More evidence that the Climate Alarmists' are wrong

Here is a link to an article by Klippel, Krusic, Konter, St. George, Trouet, and Esper titled "A 1200+ year reconstruction of temperature extremes for the northeastern Mediterranean region".

The moral of the story, summarized by Judith Curry is "1200 year reconstruction of temperature extremes in the northeastern Mediterannean region [link] Extreme heat years have “substantially” declined over the last 450 years (since CO2 emissions began rising). The warmest and highest extreme years occurred during Medieval times."

Here is the abstract.

----------------------------------------------

Proxy evidence is necessary to place current temperature and hydroclimatic changes in a long‐term context and to assess the full range of natural and anthropogenic climate forcings. Here, we present the first millennium‐length reconstruction of late summer (August–September) temperature variability for the Mediterranean region. We compiled 132 maximum latewood density (MXD) tree‐ring series of living and relict Pinus heldreichii trees from a network of four high‐elevation sites in the Pindus Mountains of Greece. Forty series reach back into the first millennium and the oldest sample dates to 575 CE. At annual to decadal scales, the record correlates significantly with August–September temperatures over the Balkan Peninsula and northeastern Mediterranean (r1950–2014 = 0.71, p < 0.001). We produce two reconstructions emphasizing interannual and decadal scale variance over the past millennium. Analysis of temperature extremes reveals the coldest summers occurred in 1035, 1117, 1217, 1884 and 1959 and the coldest decades were 1061–1070 and 1811–1820. The warmest summers occurred in 1240 and 1474, and the warmest decades were 1141–1150 and 1481–1490. Comparison of this new reconstruction with MXD‐based summer temperature reconstructions across Europe reveals synchronized occurrences of extreme cool summers in the northeastern Mediterranean, and an antiphase‐relationship with warm summer temperatures over the British Isles and Scandinavia. This temperature dipole is related to anomalies in the latitudinal position of the North Atlantic Jet. Despite the representation of common atmospheric forcing patterns, the occurrence of warm extremes is limited to few events, suggesting potential weaknesses of MXD to record warm temperature anomalies. In addition, we acknowledge problems in the observational data to capture local temperature variability due to small scale topographic differences in this high‐elevation landscape. At a broader geographical scale, the occurrence of common cold summer extremes is restricted to years with volcanically induced changes in radiative forcing.

Solar activity is an important factor in climate

Here is a link to a paper by Raspopov, Dergachev, Esper, Kozyreva, Frank, Ogurtsov, Kolstrom, and Shao titled "The influence of the de Vries (∼ 200-year) solar cycle on climate variations: Results from the Central Asian Mountains and their global link"

The title is confusing.  The message is not.  Solar activity is an important determinant of climate.

How many of the climate models Alarmists favor include this factor?

Here is the Abstract.
-----------------------------------------------
Long-term climatic changes related to solar forcing were examined using millennium-scale palaeoclimatic reconstructions from the Central Asian mountain region, i.e. summer temperature records for the Tien Shan mountains and precipitation records for the Tibetan Plateau. The reconstructions were based on juniper tree-ring width records, i.e. Juniperus turkestanica for the Tien Shan and Sabina przewalskii for the Tibetan Plateau. The data were processed using spectral and wavelet analysis and filtered in the frequency range related to major solar activity periodicities. The results obtained for various tree-ring chronologies indicate palaeoclimatic oscillations in the range of the de Vries (∼ 210-year) solar cycles through the last millennium.

The quasi-200-year variations revealed in the palaeoclimatic reconstructions correlate well (R2 = 0.58–0.94) with solar activity variations (Δ14C variations). The quasi-200-year climatic variations have also been detected in climate-linked processes in Asia, Europe, North and South America, Australia, and the Arctic and Antarctica. The results obtained point to a pronounced influence of solar activity on global climatic processes.

