Tag: Climate Change

Startling Climate Change Perspective

George Noga
Ominous pronouncements from science, government and media about climate change 
Startling Climate Change Perspective
By: George Noga – April 1, 2018

       The following excerpts from respected sources in science, government and media just might change your outlook about climate change and global warming.

        Newsweek: “There are ominous signs earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically; these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production. The evidence has begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard pressed to keep up. . . If the climate change is as profound as the pessimists fear, the resulting famine could be catastrophic. . . . The longer we delay, the more difficult it will be to cope with climate change once the results become grim reality.”

       New York Times: “Some experts believe mankind is on the threshold of a new pattern of adverse global climate change for which it is ill prepared. . . this climate change poses a threat to the people of the world.”  Time Magazine: “The scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are confidently predicting the current weather will continue.” New York Times: “The US and Russia are exploring why Arctic climate and sea ice is changing so rapidly and so ominously.“

       Science Digest: “World’s climatologists are agreed we must prepare for the next climate epoch.” Professor Hubert Lamb: “We are on a definite course for the next two centuries. There may be a few fluctuations but these are more than offset by the general trend.” New York Times: “An international team of specialists has concluded there is no end in sight to the trend of the past 30 years.” CIA: “Climate leaders agree climate change has caused major economic problems throughout the world.“

       Professor James Hays: “A trend has already begun. . . and it should continue for the next 20,000 years.” National Center for Atmospheric Research: “There are strong signs that recent climate disasters were not random deviations from the usual weather, but instead signal the emergence of a new normal for world climate.”  Reuters: “The threat of climate change must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for all of mankind.” Harper’s Magazine: “Rising ocean waters may flood most of our port cities within the foreseeable future.“

       I could fill many more pages with the same stuff. How certain and how dire their warnings – comparing climate change to nuclear war, predicting massive starvation and severe climate for the next 20,000 years. Their predictions for 20,000 years did not survive even 20 years; all the quotes in this post are about global cooling and the coming ice age! Today, science, government and media are equally certain and apocalyptic about the opposite of what they were certain about a few decades ago.

     There constantly are new revelations about contrary science, shoddy research, concocted data, fraudulent peer review, plugged computer models, compliant scientific journals, refusals to debate, quashing of dissent and warming throughout the solar system. These often involve the same people who were so wrong about global cooling.

       But wait; it gets worse. The UN IPCC predicted that by 2010 there would be 50 million climate refugees and even published a map showing where they would be as a result of rising sea levels. That was 8 years ago; today there are exactly zero climate refugees, no rise in sea level, no food shortages and even the ozone hole has filled in.

       I apologize if you were momentarily fooled, but it is April 1st. We will have more to say about climate and the environment as we approach Earth Day. Stay tuned.

Our next post is about business ethics and social responsibility.

