On government policies toward climate change

 The more carefully you analyze what it makes sense to do about climate change, the more clear it becomes that on average government policies make things worse.

Here is link to an example of a more careful analysis by Ross McKitrick.  It's worth reading the entire analysis.

Some excerpts follow.

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

Introduction

I hold a Ph.D. in Economics from the University of British Columbia where I specialized in natural resource and environmental economics. At the University of Guelph I have, for 25 years, taught courses in environmental economics and policy, econometrics and microeconomic analysis.

Canada is a world leader in finding ways to protect the environment while maintaining growth in economic opportunities and living standards. Over my lifetime we have achieved impressive gains in air quality and resource management, reductions in water pollution and preservation of wilderness; while simultaneously supporting a growing population and attaining steadily-increasing real income levels. Achieving such outcomes depends upon making sound policy choices, and I hope that the information learned through these hearings will assist your Committee as you aim to do so.

While most of my research is aimed at peer-reviewed academic publications I have also written extensively in the public domain, including think tank reports and media op-eds. Anyone familiar with my writings will know that I have certain biases, which I can summarized very simply. I believe that policies should be evaluated in an economic framework that identifies options where the benefits exceed the costs. As much as possible, we should try to avoid imposing cures that are worse than the disease. In this regard it needs to be emphasized that not every environmental goal is sufficiently valuable to be worth the cost of achieving it, and when a goal has been chosen it is incumbent on policy makers to try to achieve it at the lowest possible cost. Because we live at a time when there is a great deal of enthusiasm for setting ambitious goals around greenhouse gas reductions, yet most climate policies cost more than mainstream estimates of the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it tends to fall to someone like me to point out that most climate policies under current technology do not pass cost-benefit tests. Although I often find myself in settings in which I am the only person pointing this out, I don’t want you to think it is an unusual position for someone in my field to hold. As one climate researcher recently pointed out:

Mainstream climate economics takes global warming seriously, but perplexingly concludes that the optimal economic policy is to almost do nothing about it… The contrast is striking. While climate science is sending out loud-and-clear messages that fossil-fuel disinvestment must start now, letting go of coal and oil and diverting resources into renewable energy technology systems, to keep warming below the 2°C limit (IPCC 2014), mainstream climate economics claims that overly ambitious climate targets will unnecessarily hurt the economy and immediate de-carbonization is too expensive. Most climate economists thus recommend humanity to just wait-and-see. (Storm, 2017)

At times the economic message is unpopular but let me give you an example of the costs of ignoring it.

In Ontario we are living with the consequences of a series of bad policy decisions made between 2004 and 2014 concerning the electricity sector. Enthusiasm for phasing out coal power and adding large amounts of wind and solar capacity, combined with uncritical acceptance of claims that doing so would create jobs without raising costs, put us on a path of rapidly rising electricity commodity prices relative to competing jurisdictions. The Province of Ontario began subsidizing electricity to stem an exodus of manufacturing and relieve hardships on households. A new report1 from the CD Howe Institute estimates that these measures now cost the province $6.5 billion annually. This is $700 million more than Ontario spends annually on Long Term Care facilities.

Think about that. The cost of a few bad energy policy decisions is not simply abstract dollar amounts on paper, it is the lost opportunity to expand and improve Long Term Care for seniors and severely disabled individuals in Ontario. This trade off was not necessary and could have been avoided.

The key concept to bear in mind is opportunity cost: the value of what you will give up to obtain the benefit you are after. Your committee is studying policy options that could potentially do to Canadians’ transportation costs what Ontario did to its citizens’ electricity costs. In an atmosphere of high enthusiasm for declaring ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets without regard to costs, it can be unpopular to point out that not every goal is worth pursuing, sometimes the price is too high, and even climate policy has opportunity costs. Ontario is living with the consequences of policy makers being unwilling to acknowledge these things fifteen years ago.

---------------------------
Conclusion: The Costs of Inaction

People who want to circumvent cost-benefit analysis often appeal to the “costs of inaction” and they say something like “we can’t afford not to.” They might cite estimated costs of extreme weather or climate damages over the coming century as a contrast to the costs of the policy. Let’s suppose the amount is very large and indeed is far higher than the costs of the proposed biofuels policy. The problem is the comparison is irrelevant. The proper comparison is this:

[The costs of climate change over the coming century without the policy]

versus

[The cost of climate change over the coming century with the policy]
+
[The cost of the policy]

These are the kinds of cost comparisons economists like William Nordhaus undertake and the results inevitably argue against aggressive mitigation policy. The problem is that the policies we are talking about, up to and including full compliance with Paris (or Kyoto before it) have such small effects on the climate that when standard climate models are run with and without the policies, the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere and the resulting costs of climate change come out about the same (Wigley 1998, Lomborg 2016).

