New York State Democrat Senator Brad Holyman proposes legislation to curtail free speech in the name of Democracy

 Here is Jonathan Turley's blog entry on this.

Free Speech has been under attack for some time now.  What we need is for all of us to defend it against the woke and cancel culture and against anyone who advocates it.

JT quotes Justice Louis Brandeis: "the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding". But Brandeis failed to mention those who try to curtail liberty to gain personal power. Both lack of understanding and hunger for power are running rampant today. Do not be passive. When you see it, fight it.  Speak out.

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

The great civil libertarian Justice Louis Brandeis once warned that “the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” New York State Democrat Senator Brad Holyman is one of those “men of zeal.” With the approaching anniversary of the Jan. 6th riots, he has proposed a new law that would legislate an even greater level of censorship to prevent the “social media amplification” of views that are deemed harmful or “disinformation.” It is only the latest example of our “whatever it takes” politics.

Under S.7568, there would be criminal liability for anyone who makes “a false statement of fact or fraudulent medical theory that is likely to endanger the safety or health of the public.”

If this language is chilling for anyone who values free speech, Hoylman’s defense will freeze you to the bone. It is a censorship measure introduced on “the anniversary of the notorious January 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, and as vaccine hesitancy continues to fuel the Omicron variant.” It is a mix of algorithmic conspiracy theory and anti-free speech doublespeak:

“Social media algorithms are specially programmed to spread disinformation and hate speech at the expense of the public good. The prioritization of this type of content has real life costs to public health and safety. So when social media push anti-vaccine falsehoods and help domestic terrorists plan a riot at the U.S. Capitol, they must be held accountable. Our new legislation will force social media companies to be held accountable for the dangers they promote.”

"For years, social companies have claimed protection from any legal consequences of their actions relating to content on their websites by hiding behind Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Social media websites are no longer simply a host for their users’ content, however. Many social media companies employ complex algorithms designed to put the most controversial and provocative content in front of users as much as possible. These algorithms drive engagement with their platform, keep users hooked, and increase profits. Social media companies employing these algorithms are not an impassive forum for the exchange of ideas; they are active participants in the conversation.”

The rationale is perfectly Orwellian. It treats the failure to censor as being a participant in “disinformation.”

This is only the latest anti-free speech measure to be introduced on the federal or state levels. In one critical hearing, tech CEOs appeared before the Senate to discuss censorship programs. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey apologized for censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story, but then pledged to censor more people in defense of “electoral integrity.”

Delaware Sen. Chris Coons, however, was not happy. He was upset not by the promised censorship but that it was not broad enough. He noted that it was hard to define the problem of “misleading information,” but the companies had to impose a sweeping system to combat the “harm” of misinformation on climate change as well as other areas. “The pandemic and misinformation about COVID-19, manipulated media also cause harm,” Coons said. “But I’d urge you to reconsider that because helping to disseminate climate denialism, in my view, further facilitates and accelerates one of the greatest existential threats to our world.”

Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal also warned that he and his colleagues would not tolerate any “backsliding or retrenching” by “failing to take action against dangerous disinformation.” He demanded “the same kind of robust content modification” from the companies – the new Orwellian term for censorship.

In the meantime, Facebook is continuing its creepy corporate commercials to try to convince a free people to embrace censorship (or “content modification”). It is working. Free speech advocates are facing a generational shift that is now being reflected in our law schools, where free speech principles were once a touchstone of the rule of law. As millions of students are taught that free speech is a threat and that “China is right” about censorship, these figures are shaping a new society in their own intolerant images.

The New York legislation would gut free speech by creating criminal penalties for views deemed “false” despite the continuing debates over issues like the efficacy of masks or vaccine protocols. The First Amendment is premised on the belief that this right is essential to protecting the other freedoms in the Constitution. It is the right that allows people to challenge their government and others on electoral issues, public health issues, and other controversies.

This is why I have described myself as an Internet Originalist:

The alternative is “internet originalism” — no censorship. If social media companies returned to their original roles, there would be no slippery slope of political bias or opportunism; they would assume the same status as telephone companies. We do not need companies to protect us from harmful or “misleading” thoughts. The solution to bad speech is more speech, not approved speech.

If Pelosi demanded that Verizon or Sprint interrupt calls to stop people saying false or misleading things, the public would be outraged. Twitter serves the same communicative function between consenting parties; it simply allows thousands of people to participate in such digital exchanges. Those people do not sign up to exchange thoughts only to have Dorsey or some other internet overlord monitor their conversations and “protect” them from errant or harmful thoughts.

The danger of the rising levels of censorship is far greater than the dangers of such absurd claims of the law or science — or in this case both. What we can do is to maximize the free discourse and expression on the Internet to allow free speech itself to be the ultimate disinfectant of disinformation.

The high power prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell contrasts with the apparent lack of zeal in prosecuting those who physically abused the girls

Jonathan Turley gets it right again. Here is his blog entry "
Transportation Versus Destination: Maxwell’s Conviction Leaves Glaring Questions Over the Lack of Prosecutions"

Justice is supposed to be blind.  It remains an open question (I am being diplomatic) whether it is simply blind when it comes to Elites committing crimes.

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

The conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell for five out of six criminal charges was heralded by many as bringing some justice for the girls abused through her actions. Indeed, the Southern District of New York correctly called the underlying conduct as “one of the worst crimes imaginable – facilitating and participating in the sexual abuse of children.” However, that statement only begged the question of why none of the men listed on flights of the “Lolita Express” or on the guest lists of these parties have been prosecuted. That list includes former presidents Bill Clinton and Donald Trump as well as Prince Andrew and an assortment of billionaires. It is not clear if these men committed criminal acts but it is also not clear that they have been formally questioned by the FBI.