MLLG College Commencement Address

George Noga
Instead of a diploma, graduates should receive an apology and a tuition refund. 
MLLG College Commencement Address
By: George Noga – June 11, 2017
     Graduates: upon your graduation today from this elite college, you will receive congratulations and a diploma. Instead, you should demand an apology from the college along with a refund of most of your tuition. You have been swindled, deceived, bilked, scammed, hoodwinked and defrauded in almost every way imaginable.
      During your seven years here, you never were taught by a professor; most of your graduate-student instructors sat in the same class last semester that they now teach. Most of you graduated with honors; making them meaningless and reminiscent of Lake Wobegon where everyone is above average. Many of your degrees are useless; some even are harmful. If your degree is in any hyphenated subject or in one that ends in studies, consider it worthless; the same applies to degrees in Zombies in Popular Media and Queer Musicology. Most of you didn’t need a college degree in the first place.
    No instructor or guest speaker has ever challenged you with ideas contrary to progressive shibboleths. You have experienced diversity in every conceivable way except the one that matters, i.e. diversity of thought. You have been indoctrinated in pro-government, anti-capitalist, anti-business and politically correct orthodoxy. You have been propagandized and terrorized about the environment and climate change.
      You have been coddled by trigger warnings, safe rooms and even the avoidance of microaggressions. You have been cloistered in a cocoon of enforced conformity. Males have had their constitutional rights stripped away and live on the razor’s edge, one ersatz accusation away from perdition. There is not now and never was a campus rape crisis; the real world has no speech codes; and all America is a free speech zone.
      Your college has a humongous endowment and doesn’t even need to charge tuition. Nevertheless, it has colluded with government, and against you and your parents, to raise the cost of tuition. Government decided everyone needed a college degree, so they lowered standards causing a student glut and a bubble in higher education.
     Government then made student loans easily available and your college raised its tuition to capture the subsidies. Tuition has risen 400% faster than inflation. Middle income taxpayers, who foot the bills, are subsidizing your elite education and are the ones you stiff when you inevitably default on your loans. You show your ingratitude by flagrantly flaunting your disrespect of their values, religion and patriotism.
    You are victims of intergenerational theft and inherit $600,000 as your share of future unfunded government liabilities. You also inherit a dysfunctional world with multiple existential threats and an imminent debt crisis, all due to following the discredited progressive dogma you were taught at this college. You are a lost generation and will be truly lucky if your life is better than your parents’.
      Following this ceremony, go straight to the nearest unemployment office, as this elite college did not equip you to add value to the economy. Those of you finding a job will soon learn that it is not about you – it is all about the customer. Your second stop should be at a law firm to sue this college for fraud and a tuition refund. Finally, you must begin to unlearn all the crapola you were taught at this college.
       If you feel entitled to a break following graduation, spend some time in Venezuela or Cuba to experience some real socialistic comradeship – but remember to bring your own food, medicine and toilet paper. Use your time (while standing in lines) in these workers’ paradises to decide if you are a frail, delicate, fragile snowflake who must be sheltered in a safe room with a teddy bear or someone ready to face the real world.
      Finally, as alums, you will be solicited by this college for donations to add to its already obscenely large endowment. Instead, send them a copy of your student loan repayment schedule and once again demand a refund of your tuition payments.

Next up is a  special MLLG posting on June 14th – Flag Day

Climate Change Part V – Putting It All Together

George Noga
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 

George Noga
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

George Noga
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

George Noga
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

George Noga
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

Fake Solutions to Fake Problems

George Noga

America is facing economic stagnation, failed schools, a nuclear Iran and is fighting global Islamic terrorism. Progressives are fighting for men to use the ladies’ restroom.
Fake Solutions to Fake Problems
By: George Noga – October 2, 2016

      As we approach the election, we are bombarded from the progressive side with a panoply of phony issues to which they proffer equally phony solutions. They don’t have real solutions to real problems; all they can offer is maskirovka and rope-a-dope.

     The most serious issues America faces are: weak economic growth with income stagnation, radical Islamic terrorism, Iran as a nuclear threshold state, chronic debt and deficits approaching critical mass, and failed government schools. Progressives don’t want to discuss any of these issues; instead, they talk of climate change, gun control, a war on women, transgender restrooms, and environmentalism – all phantom issues.

     Climate change is fake because it is man-made in only an inconsequential way, if at all, as well documented in prior posts. It is a classic Baptists-bootleggers political coalition of true believers (environmentalists) and their fellow travelers (government) who stand to benefit. The latest fake solution is the climate deal signed earlier this year in Paris where politicians from 175 countries agreed to keep doing whatever they intended to do anyway and with no consequences for non compliance. In an ultimate irony, the fake climate deal to fight a fake enemy was signed in the same city where just a short while earlier a real enemy, Islamic terrorism, slaughtered 130 real people.

     Gun control is progressives’ go-to issue. We published a series, Guns in America, available at http:\\www.mllg.us which proves to any scient person there is no positive correlation between guns and crime and there likely is a negative correlation, i.e. more guns equals less crime. We followed that up with a Harvard study showing social, cultural and economic factors (and not guns) are the determinants of violent crime.