Analysis has shown that climate response to the long-term global solar forcing has a regional character. An appreciable delay in the climate response to the solar signal can occur (up to 150 years). In addition, the sign of the climate response can differ from the solar signal sign. The climate response to long-term solar activity variations (from 10s to 1000s years) manifests itself in different climatic parameters, such as temperature, precipitation and atmospheric and oceanic circulation. The climate response to the de Vries cycle has been found to occur not only during the last millennia but also in earlier epochs, up to hundreds of millions years ago.

Climate alarmists lack the data to support their alarm

Here is a link to a paper by Kauppinen and Malmi titled "No Experimental Evidence For The Significant Antrhopogenic Climate Change".

Here are some excepts.
-------------------------------------------------
ABSTRACT

In this paper we will prove that GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global temperature. That is why those models give a very small natural temperature change leaving a very large change for the contribution of the green house gases in the observed temperature. This is the reason why IPCC has to use a very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further they have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in order to magnify the sensitivity. In addition, this paper proves that the changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature.

CONCLUSION

We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature

Reply to Lockwood and Fröhlich – The persistent role of the Sun in climate forcing

Here is a link to Svensmark's and Fris-Christensen's reply to Lockwood's and Frohlich's criticism of the former's work on the important role of the Sun, as opposed to CO2, in climate.

Apparently, the critics of the importance of the Sun in climate are wrong.

Here is an excerpts.
-------------------------------------
In a recent paper (ref. [1]) Mike Lockwood and Claus Frohlich have argued that recent trends in solar climate forcing have been in the wrong direction to account for ”the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures”. These authors accept that ”there is considerable evidence for solar influence on Earth’s pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century.” But they argue that this historical link between the Sun and climate came to an end about 20 years ago. Here we rebut their argument comprehensively.

Climate change is not settled science

Those who accuse others of being "climate change deniers" are the ones who are the deniers.

Here is a link to a statement by Nir Shaviv with a better perspective.

Some excerpts follow.
--------------------------------------------------------
Summary

1. There is no direct evidence demonstrating that large CO2 variations cause large temperature variations. There is evidence for the opposite.

2. The two arguments used by the IPCC to “prove” the catastrophic AGW picture are flawed—warming over the 20th century is not unique, while the claim that there is nothing else to explain the 20th century warming is simply wrong.

3. There are many other pseudo-arguments which are simply irrelevant. This includes the often heard appeal to authority (the 97% claim) as well as arguments based on evidence for warming, which is not evidence for warming by humans.

4. The sun has a large but ignored effect on the climate. With it, one obtains a consistent picture for 20th century climate change, one in which more than half of the 20th century is due to solar activity increase and in which climate sensitivity is low (and consistent with empirical data).

5. The low climate sensitivity implies that future climate warming will be benign and within the goals set by the Copenhagen and Paris summits without having to take particular steps. One has to rethink how much resources we wish to spend on the problem which is much more benign than commonly believed.

What’s wrong with the present day view of climate change?

Let me start by asking a question, one which you should either ask yourself or ask the experts you rely on. What is the evidence proving that anthropogenic global warming will lead to a catastrophic climate change?

As I demonstrate below, this idea is in fact a misconception, and the so called evidence that we constantly hear is simply based on various fallacious arguments. Moreover, critical evidence that proves that it is wrong is actually blatantly ignored by the IPCC and alike. 

The first and foremost argument that should simply be ignored is the appeal to authority or to a majority. Science is not a democracy and the fact that many believe one thing does not make them correct. If people have good arguments to convince you, let them stick to scientific arguments, not logical fallacies.

Other irrelevant arguments may appear scientific, but they are not. Evidence for warming is not evidence for warming by humans. Seeing a poor polar bear floating on an iceberg does not mean that humans caused warming. The same goes to receding glaciers. Sure, there was warming and glaciers are receding, but the logical leap that this warming is because of humans is simply an unsubstantiated claim, even more so when considering that you can find Roman remains under receded glaciers in the Alps or Viking graves in thawed permafrost in Greenland.