Don’t forget that as we pile costs upon ourselves from these aggressive climate policies, our geopolitical rivals, chiefly Russia and China, are rapidly expanding their fossil fuel-based infrastructure and more than offsetting the small effects of our actions. We incur all the costs of our climate policies, and the world sees no change in emissions. Russia and China are also financing fossil fuel-based capacity investments in developing and developed countries alike, occupying the role abandoned by the west in its pursuit of fossil fuel “divestment” and thereby acquiring a considerable amount of international geopolitical dominance. It strikes me as very unwise to squelch our own domestic oil and gas industry and weaken ourselves economically while hostile foreign entities use their own energy assets to secure a position of dominance over the global economy.

The Left’s continuing saga against the truth

 Here is Jonathan Turley with the truth.

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

I recently discussed how the Inspector General and a federal court have dismissed the widely reported conspiracy theory that the Lafayette Park area was cleared last year to make way for President Donald Trump’s controversial photo op in front of St. John’s Church. I noted that University of Texas Professor Steve Vladeck (who is a CNN contributor) was one of those claiming this theory as an established fact. Vladeck has now responded with a defense that is striking in its sheer mendacity. It is however, illustrative how false narratives are promulgated in the media and then, when shown to be unsupported, are dismissed or barely acknowledged. What makes this response different is the effort to shift the blame to a Hill reporter, who actually states the opposite of what Vladeck suggested. Indeed, Vladeck achieves a Trifecta of sorts in misrepresenting the Hill column, my column, and his own column.

Many of us criticized Trump’s photo op in front of the church as well as the level of force used to clear the area of Lafayette Park. Yet, media and legal experts like Vladeck went further to claim that former Attorney General Bill Barr cleared the park in order to hold the photo op. There was never evidence to support that factual conclusion. I testified in Congress not long after the clearing of the area and stated that the conspiracy theory was already contradicted by the available evidence. I encouraged Congress to investigate the question and establish the truth of the matter. The issue was not whether it was worthy of investigation but whether it was established as fact.

We recently discussed how the Inspector General report on the Lafayette Park protests and the debunking of this conspiracy theory. Inspector General of the Department of Interior conducted an investigation over the last year and found that the clearing was not done “to allow the President to survey the damage and walk to St. John’s Church.”

This week, federal judge Dabney L. Friedrich has dismissed the lawsuit by the ACLU and Black Lives Matter as based on unsupported and unsubstantiated claims against the federal agencies. What is most striking in the opinion is the utter lack of evidence presented by ACLU, which encouraged the Court to assume a conspiracy to clear the park for the photo op and to deny the right to protest. The court found nothing but pure conjecture. Ironically, the court allowed the lawsuit against the MPD under Mayor Muriel Bowser to continue. The Bowser Administration admitted recently that it used tear gas near the park on that night and that such use was perfectly reasonable— a striking departure from what Bowser has stated publicly.

In prior columns, I have discussed the widespread repetition of the photo op myth as fact. That included the Washington Post coverage by Philip Bump titled “Attorney General Bill Barr’s Dishonest Defense of Clearing of Lafayette Square.” Not only did the Post refer to the “debunked claim” that no tear gas was used by the federal government, but goes on to state incredibly:

“It is the job of the media to tell the truth. The truth is that Barr’s arguments about the events of last Monday collapse under scrutiny and that his flat assertion that there was no link between clearing the square and Trump’s photo op should be treated with the same skepticism that his claims about the use of tear gas earns.”

It turns out that both assertions were likely true. Recently, Bump wrote an equally bizarre spin on the controversy where he grudgingly acknowledged the evidence supporting Barr while entirely ignoring the tear gas controversy. However, the Bump spin pales in comparison to the wholesale revisionism of Vladeck.

In the columns, I noted that there was never clear evidence to support the conclusion of Vladeck and that, within days of the operation, evidence emerged that contradicted the claim. I wrote:

“Ample evidence emerged in the days after the protests to reinforce the account of Barr and others that the plan to clear the park area was proposed days before any plan for a photo op. There was never any evidence that Barr knew of the photo op plan before approving the operation. Nevertheless, media and legal experts continued to claim as a fact that this was all done for the photo op. University of Texas professor and CNN contributor Steve Vladeck continued to claim that Barr ordered federal officers “to forcibly clear protestors in Lafayette Park to achieve a photo op for Trump.” In a still uncorrected segment still up on the Internet, NPR declares “Peaceful Protesters Tear-Gassed To Clear Way For Trump Church Photo-Op.”