     Gun control is a phony issue for which progressives have proposed a long train of phony solutions. Not one proposed measure would have prevented any mass gun violence in America. Their most recent phony solution is the “no fly, no buy”  proposal to ban gun sales to anyone on the no-fly watch list. This is a small and notoriously inaccurate list that excludes all recent terrorists; it would have no effect on terrorism.

     A war on women and the campus rape culture likewise are imaginary issues. Duke, UVA and Harvard (The Hunting Ground) have been debunked. College campuses actually are safer for women than elsewhere. Women’s pay is equal to or higher than men’s when making proper adjustments for education, experience, danger, etc. Liberal solutions also are imaginary such as constant ongoing affirmative consent for sex. Progressives refuse to criticize the real war on women in Moslem countries, replete with, inter alia, genital mutilation, no driving, burkas and Sharia law. Go figure!

     Transgenders constitute .00006 of the population, making this issue a tempest in a teapot. Progressives insist anyone who self identifies as any gender can use any public facility at anytime. They demand young girls accept showering with men and that they simply get over any discomfort. Yet, they dictate transgenders not be required to use facilities conforming to their biological gender because it may cause them discomfort.

     Environmentalism is a totally ersatz issue. Every metric (100 of them) shows both human and environmental well being to be the best they have been in the past 50-75 years and getting better all the time. Their fake solution is to spend ever more and more money to eke out ever less and less imperceptible benefit and to elevate a tiny fish (delta smelt) over the well being of hundreds of thousands of real human beings.

     Take the real issues identified in this post and contrast them with the phantom issues and solutions put forth by progressives. They use misdirection, smoke, mirrors, and rope-a-dope for emotional appeals to low information voters. They never address serious issues with serious solutions. They choose instead to fight for transgenders against young girls but not for all Americans against radical Islam and a nuclear Iran.

The next post in our 2016 election series addresses political correctness.

Guns in America – Liberty vs. Government – MLLG Update

George Noga

We address: (1) Guns in America redux; (2) MLLG status and website; and (3) the eternal struggle between personal freedom and government power.

By: George Noga – June 26, 2016

    This post touches briefly on three topics beginning with a followup to our February 2016 series: Guns in America, which enjoyed phenomenal distribution that propelled it to a high position on search engines including Google. Recently, we noticed a paper published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. Although it was published years ago, it has just now begun gaining widespread traction in the gun control debate.

  The paper is entitled: Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? To read, simply click the title. It documents that gun control has no correlation with criminal violence and, in fact, has a negative correlation, i.e. more guns, less crime. The authors concluded that gun control is ineffective because it does not affect the social, cultural and economic factors that are the real determinants of violent crime. Note: The main sources for the study include the CDC, US Academy of Sciences and United Nations.

Uncommon Wisdom about Liberty and Government

    It doesn’t get better than this; that’s why MLLG is publishing a lengthy quote. The case being discussed was before the Texas Supreme Court and involved eyebrow threading, a safe and traditional South Asian practice to remove unwanted hair. The State of Texas demanded threaders obtain cosmetology licenses requiring 750 hours of training (that did not include eyebrow threading), shut down of their businesses and fines of thousands of dollars. The threaders took Texas to court. Justice Don Willet wrote the following in his opinion supporting the threaders, who won the case 6-3.  

   “This case concerns the timeless struggle between personal freedom and government power. Do Texans live under a presumption of liberty or a presumption of restraint? The Texas Constitution confers power – but even more critically, it constrains power. What are the outer boundary limits of government actions that trample Texans’ constitutional right to earn an honest living? Must courts rubber-stamp even the most nonsensical encroachments on freedom? Are even the most patently farcical and protectionist restrictions unchangeable, or are there judicially enforceable limits?

    “This case raises constitutional eyebrows because it asks building-block questions about constitutional architecture – about how we as Texans govern ourselves and about the relationship of the citizen to the State. This case concerns far more than whether (Texans) can pluck unwanted hair with a strand of thread. This case is fundamentally about the American Dream and the unalienable human right to pursue happiness without curtsying to government on bended knee. It is about whether government can connive with rent-seeking factions to ration liberty unrestrained and whether judges must submissively uphold even the most risible encroachments.”