 

Other fallacious arguments include using qualitative arguments and the appeal to gut feelings. The fact that humanity is approaching 10 billion people does not prove that we caused a 0.8°C temperature increase. We could just as well caused an 8°C increase or an 0.08°C.

The simple fact is, there is no single piece of evidence that proves that a given amount of CO2 increase should cause a large increase in temperature. As a matter of fact, there is evidence to the contrary! For example, over geological time scales, there were huge variations in the atmospheric CO2 levels (by as much as a factor of 10) and they show no correlation whatsoever with the temperature . 450 million years ago there was 10 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere but more 1 extensive glaciations.

 
When you throw away the chaff of all the fallacious arguments and try to distill the climate science advocated by the IPCC and alike, you find that there are actually two arguments which appear as legitimate scientific arguments, but unfortunately don’t hold water. The first is that the warming over the 20th century is unprecedented, and if so, it must be human. This is the whole point of the hockey stick so extensively featured in the third assessment report of the IPCC in 2001. The “climategate” e-mails demonstrate that this is a result of shady scientific analysis - the tree ring data showing that there was little temperature variation over the past millennium showed a decline after 1960, so, they cut it off and stitched thermometer data. The simple truth is that in the height of the medieval warming period, it could have been just as warm as the 20th century, while the little ice-age was at least a degree cooler. You can even see it directly with temperature measurements in boreholes .

The second argument is that there is nothing else to explain the warming, and if there is nothing else it must be the only thing that can, which is the anthropogenic contribution. However, as I mention below, there is the sun.

Before explaining why the sun completely overturns the way we should see global warming and climate change in general. It is worth while to say a few words on climate sensitivity and why it is impossible to predict ab initio the anthropogenic contribution.

The most important question in climate science is climate sensitivity, by how much will the average global temperature increase if you say double the amount of CO2. Oddly enough, the range quoted by the IPCC, which is 1.5 to 4.5°C per CO2 doubling was set in the Charney US federal committee in 1979. All the IPCC scientific reports from 1990 to 2013 state that the range is the same. The only exception is the penultimate report which stated it is 2 to 4.5. The reason they returned to the 1.5 to 4.5 range is because there was virtually no global warming since 2000 (the so called “hiatus”), which is embarrassingly inconsistent with a large climate sensitivity. What’s more embarrassing is that over almost 4 decades of research and billions of dollars (and euros) invested in climate research, we don’t know the answer to the most important question any better. 

The body of evidence however clearly shows that the climate sensitivity is on the low side, about 1 to 1.5 degree increase per CO2 doubling. People in the climate community are scratching their heads trying to understand the so called hiatus in the warming. Where is the heat hiding? While in reality it simply points to a low sensitivity. The “missing” heat has actually escaped Earth already! If you look at the average global response to large volcanic eruptions, from Krakatoa to Pinatubo, you would see that the global temperature decreased by only about 0.1°C while the hypersensitive climate models give 0.3 to 0.5°C, not seen in reality . Over geological time scales, the aforementioned lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature places a clear upper limit of a 1.5°C per CO2 doubling sensitivity. Last, once we take the solar contribution into account, a much more consistent picture for the 20th century climate changes arises, one in which the climate drivers (humans AND solar) are notably larger, and the sensitivity notably smaller, around 1 to 1.5°C per CO2 doubling.

So, how do we know that the sun has a large effect on climate? Fig. 1 below is probably one of the most important graphs to the understanding of climate change , but which is simply ignored by the IPCC and alarmists. You can see that over more than 80 years of tide gauge records there is an extremely clear correlation between solar activity and sea level rise - active sun, the oceans rise. Inactive sun - the oceans fall. On short time scales it is predominantly heat going to the oceans and thermal expansion of the water. This can then be used to quantify the radiative forcing of the sun, and see that it is about 10 times larger than what the protagonists of the IPCC view are willing to admit there is. The IPCC only considers changes in the irradiance, while this (and other such data) unequivocally demonstrate that there is an amplifying mechanism linking solar activity and climate.