So there can be no question as to what Vladeck has said in his most recent comments, here is his five part defense (you can also read them here):

1/5: Turley is pulling a real Turley here, so let me be clear about what’s actually true. On June 9, 2020 (this date will matter), @rgoodlaw and I wrote a long @just_security post on the Attorney General’s power, in general, to direct military forces in response to civil unrest. @JonathanTurley

Despite the absence of evidence, legal experts like University of Texas professor and CNN contributor Steve Vladeck continued to claim that Barr ordered federal officers “to forcibly clear protestors in Lafayette Park to achieve a photo op for Trump.”

3:02 PM · Jun 9, 2021·Twitter Web App

Replying to @steve_vladeck

2/5: As *part* of that post, we quoted from and linked to a news story in @thehill reporting—based upon high-level but unnamed DOJ sources—that it was Barr who had ordered the clearing of Lafayette Park. Our post: https://justsecurity.org/70672/the-untold-power-of-bill-barr-to-direct-us-military-forces-in-case-of-civil-unrest/… The Hill piece: Barr personally ordered law enforcement to push back Lafayette Square

Attorney General William Barr personally ordered for the perimeter near the White House to be extended, pushing protesters away from Lafayette Square shortly before President Trump spoke in the area. thehill.com

3/5: One year later, the DOI Inspector General has concluded that Barr was *not* behind that controversial move. So be it. But Turley’s tweet is not saying that *The Hill* (and, thus, our reliance on it) *was* wrong; he’s saying I’ve “continued to claim” that it was Barr’s doing.

4/5: In fact, I’ve done no such thing. Ryan and I linked to a news story in wide circulation as part of a broader analysis that didn’t actually *turn* on that specific episode. Indeed, the DOI IG Report doesn’t alter the legal analysis in our post one iota. It’s still accurate.

5/5: But Turley’s too interested in misleading readers into thinking that it’s something far more nefarious—and ongoing. So he says I’ve “continued to claim” something that I wrote 365 days ago—and even then, only by citing a contemporaneous news account. Not surprising, but ugh.

The only thing we agree on is the last word “ugh.” In truth, I am surprised by Vladeck’s denials because I still believe that, as academics, we have a duty of candor and honesty. Indeed, that is why I wanted to lay the facts bare.

1. Vladeck Misrepresents The Hill Column

Vladeck’s first line of defense is essentially “he said it first.” The real culprit it would appear is Zack Budryk who writes for the Hill (For full disclosure, I also write as a columnist for the Hill). Vladeck insists that he was just quoting and relying on Budryk. The problem is that Budryk never says that Barr ordered the clearing for the photo op — the objection to Vladeck’s past claims. All Budryk says is that Barr ordered the clearing. However, that was established within 24 hours by Barr himself. There was never any question that the area was cleared and that Barr ordered it. The question is the purpose of the operation and Vladeck insisted that Barr ordered federal officers “to forcibly clear protestors in Lafayette Park to achieve a photo op for Trump.” The reason I did not say that Budryk was “wrong” is because he was not. It was Vladeck who was wrong.

Now here is the kicker. Budryk stated the opposite of what Vladeck suggests:

“The official told the Post that the attorney general had “assumed that any resistance from the protesters of being moved would be met with typical crowd-control measures” and that Barr had been told a bottle had been thrown in his direction.

“This plan was happening, regardless of any plans of the president,” the official said.”

That was just one day after the operation and Vladeck obviously read it before making his false claim that the operation was ordered by Barr to make way for the photo op. Now, Vladeck insists that he was merely relying on Budryk to support the conspiracy theory when Budryk correctly refuted the theory.

2. Vladeck Misrepresents My Column

Vladeck then misrepresents my article. He states the IG report came a year later but that I falsely stated that he “continued to claim” that it was Barr’s doing. It is another falsehood clearly contradicted by the column itself. I was referring to the fact that Vladeck made his factual claim days after the protest when countervailing evidence had already emerged. That includes the very article that Vladeck has cited. Moreover, there was no direct evidence supporting the photo op myth. As noted above, I stated “Ample evidence emerged in the days after the protests to reinforce the account of Barr and others … Nevertheless, media and legal experts continued to claim as a fact that this was all done for the photo op.” Vladeck’s factual claim occurred a week after the operation when there was ample evidence, at a minimum, to refute any claim of photo op conspiracy as a fact.

3. Vladeck Misrepresents His Own Column

Vladeck’s final defense is more of a shrug than a spin. He notes “One year later, the DOI Inspector General has concluded that Barr was *not* behind that controversial move. So be it.” That is quite a concession from claiming as a fact that Barr cleared the area for the photo op to an “oh well, maybe he didn’t.” This theory was shredded within a week of the operation. There was no support for Vladeck’s claim when he made it (and certainly not the article that he cites, which said the opposite of his claim). Yet, Vladeck never corrected his claims over the last year or even suggested that his analysis (while popular) was likely false. Indeed, he still does not admit error. He ends his defense with “Indeed, the DOI IG Report doesn’t alter the legal analysis in our post one iota. It’s still accurate.”

