicted as were many celebrities asked to perform at the inaugural. Among senators, Cory Booker and Pocahontas, err, Elizabeth Warren suffered severe amnesia, forgetting their earlier passionate support for school choice when questioning Betsy DeVos.
      When conservatives lose elections, liberals and the media always attribute the loss to repudiation of their candidates and policies. When progressives lose, it is always because of fear, anger, hate, bigotry, Fox News, Drudge, talk radio, internet memes and now Russia. Obama attributed the 2016 loss to voters “afraid, suspicious and fearful“. This follows his remarks claiming voters “get bitter, cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade frustrations“. Liberals can’t imagine voters rejecting their vapid ideas, hence TDS.
     TDS caused liberals to draw the wrong conclusions about the election, to deny reality and to set a disastrous course for 2018 and 2020. They face erosion in support from both blacks and private sector unions in the rust belt. Their leadership in the House is all over 75 years old. How will a party led by Chuck Schumer, Tom Perez, Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders and Pocahontas fare in 2018 senate races in states like North Dakota, which Trump carried by 36 points and Heitkamp won with 50.2% last go-round?  Their main presidential candidates for 2020 are Andrew Cuomo, Cory Booker and Pocahontas – George McGovern redux. Meanwhile, Republicans are only one state legislature short of the two-thirds needed to call a constitutional convention.
     The Sturm und Drang on college campuses is a TDS symptom but also is due to the realization their liberal god has failed. Obama was likely the most liberal president America will ever have and he failed to accomplish anything. Students have total control over campuses yet demand even more; they are beginning to eat their own. Progressives spent like drunken sailors, still the economy is sclerotic. For the first time ever, they will be worse off than their parents. And then along came Trump!
     The entire world is moving rapidly to the right; the black swans are circling and the Gods of the Copybook Headings, with terror and slaughter, are beginning to return.

Next Post on March 12th is: Restoring Confidence in the Police