Although extremely interesting, the details of the mechanism (actually 3 separate microphysical effects) are beyond the scope of this summary. They are related to the amount of atmospheric ionization which is governed by solar activity. Basically, when the sun is more active, we have less clouds that are generally less white. 

The main conclusion is therefore that climate is not sensitive to changes in the radiative forcing. There are in fact several red flags that people do their best to ignore. For example, the temperature failed to rise according to the predictions made in previous IPCC scientific reports. 

In Paris and Copenhagen it was agreed upon that we should ensure the warming will be less than 2°C. It will be less than 2°C even if we do nothing.

I hereby invent the term "Progress Denier"

"Progress Denier" refers to all those people who insist on denying the obvious progress the United States has made in a variety of areas, social and otherwise.

The Assault on Free Speech

Here is Walter Williams on free speech.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

WW is on target.

Censorship, whether by Government, big tech companies, or whomever never works out well.

Those who want to limit free speech are traitors.
---------------------------------------------------------
The First Amendment to our Constitution was proposed by the 1788 Virginia ratification convention during its narrow 89 to 79 vote to ratify the Constitution. Virginia’s resolution held that the free exercise of religion, right to assembly and free speech could not be canceled, abridged or restrained. These Madisonian principles were eventually ratified by the states on March 1, 1792.

Gettysburg College professor Allen C. Guelzo, in his article “Free Speech and Its Present Crisis,” appearing in the autumn 2018 edition of City Journal, explores the trials and tribulations associated with the First Amendment. The early attempts to suppress free speech were signed into law by President John Adams and became known as the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. Later attempts to suppress free speech came during the Civil War, when President Abraham Lincoln and his generals attacked newspapers and suspended habeas corpus. It wasn’t until 1919, in the case of Abrams v. United States, when the U.S. Supreme Court finally and unambiguously prohibited any kind of censorship.

Today, there is growing contempt for free speech, most of which is found on the nation’s college and university campuses. Guelzo cites the free speech vision of Princeton University professor Carolyn Rouse, who is chairperson of the department of Anthropology. Rouse shared her vision on speech during last year’s Constitution Day lecture. She called free speech a political illusion, a baseless ruse to enable people to “say whatever they want, in any context, with no social, economic, legal or political repercussions.” As an example, she says that a climate change skeptic has no right to make “claims about climate change, as if all the science discovered over the last X-number of centuries were irrelevant.”

Rouse is by no means unique in her contempt for our First Amendment rights. Faculty leaders of the University of California consider certain statements racist microagressions: “America is a melting pot”; “America is the land of opportunity”; “Everyone can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough”; and “There is only one race, the human race.” The latter statement is seen as denying the individual as a racial/cultural being. Then there’s “I believe the most qualified person should get the job.” That’s “racist” speech because it gives the impression that “people of color are given extra unfair benefits because of their race.” Other seemingly innocuous statements deemed unacceptable are: “When I look at you, I don’t see color,” or “Affirmative action is racist.” Perhaps worst of all is, “Where are you from, or where were you born?”

We should reject any restriction on free speech. We might ask ourselves, “What’s the true test of one’s commitment to free speech?” It does not come when people permit others to say or publish ideas with which they agree. The true test of one’s commitment to free speech comes when others are permitted to say and publish ideas they deem offensive.

The test for one’s commitment to freedom of association is similar. Christian Americans have been hounded for their refusal to cater same-sex weddings. For those who support such attacks, we might ask them whether they would seek prosecution of the owner of a Jewish delicatessen who refused to provide services for a neo-Nazi affair. Should a black catering company be forced to cater a Ku Klux Klan affair? Should the NAACP be forced to open its membership to racist skinheads? Should the Congressional Black Caucus be forced to open its membership to white members of Congress? The true test of a person’s commitment to freedom of association does not come when he permits people to associate in ways he finds acceptable. It comes when he permits people to voluntarily associate in ways he deems offensive.