Putting aside the court decision finding no credible evidence to support this conspiracy theory, the IG Report directly contradicts Vladeck’s sensational claim. Compare just these two factual statements:

Steve Vladeck: Barr ordered federal officers “to forcibly clear protestors in Lafayette Park to achieve a photo op for Trump.”

The Inspector General: The clearing was not done “to allow the President to survey the damage and walk to St. John’s Church.”

Yet, Vladeck is still claiming that the report (and his acknowledgment that Barr did not order the clearing for the photo op) does not change his legal analysis “one iota.” The only way to make such a ridiculous statement is to focus on the legal analysis as opposed to his statement of facts. (It is worth noting that the federal agencies under both Trump and Biden argued that they did have full legal authority for the operation and just prevailed on that basis in federal court). However, Vladeck is being criticized for his factual claim that fueled this conspiracy theory. Just as there was never any question about Barr ordering the clearing, Vladeck is simply defending a different point rather than addressing his spreading this sensational and irresponsible conspiracy theory as fact.

Ugh.

Potential antiviral compound for COVID-19, flu, and other viruses

 Here is some good news on the health front, from medicalxpress.com.  The article is by Jim Fessenden, of the University of Massachusetts Medical School.

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

UMass Medical School scientists Katherine A. Fitzgerald, Ph.D.; Fiachra Humphries, Ph.D.; and Liraz Galia, Ph.D., working with the British-based pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline, have identified a novel molecule capable of stimulating the innate immune system against SARS-CoV-2 virus. A trigger for the STING (stimulator of interferon genes) pathway, the compound, diamidobenzimidazole (diABZI-4), protected animal models and human cells in the lab from SARS-CoV-2 infection. Published in Science Immunology, these results show that diABZI-4 has the potential to be an effective antiviral prophylaxis against COVID-19.

"Identifying antiviral therapies for SARS-CoV-2 is still desperately needed while vaccines continue to rollout worldwide," said Dr. Fitzgerald, the Worcester Foundation for Biomedical Research Chair, professor of medicine, vice chair of research in the Department of Medicine and director of the Program in Innate Immunity. "An approach like this, using a STING agonist, could be deployed to protect those at highest risk in this pandemic but also in future pandemics before we have drugs that target the virus itself." Fitzgerald and Dr. Galia, a postdoctoral associate in the Fitzgerald lab, are authors on the paper.

Dr. Humphries, instructor in medicine and first author of the study, added, "Not everybody can receive a vaccine. For those who are immuno-compromised or have allergies, this treatment, which could be delivered through an inhaler, can be a viable alternative for boosting the immune response."

Vaccines work by stimulating the adaptive immune system, which creates antibodies against diseases and viruses. By taking a small piece of a virus that doesn't cause infection, in the case of SARS-CoV-2 a part of the spike protein that latches onto and infects epithelial cells, scientists can teach the adaptive immune system to recognize specific viral invaders. Once the adaptive immune system has been trained, it can more quickly respond to subsequent encounters by producing the antibodies that fight off the virus. This prevents serious illness, such as COVID-19, and in some cases entirely blocks infection.

The innate immune system, however, is more of a generalist, explained Humphries. The innate immune system identifies any pathogen that it may encounter—whether it be bacterial, viral or fungal. One of its chief functions is to produce cytokines that serve as a first line of defense, antiviral responder. It also alerts the immune system to the presence of the invader and triggers the adaptive immune system to wake up.

The intracellular protein STING is like an early alarm system for the immune system. Once it has been activated, it triggers production of the cytokine interferon. This activity stimulates the adaptive immune system to fight off the infection. A STING agonist, such as diABZI-4, could potentially serve a wake-up call to the immune system, giving it a boost to fight off pathogens before they get established.

Humphries and colleagues believed that the immune stimulating properties of diABZI-4 could also serve as an antiviral drug. It is already being tested as an immunotherapy for cancer.

By administering diABZI-4 intranasally, directly to the site of infection in mice, Humphries showed that it could activate the immune system and eliminate viral infection, such as SARS-CoV-2.

"It was kind of amazing," said Humphries. "A single dose was able to protect 100 percent of the mice from severe disease. After taking diABZI-4, the mice were completely protected from infection."

Subsequent cell studies showed that diABZI-4 was able to stimulate the innate immune response by activating the STING pathway that produces interferon I.

In part, what makes SARS-CoV-2 so effective is its ability to circumvent the antiviral response of the innate immune system, said Fitzgerald. "But what we show is we can use a STING agonist to illicit antiviral immunity and be effective."