MLLG Preview and Website Update

    So far in 2016, MLLG has published two series, Guns in America and Inequality in America. We have blogged about, inter alia, the US election (3 times), climate change (3), government and socialism (3), school choice, tax inversions, Pope Francis, Islamic terrorism, Scandinavian economics and Jefferson-Jackson Day. Whew!

    For the second half of 2016, look for multi-part series on (1) climate change; (2) poverty, hunger and homelessness in America; and (3) financial repression, negative interest rates and the war on cash. Other pithy topics may include: China, political correctness, Greece and Puerto Rico, Uber and gay marriage (you’ll really like that one) and media bias. This summer, as customary, we lighten things up with posts about life in Montana – our summer home. We call these posts “Montana Moments“; enjoy!

Hurricane Warning!

George Noga

Hurricane season began on June 1 and provides the common thread for this post. It addresses hurricanes, climate change, price gouging and economics of storms

By: George Noga – June 5, 2016

    To observe the beginning of hurricane season, we address a trio of hurricane related topics: (1) climate change; (2) storm economics; and (3) price gouging. As you have come to expect, our analysis of these issues is not the usual pap you find elsewhere.

Hurricanes and Climate Change

    The last hurricane to hit Florida was Wilma in 2005. This 10-year hurricane-free streak dwarfs the prior record of 5 years that stood for 165 years. This is especially remarkable considering 40% of all hurricanes impact Florida. This decade of  clement weather follows dire predictions by global warmists that hurricanes would be more frequent, last longer, have stronger and more intense winds and cause more damage.

    Warmists also warned of  many more severe weather events worldwide. Munich Re, one of the world’s leading reinsurance companies, performed the first ever analysis of global weather-related losses incorporating normalization adjustments for inflation, population growth, wealth increases and other variables. Its study concluded there was “no statistically significant trend for total weather-related events in the past 20 years“.

    Let’s suppose a hurricane hits Florida. Global warmists and their media sycophants instantly will cite it as incontrovertible evidence of climate change. I hope we avoid hurricanes again in 2016; but if one should hit, brace yourself for the inevitable onslaught of self righteous prattle – but remember, it has been 165 years since there have been fewer hurricanes and weather losses are trending downward worldwide.

Hurricanes and Putative Economic Benefits

    It is a testament to economic illiteracy that this question persists in the 21st century. Yet, in the aftermath of any disaster, the media trot out this fusty canard. A reductio ad absurdum is all that is needed to give it the lie. If a mega-disaster struck destroying everything, we clearly are worse off despite any increased economic activity it may spawn in the short run. Following is an example of the relevant economic analysis.

    Postulate there is a small island with aggregate wealth of $1 million in homes and property. Economic growth is slow and some on the island are unemployed. A storm destroys the entire wealth of the island. The whole population works for one year and succeeds in rebuilding everything. Looking at statistics, GDP was $1 million, much higher than normal, and unemployment was zero. Yet the overall wealth of the island is unchanged and, in fact, is much less than it would have been without the storm.

Hurricanes and Price Gouging

    Americans accept that prices for the same product vary under different conditions. They understand why hotel rooms in small college towns cost more the weekend of a big game and why tickets for the big game cost more than a regular game. We readily accept all these things; why should it be any different following hurricanes?

    Take the case of generators. Entrepreneurs, at some peril, drive to other cities to buy generators to sell for what buyers willingly pay. Some may pay a lot if they stand to lose thousands of dollars of food stored in freezers; some just may want the convenience of electricity. Every decision and price is voluntary and non-coercive. Soon, the price of generators returns to equilibrium. With anti-gouging laws, everyone does without generators; any intrepid souls who supplied them are subject to arrest, public scorn and to pandering by economically illiterate politicians and media.

    There is no such thing as price gouging. Prices in free markets convey accurate, truthful and valuable information about the value of a good or service at a point in time. In contrast, government prices (think: rent control, rationing) always are lies. In which kind of society would you rather live – one based on voluntary cooperation of people in free markets or one based on government lies, force and coercion?

The next post on June 12th revisits the 2016 US national election.