I am afraid that too many of my fellow Americans are hostile to the principles of liberty. Most people want liberty for themselves. I differ. I want liberty for me and liberty for my fellow man.

Freedom includes freedom to buy what you want

Here is a column by Jonathan Turley.  JT is on target.

Free speech is on the decline in the United States.  Those who do not appreciate that or encourage its decline deserve no place in Government.
------------------------------------------
When it comes to free speech, Nike seems to have new slogan of “Just Don’t Do It.” This month, stores around the country received new Nike sneakers for the July 4th holiday, featuring an image of the Betsy Ross flag. Former National Football League quarterback Colin Kaepernick saw the 18th century flag image and was deeply offended. That was all that it took for Nike to order stores to return the shoes and not to sell them.

No one is suggesting that we are at risk of moving from rounding up sneakers to rounding up speakers. Nike is a private company entitled to curtail its own speech, while the First Amendment bars any government censorship. However, the incident captured perfectly the new view of free speech taking hold on campuses and across the country. It is not enough to protest the flag or the national anthem. It is necessary to prevent others from wearing or seeing the flag you deem offensive. Nike rounded up the sneakers, stating that it decided not to release the sneakers because they feature “the old version of the American flag.” Nike seemed to suggest it was evident that an American flag on a sneaker was obviously offensive.

For full disclosure, I did not agree with Kaepernick on his anthem protests and previously addressed the claim that professional football players and other employees have a right to engage in political protests of this kind. There are indeed legitimate and unresolved issues concerning race in our country, but the flag is as much a symbol of our aspirations as it is of our history. It embodies the very values that Kaepernick claims are denied to African American citizens, such as due process, equal justice, and equal protection. It also symbolizes our core democratic belief in free speech.

Many across the country celebrated the decision by Nike to destroy the sneakers and noted that the flag has been used by white nationalists. However, the flag also was used by civil rights marchers and Vietnam War protesters. It clearly means different things to different people. However, in this case, the only view deemed valid was that of Kaepernick and his supporters. Nike surprised many last year when it embraced Kaepernick as a spokesman and highlighted his controversial protests, despite the opposition of a majority of football fans, who had a legitimate gripe in this move that tied products to a political movement rejected by many consumers. Nike now has gone even further, refusing to allow its own customers to purchase shoes that Kaepernick views as offensive.

The trend is all too familiar to those of us who have watched free speech on campuses erode under expanding speech codes and rules. This trend began with changes advocated as protections for minority students in the creation of “free speech zones” that confined any expression of political or social viewpoints, as well as “safety zones” to protect students from ideas or images deemed offensive. It evolved into preventing others from espousing offensive ideas or images, from regulating Halloween costumes to rules against the undefined category of microaggressions, or speech that is not expressly racist, sexist, or offensive yet is viewed that way by another student. Finally, faculty members and students began blocking speakers from campuses to prevent others from hearing opposing views.

It is also a familiar trend in Europe, where free speech is being rapidly curtailed in countries like France, England, and Germany as people are routinely prosecuted for speech deemed offensive or inciting. Preachers have been arrested for publicly calling homosexuality to be a sin, while protesters have been arrested for supporting the boycott of Israel. Once you start regulating speech, the taste for censorship becomes insatiable.

Kaepernick is the embodiment of this twisted view of free speech. When Nike featured him in its “Just Do It” 30th anniversary campaign, it added the slogan, “Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything.” One can certainly disagree with a company associating its products with a controversial political movement. Nike insisted it was not taking sides but celebrating the right to protest. Now, it seems to be following another mantra, “Believe in something. Even if it means silencing everyone else.”