Use of diABZI-4, which is stable at room temperature and can be produced relatively easily, may be an important adjuvant for current vaccine treatments for COVID-19. "You could see this being important for breakthrough infections and emerging variants," said Humphries. "You could potentially take this through an inhaler shortly after a potential exposure or even prophylactically before entering a high-risk environment such as an airplane and you'd have a short-lived antiviral boost to your immune system that would clear any virus before infection is established."

Fitzgerald and Humphries also showed that this antiviral response extended beyond SARS-CoV-2. It protected against influenza and herpes simplex virus as well. "Ultimately, this could have very broad antiviral applications," said Humphries.

The biased and unethical behavior of the Washington Post

 Here is Jonathan Turley on the Washington Post's "Bizarre Response to the IG Report Debunking its Past Claims".

As usual, JT is on target.

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

In 2016, Karen Tumulty wrote a column in the Washington Post titled “Trump: Never Wrong, Never Sorry, Never Responsible” that criticized Donald Trump as someone who refused “to take ownership of the outrageous things he has said and done.” Tumulty’s column came to mind this week when the Washington Post faced a federal report that debunked literally dozens of Post articles on the clearing of the Lafayette Square area on June 1, 2020. The Interior Department’s Inspector General unambiguously refuted the claim that former Attorney General Bill Barr ordered the clearing to allow Trump to hold his controversial photo op in front of St. John’s Church. The Post (which proclaims that “Democracy Dies In Darkness”) shed little light on its own role in the fostering of this conspiracy theory.

The Washington Post was one of the most cited sources for the photo op myth. Indeed, the Post‘s 12-minute “video timeline” was heralded as the definitive source on what occurred, even winning the 2021 duPont-Columbia Award.

One of the most cited articles was by Philip Bump titled “Attorney General Bill Barr’s Dishonest Defense of Clearing of Lafayette Square.” Not only did the Post refer to the “debunked claim” that no tear gas was used by the federal government, but goes on to state incredibly:

“It is the job of the media to tell the truth. The truth is that Barr’s arguments about the events of last Monday collapse under scrutiny and that his flat assertion that there was no link between clearing the square and Trump’s photo op should be treated with the same skepticism that his claims about the use of tear gas earns.”

It turns out that both claims appear true so what is the “job of the media” when its earlier claims are debunked? Moreover, there was never a basis for the Post to state this conspiracy theory as fact. The IG found “the USPP cleared the park to allow the contractor to safely install the antiscale fencing in response to destruction of property and injury to officers occurring on May 30 and 31.” Conversely, it was not done “to allow the President to survey the damage and walk to St. John’s Church.”

After the release of the report, the Post responded with a second article by Bump entitled ‘The lingering questions about the clearing of Lafayette Square” which struggles to keep doubt (and the conspiracy theory) alive. Bump emphasizes a scene shortly before the operation where Barr reportedly said “Are these people still going to be here when POTUS comes out?” Bump says that that is a referring to the protesters and still raises a “lingering question.”

However, buried in the article, the Post admits that this statement does not actually contradict the report on the purpose of the operation or its timing. It admits that “those preparations were made before Barr arrived at the scene. That’s compelling evidence for the argument that the area was going to be cleared despite Barr’s presence.” It also states that “The inspector general’s assessment does add new information to the established timeline that reinforces the Park Police’s assertions that the area was cleared to erect new fencing to better protect the White House complex.”

It is not particularly new information. Indeed, I laid out the evidence against the conspiracy theory in my testimony to Congress just a couple weeks after the operation.

From the outset, the most obvious explanation for the clearing of the area was the high level of violence by protesters around the White House. While many today still claim that the protests were “entirely peaceful” and there was no “attack on the White House,” that claim is demonstrably false. There was in fact an exceptionally high number of officers were injured over the course of days of protests around the White House. In addition to a reported 150 officers were injured (including at least 49 Park Police officers around the White House), protesters caused extensive property damage including the torching of a historic structure and the attempted arson of St. John’s. The threat was so great that Trump had to be moved into the bunker because the Secret Service feared a breach of security around the White House.

The expansion of the perimeter the same decision made (and indeed the same fencing) by Congress when it responded to January 6 riot this year. Absent such fencing, an extremely dangerous situation could have arisen where a major breach of the White House perimeter would have triggered the use of lethal force with the potential of a major loss of life.

Despite the evidence to the contrary (and the admissions in his article) Bump still questions of whether all of this was just “essentially a coincidence.” That is the bizarre element. The Post acknowledges that the report details the approval of the plan at least a day earlier to address the violence around the White House and threat of a breach of the compound. It also details how the operation was supposed to go forward earlier on that day but personnel and fencing were delayed. In the meantime, the White House decided on its own to move forward with a photo op. Barr’s comment would seem the obvious one when told about the plan for a photo op as the personnel were still deploying to clear the area. None of that seems particularly challenging or incomprehensible.