That distinction between speaking and silencing has long been lost on campuses. A few years ago, University of California at Santa Barbara professor Mireille Miller Young led her students in attacking a pro-life display on campus and assaulted two young women behind it. Despite pleading guilty to criminal assault, she was defended by professors and students who called such displays “triggering” and akin to “terrorism.” She not only was not fired but has been celebrated as a hero, including being honored as a speaker at the University of Oregon as a symbol of “the radical potential of black feminism in the work that we do on campus and in our everyday lives.” Other faculty and students have led attacks on speakers on various campuses around the country without punishment.

I recently had a debate with a key supporter of criminal speech codes, who insisted that preventing others from speaking out is an act of free speech. He insisted that professors and students who block or heckle speakers into silence are exercising speech. This concept of silencing speakers as free speech is catching on around the country. All you have to do is call out speech by someone else to be triggering or offensive.

Over a dozen college presidents and members of the Higher Education Council of San Antonio recently concluded that there is no free speech protection for any words that spread, provoke, or create “animosity and hostility.” When conservatives were invited to come speak on campus at the University of California at Berkeley, more than 200 faculty members signed a letter calling for classes to be canceled and declaring that “there are forms of speech that are not protected under the First Amendment.”

Politicians and pundits have followed suit. Former Democratic presidential candidate and Vermont governor Howard Dean declared that hate speech is not actually protected under the First Amendment, while CNN anchor Christiane Amanpour asked former FBI director James Comey why he did not arrest Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign for hateful speech.

The lesson clearly has taken hold with students. Student editors like those at Wellesley College have declared that “hostility is warranted” against conservative speakers and that “shutting down rhetoric that undermines the existence and rights of others is not a violation of free speech” but is itself free speech. Polls show almost half of college students now believe hate speech is not protected under the Constitution, and one in three students believe violence is warranted to stop speech deemed hateful.

The “Just Don’t Do It” attitude will resonate with some who believe free speech means silencing others. Kaepernick has finally completed this inevitable cycle. He insisted that he was being punished for speaking in protest. Now, he seeks to prevent others from wearing the flag. It is akin to not only demanding to be able to kneel at football games but to prevent others from standing. Of course, there remain other ways of speaking. When it comes to Nike products, maybe try the slogan "Just Don't Buy It".

My car story

We live in a condo facing a canal that connects directly to the ocean. The garage is at ground level and there are apartments for three levels above that. We are at the bottom of a mild hill.

A couple of years ago, it rained heavily for a few days. Then one night at about 2 am, we heard people outside our apartment and went out to look. The entire street was flooded – it was a river running down the street through our condo’s property and into the canal. The garage was about two feet deep in water. One of our two BMWs was in the garage. The other was in the driveway. We tried to move them, but the water was too deep. Both cars flooded.

Our insurance company totaled both cars and paid us fair value (it really was fair value) less our deductible for each car of $1,000. We then bought two new BMWs. Fast forward to May 2019.

It is late in the afternoon and there has been a heavy rain. Our street is filling up with water and it looks like it may begin to flood our garage. Magali’s BMW Z4 and My BMW M4 are parked in our garage. I decide it is time to try to make it out before our garage floods. We almost make it to safety before both cars stall. Wading back through the flooded street, we find that our garage has water, but not that much. Our cars would have been ok if we had left them in the garage.

The engines of both of our cars have ingested water. Our insurance company totals Magali’s Z4 and decides to replace the engine and associated components of my M4. Magali gets a check for fair value less our $1000 deductible. Our insurance company pays a bit over $40,000 to repair my M4 and I pay the deductible of $1,000. It takes about a month to repair my M4, and our insurance company pays $40 per day for a rental car at Enterprise Car Rental.

Enterprise does not have a $40 per day car when I get there, but gives me a Jaguar F Pace, a really nice SUV for $40 per day.

About a week into the car rental, I am driving along and end up stopped in traffic. A lady in an SUV behind me fails to stop and rear ends the rental. Magali suggests calling the police, which turns out to be a great idea – since the police cite the other driver and her insurance is now supposed to pay my $1000 deductible on this collision (we are waiting to see about that).

I get my M4 back and it is like having a new car – new engine, turbos, software, etc. I drive it home and park it in my garage. Next morning, the M4’s rear end is slightly damaged and there is an engine light on. Someone has rear ended it in the middle of the night. Another $1,000 deductible payment.

We are contemplating becoming a one car family.

Throughout all this, the insurance company has provided great service and fair treatment. Guess the insurance company’s name – I will provide it in a later post.

Assault on Western Civilization

Walter Williams puts the Leftists in their place, and properly so.

If the Democrat Presidential Candidates get what they say they want, the Country will go downhill.
--------------------------------------
Western civilization was founded on a set of philosophies that focus strongly on the sanctity of individuals and their power of logic and reason. This belief led to a desire to trust things that could be proven to be true or legitimate, from government to science. Judeo-Christian morality has formed the basis of most Western notions of ethics and behavioral standards. Thus, the attack on Western civilization must begin with the attack on the church and Christian values, and, just as important, the family unit must be undermined. The reason why the church, Christian values and family are targets of the left is they want people’s loyalty and allegiance to be to the state. The church, Christianity and the family stand in the way. Let’s look at some of the left’s agenda.

Joe Biden, criticizing sexual assault, said, “This is English jurisprudential culture, a white man’s culture,” adding, “It’s got to change.” The Western world’s culture isn’t perfect but women fare better under it than any other culture. Just ask yourself: If you’re a feminist, in which countries would you like to live? Would it be Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries, China or countries on the African continent, north or south of the Sahara? In those countries, women encounter all kinds of liberty restrictions plus in at least 30 countries on the African continent, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, female genital mutilation is practiced. You might ask Joe Biden what part of the “white man’s culture” needs to be changed.

The greatest efforts to downplay the achievements of Western civilization start at our colleges and universities. An American Council of Trustees and Alumni 2016 study reported that “the overwhelming majority of America’s most prestigious institutions do not require even the students who major in history to take a single course on United States history or government.” Because of this ignorance, our young people fall easy prey to charlatans, quacks and liars who wish to downgrade our founders and the American achievement.

In 2012, 2014 and 2015, an ACTA-commissioned survey of college graduates found that less than 20% could accurately identify the effect of the Emancipation Proclamation. Less than half could identify George Washington as the American general at Yorktown. One-third of college graduates were unaware that FDR introduced the New Deal. Over one-third of the college graduates surveyed could not place the American Civil War in its correct 20-year time frame. Nearly half of the college graduates could not identify correctly the term lengths of U.S. senators and representatives.

The left in our country often suggests that people who stand up for Western civilization are supporting a racial hierarchy. The fact is that the history of the world is one of arbitrary tyrannical abuse and control. Poverty has been the standard fare for a vast majority of mankind. America became the exception to what life was like. That exceptionalism inspired imitators, and our vision of freedom and liberty spread to what has become known as the Western world.

Many do not appreciate the fact that freedom and competition in both the marketplace and idea arena unleashed a level of entrepreneurism, risk-taking and creativity heretofore unknown to mankind. Look at the marketplace of ideas. The Nobel Prize has been awarded to 860 people since its inception in 1901. The prizewinner distribution: Americans (375), United Kingdom (131) Germany (108), France (69) and Sweden (32); that’s 83% of Nobel Prizes won. The large majority of other Nobel winners are mostly westerners. I might add that Japan has 27 Nobel Prize winners, but their first winner was awarded in 1949, after WWII led Japan to became more westernized.

There’s a reason why the West leads the world in terms of scientific innovation, wealth and military might and it has little to do with genetics. Instead, it’s the environment of freedom, both in the market for goods and in the idea marketplace. Rigorous competition brings out the best in mankind. Leftists and would-be tyrants find Western values offensive.