Bump also does not deal at all with his mocking Barr as a liar for denying that the federal operation used tear gas. The federal government has long denied using “tear gas” in its operation as opposed to pepper balls in the clearing operation on June 6th. The difference has little real significance either legally or practically. The IG found that “the USPP incident commander did not authorize CS gas for this operation. Expecting that CS gas would not be used, most USPP officers did not wear gas masks.” Not only did the IG not find evidence of tear gas in the federal operation, it confirmed “and the MPD confirmed, that the MPD used CS gas on 17th Street on June 1. As discussed above, the MPD was not a part of nor under the control or direction of the USPP’s and the Secret Service’s unified command structure.”

In fact, last week, the District admitted that it used tear gas about a block away in its enforcement of Mayor Muriel Bowser’s curfew. The admission was itself breathtaking since the media lionized Bowser for her stance against the operation and specifically the use of tear gas. For a year, the District knew that it used the tear gas and said nothing to the public as Bowser basked in the media glow – and Barr was attacked as a liar.

Now, on the anniversary of the operation, the Bowser Administration is arguing that the use of tear gas was entirely appropriate and that the clearing of the area was reasonable. The Biden Administration is also seeking dismissal of the BLM case by declaring “Presidential security is a paramount government interest that weighs heavily in the Fourth Amendment balance.”

What is striking about the Post’s article is that it’s mocking treatment of the denials of the conspiracy theory or the federal use of tear gas. While the Post could in good faith withhold its final judgment and not simply accept the denials of the government, it had no basis to present the photo op allegations as virtual fact. (Indeed, I thought the evidence contradicted the photo op allegation but in my testimony I encouraged Congress to investigate and confirm the facts on the purpose of the operation and the federal denial of using tear gas as opposed to pepper balls). Even in the face of a detailed federal report, the Post is still claiming “lingering questions” — a level of scrutiny and skepticism absent in its fostering the photo op claim over the last year.

Ultimately, the IG Report may have more to say about our media culture than the clearing operation itself. The media actively shaped the news to fit a narrative that is still widely believed. As Tumulty stated about Trump in 2016, the “refusal to apologize is yet another measure of . . . strength” for those who prefer the myth to the facts. There is an old saying in journalism that there are simply some “facts too good to check.” The Post has shown that there are also some false facts too good to correct.

So, the media account of the clearing of Lafayette Park was false, after all

Jonathan Turley discusses the Inspector General's report that shows that the media account of the clearing of Lafayette Park was false.

More important, JT shows how politicians and the media created bias that may well have led to Biden's victory.

One moral of this story is that voting fraud is not the only form of fraud that can throw an election.

Here is JT's blog entry.

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

For over a year, there has been one fact that has been repeated in literally thousands of news stories: former Attorney General Bill Barr ordered the clearing of Lafayette Park on June 1, 2020 to allow former President Donald Trump to hold his controversial photo op in front of St. John’s Church. From the outset, there was ample reason to question the claim echoed across media outlets. As I noted in my testimony to Congress on the protest that month, the operation was clearly a response to days of violent and destructive protests.

While many today still claim that the protests were “entirely peaceful” and there was no “attack on the White House,” that claim is demonstrably false. It is only plausible if one looks at the level of violence at the start of the clearing operation as opposed to the prior 48 hours. There was in fact an exceptionally high number of officers were injured during the protests. In addition to a reported 150 officers were injured (including at least 49 Park Police officers around the White House), protesters caused extensive property damage including the torching of a historic structure and the attempted arson of St. John’s. The threat was so great that Trump had to be moved into the bunker because the Secret Service feared a breach of security around the White House.

The expansion of the perimeter with the fencing was a logical and necessary move. It is the same decision reached (and indeed the same fencing) by Congress when it responded to January 6 riot this year. Absent such fencing, an extremely dangerous situation could have arisen where a major breach of the White House perimeter would have triggered the use of lethal force with the potential of a major loss of life.

Ample evidence emerged in the days after the protests to reinforce the account of Barr and others that the plan to clear the park area was proposed days before any plan for a photo op. There was never any evidence that Barr knew of the photo op plan before approving the operation. Nevertheless, media and legal experts continued to claim as a fact that this was all done for the photo op. University of Texas professor and CNN contributor Steve Vladeck continued to claim that Barr ordered federal officers “to forcibly clear protestors in Lafayette Park to achieve a photo op for Trump.” In a still uncorrected segment still up on the Internet, NPR declares “Peaceful Protesters Tear-Gassed To Clear Way For Trump Church Photo-Op.”

Democratic leaders like Speaker Nancy Pelosi repeated the conspiracy theory about the photo op and the Washington Post ran an article by Philip Bump titled “Attorney General Bill Barr’s Dishonest Defense of Clearing of Lafayette Square.” Not only did the Post refer to the “debunked claim” that no tear gas was used by the federal government, but goes on to state incredibly:

“It is the job of the media to tell the truth. The truth is that Barr’s arguments about the events of last Monday collapse under scrutiny and that his flat assertion that there was no link between clearing the square and Trump’s photo op should be treated with the same skepticism that his claims about the use of tear gas earns.”

It turns out that both assertions were true.

The Inspector General of the Department of Interior has conducted an investigation over the last year and the Biden Administration just released the findings. The IG states unequivocally that there is no evidence to support the allegation that Barr or others ordered the clearing for the photo op. The report further concludes that “the USPP had the authority and discretion to clear Lafayette Park and the surrounding areas on June 1.” It further “the USPP cleared the park to allow the contractor to safely install the antiscale fencing in response to destruction of property and injury to officers occurring on May 30 and 31.” It was not done “to allow the President to survey the damage and walk to St. John’s Church.”

That is not the only contraction of the almost universal media accounts. The federal government has long denied using “tear gas” in its operation as opposed to pepper balls. The difference has little real significance either legally or practically. However, critics latched on the denial to show that Barr and others were lying. The IG found that “the USPP incident commander did not authorize CS gas for this operation. Expecting that CS gas would not be used, most USPP officers did not wear gas masks.”

The IG found no evidence of approval or use of tear gas by the federal operation. However, it confirmed “and the MPD confirmed, that the MPD used CS gas on 17th Street on June 1. As
discussed above, the MPD was not a part of nor under the control or direction of the USPP’s and
the Secret Service’s unified command structure.”

It turns out that both assertions were true.

In fact, last week, the District admitted that it used tear gas about a block away in its enforcement of Mayor Muriel Bowser’s curfew. The admission was itself breathtaking since the media lionized Bowser for her stance against the operation and specifically the use of tear gas. For a year, the District knew that it used the tear gas and said nothing to the public as Bowser basked in the media glow – and Barr was attacked as a liar.

Now, on the anniversary of the operation, the Bowser Administration is in court asking for the lawsuit by Black Lives Matter be dismissed. Her attorneys are arguing that the use of tear gas was entirely appropriate and that the clearing of the area was reasonable. This is the same major who received national acclaim for painting “Black Lives Matter” on the street next to the park and renaming it “Black Lives Matter Plaza.”

The Biden Administration is also joining in the effort to dismiss the BLM case. It told the court “Presidential security is a paramount government interest that weighs heavily in the Fourth Amendment balance.” The DOJ’s counsel, John Martin, added that “federal officers do not violate First Amendment rights by moving protesters a few blocks, even if the protesters are predominantly peaceful.”

The media has largely ignored the admission of the District and the change of the position on the legitimacy of the law enforcement actions. Moreover, none of the media outlets have corrected their prior stories reporting that Barr ordered the clearing to allow for the photo op, let alone apologize to Barr.

In today’s echo journalism, it is doubtful that any of this will matter. The myth of the photo op fueled the anger and fed the ratings. It is doubtful that these same media and legal experts will now acknowledge that they fostered a conspiracy theory without any concrete support.

The IG Report may have more to say about our media culture than the clearing operation itself. As with the effective media blackout on the Hunter Biden story and the Chinese lab leak theory before the election, the media actively shaped the news to fit a narrative. It worked. Biden was elected and the public still believes these false accounts. For many Democrats, Bill Barr will remain the man who violently crushed protesters for a photo op. As the old media saying goes, it was (and remains) “a fact too good to check.”

A real self-defense event

 Here is a link to a real self defense event.  It was produced by the United States Concealed Carry Association.  I am a member.  It is a great organization.  It provides training and provides support if you are unfortunate enough to have to use your weapon.

Some adverse effects of wind farms

 Here is a link to an article at www.nature.com "Accelerating deployment of offshore wind energy alter wind climate and reduce future power generation potentials.

Some excerpts follow.

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

The European Union has set ambitious CO2 reduction targets, stimulating renewable energy production and accelerating deployment of offshore wind energy in northern European waters, mainly the North Sea. With increasing size and clustering, offshore wind farms (OWFs) wake effects, which alter wind conditions and decrease the power generation efficiency of wind farms downwind become more important. We use a high-resolution regional climate model with implemented wind farm parameterizations to explore offshore wind energy production limits in the North Sea. We simulate near future wind farm scenarios considering existing and planned OWFs in the North Sea and assess power generation losses and wind variations due to wind farm wake. The annual mean wind speed deficit within a wind farm can reach 2–2.5 ms−1 depending on the wind farm geometry. The mean deficit, which decreases with distance, can extend 35–40 km downwind during prevailing southwesterly winds. Wind speed deficits are highest during spring (mainly March–April) and lowest during November–December. The large-size of wind farms and their proximity affect not only the performance of its downwind turbines but also that of neighboring downwind farms, reducing the capacity factor by 20% or more, which increases energy production costs and economic losses. We conclude that wind energy can be a limited resource in the North Sea. The limits and potentials for optimization need to be considered in climate mitigation strategies and cross-national optimization of offshore energy production plans are inevitable.

Federal Judge Overturns California’s Assault Weapons Ban

 Here is a link to a copy of the decision.  It is well reasoned and presents the arguments pro and con in detail.  Here is a link to a New York Times article on the decision.  The NYT fails to present the pros and cons and perpetuates the falsehoods concerning AR15 rifles.

Reading the decision and the NYT article provides a useful perspective about the assault weapons debate, including the lack of credibility of the gun control crowd.

As you will see, the AR15 is functionally identical to ordinary sporting rifles - except that it is much less powerful.  You will also see that the assault rifle ban laws typically characterize rifles as assault weapons based on cosmetic features, not functionality.

Errors in the FBI’s Reports on Active Shooting Incidents Create Illusory Trends and Hide the Contribution of Citizens With Concealed Weapons to Stopping Mass Murders

 Here is a link to a paper by John Lott that shows that errors in the FBI's data led it to conclude, incorrectly, that public shootings had risen sharply from 2000 to 2013.  The errors also hid the fact that a substantial fraction of public shootings are stopped by citizens legally carrying concealed weapons.

Here are some excerpts from the paper.

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

In September 2014, the FBI released a report stating that public shootings had risen sharply since 2000.1 The report found that 160 “mass” or “active” shootings occurred in public places from 2000 to 2013, and increased from just 1 in 2000 to 17 in 2013. Newspaper headlines relied on the report’s data. “F.B.I. Confirms a Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000” (New York Times); “Mass Shootings on the Rise, FBI says” (Wall Street Journal); “FBI: Mass shooting incidents occurring more frequently” (CNN); and “Mass shootings in U.S. have tripled in recent years, FBI says” (Los Angeles Times).

However, warning signs also appeared regarding the completeness and accuracy of the report. A 2015 study in the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences Today concluded that the FBI data undercounted crimes at the beginning of the period and over-counted toward the end, 4 thus exaggerating the increase in mass public shootings.
---
The FBI report missed 20 multiple-victim shootings involving at least two people killed. Among them was a 2001 Chicago bar shooting that left two dead and 21 wounded. Another missed shooting left four dead at a concert in Columbus, Ohio in 2004. Worst of all, the FBI missed a school shooting that left nine people dead. The missing cases were three times more likely to have occurred from 2000-2006 than from 2007-2013, thus exaggerating the increase that was widely reported on.

When such missing cases are added to the dataset, it becomes clear that mass public shootings had only become slightly more frequent over the period of time examined by the report and even including the couple of decades prior to the period examined in this . The change is not statistically significant.

There has only been a slight, statistically insignificant upward trend over the 38 years from 1977 through 2014. Even then, the trend depends on a single year—2012 —when there were 91 deaths.

The chart also reveals another source of the exaggeration of an increased trend: the choice of the year 2000 as a start in the FBI report, when 2000 is widely known to be an unusually quiet year with few mass shootings.

Another part of the exaggerated increase was caused because the FBI included 32 instances of “active shooter” cases which involved a gun being fired with no fatalities (see Appendix Table 2). In eleven of those cases, either no one or just one person was wounded. Another 35 cases involved one murder.

Such counts of cases with few (or zero) victims suffer even more greatly from the problem that beset the FBI’s counts of multiple-victim public shootings: that articles become harder to find as one looks further back in time.

They especially suffer from the problem because when no victims are killed, reporting on the incident is relatively scarce and likely to get buried. For this reason, the chart and analysis above focuses on shootings in which two or more people were killed.
---
The claim in the original FBI report that active shooting cases have increased over time was a result of data errors, both in terms of how the cases were collected and the missing of many attacks. Some of the cases that the original reports missed involved as many as four to nine people being murdered.

For the period from 2014 to 2019, the FBI had missed additional cases. Once those cases are included there were 25 cases out of 162 (15.4%) where people with permitted concealed handguns stopped the attacks. The FBI reports keep excluding cases where shootings attacks have been stopped by concealed handgun permit holders. To put it differently, while 36% of active shooting attacks have occurred in places where guns are allowed, almost half (42.3%) of those were stopped by people legally carry concealed handguns.

In light of these errors, media, courts, law enforcement, and policymakers, are advised to rely on the updated, corrected data provided in this report.

Defensive gun stories