As I discussed last night, this criminal enterprise was allegedly not only to bring girls and women to Epstein but to his powerful friends. Without pursuing those alleged “johns,” the Maxwell prosecution seems like arresting a getaway driver but letting the bank robbers escape.

The pictures of men on these trips are now well-known. They do not in themselves establish criminal conduct. For example, the pictures of Clinton getting a message from a 22-year-old woman is not illegal and she later described him as a “perfect gentleman.” However, Clinton has been accused of misleading the public on his number of flights with Epstein. The media has reported at least 26 flights with Epstein. Being a repeated guest with an infamous child molester raises obvious concerns. It is certainly enough to warrant questioning by the FBI.

Then there is Prince Andrew who has been pursued for questioning. Much of the litigation, however, has come from civil litigation. Prince Andrew recently put forward a novel defense in one such case.

Yet, there is a concern that the Justice Department has previously worked to scuttle rather than to pursue the underlying wrongdoing, including a disgraceful plea agreement. I was an early and vocal critic of that deal with Epstein. Despite a strong case for prosecution, Epstein’s lawyers were able to secure a ridiculous deal with prosecutors. He was accused of abusing more than forty minor girls (with many between the ages of 13 and 17). Epstein pleaded guilty to a Florida state charge of felony solicitation of underage girls in 2008 and served a 13-month jail sentence. Epstein was facing a 53-page indictment that could have resulted in life in prison. However, he got the 13 month deal. Moreover, to my lasting surprise, former Miami U.S. attorney Alexander Acosta was inexplicably made labor secretary under Trump. He later resigned.

While the FBI aggressively (and correctly) pursued Maxwell, there is no evidence of such a concerted effort to investigate the men who may have been involved in sex trafficking. Given the all-out effort on Ashley Biden’s diary, it would be good to see an equal effort on Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged co-conspirators.

If Epstein allegedly transported women and girls to his island for visits with himself and these men, there is ample reason to interview them. It is not clear if Maxwell has further evidence to offer, but this is the time to produce it. While she is not practically looking at 65 years, she can easily receive a sentence around 15 years even as a first offender. That sentence could be reduced with cooperation credit. What is not clear is how focused the SDNY is on developing cases that focus not just on the “transportation” but the destination of these flights.

Red Queen justice is something for all of us to avoid

 Here is Jonathan Turley's column on The Hill: "With the New Year, Biden Should Resolve to Cease the 'Red Queen' Justice.

JT is on target - but his complaint goes far beyond Biden.  We should resist doing the same thing JT complains about.

The behavior he describes is unacceptable and one more reason to disavow the woke and cancel culture.

Let's celebrate the New Year by fighting to get our freedom back and get over-reaching Government out of our lives.

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

For most of us, New Year resolutions are the ultimate exercise of hope over experience, a type of virtue signaling to ourselves in the hope that this year it might actually work. For politicians, it is the same … just without the hope. With the start of 2022 President Biden will lead the nation in celebrations and reflections. He could truly turn over a new leaf with one resolution: to stop declaring the guilt or innocence of people before they are actually investigated or tried.

History has shown that politicians are rarely late to a hanging or a stoning. From the Dreyfus Affair to Leo Frank, the Scottsboro Boys to the Duke Lacrosse team, there is nothing more binding with the public than to join in expressions of disgust or anger. The difference between a politician and a statesman is that the former demands a result while the latter demands a process from the justice system.

Even before winning the White House, Biden refused to wait for the actual facts before reaching a popular conclusion. For example, after the protests in Lafayette Park in 2020, Biden repeated the now debunked claim that the park was cleared with tear gas to enable a photo op for President Trump. From the outset, there was ample evidence undermining that claim, but neither Biden nor many in the media waited for the investigation to establish the facts. (Later, the Justice Department’s inspector general disproved the claim).

Once in office, President Biden continued that “sentence first, verdict afterwards” habit by making comments that conveyed what he wanted to see happen on legal decisions to be made from agencies. Despite being told that it would be clearly unconstitutional, Biden called for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to renew a nationwide moratorium on the eviction of renters.

Within days of the shootings in Kenosha, Wis., then-presidential candidate Joe Biden had strongly implied that Kyle Rittenhouse was a “white supremacist” despite no evidence supporting that claim. Even after many claims about Rittenhouse were debunked and the jury acquitted Rittenhouse of all charges, Biden stated publicly that the verdict left “many Americans feeling angry and concerned, myself included.”

However, Biden’s Red Queen justice approach was most alarming with regards to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents who were falsely accused of “whipping” undocumented immigrants on the southern border. Before any investigation was actually started, Biden expressed anger at the agents and publicly pledged punishment: “It was horrible what — to see, as you saw — to see people treated like they did: horses nearly running them over and people being strapped. It’s outrageous. I promise you, those people will pay.”

“Those people” are federal employees who have a right to due process and a presumption of innocence, including from the man who heads their branch of government. However, the President of the United States declared them to be guilty as the matter was sent for investigation. That creates an obvious pressure on lower-ranked executive branch officials to reach the same conclusion — to not contradict the President.

Indeed, while the administration promised a quick investigation, it went into complete radio silence. The agents are reportedly still on administrative duties, while there are reports that the CBP Office of Professional Responsibility has completed its investigation.

What was most striking about the border investigation is that there was extensive videotape evidence. While many in the press used still images that made it look like one agent was about to whip a migrant, the videotape clearly showed the agent using the “strap” — actually the reins — to guide his horse.

For that reason, many of us were confused by Biden’s insistence that these agents allegedly “strapped” the Haitian migrants. Even if the investigation finds culpability, the videotape does not show such abuse, and even the photographer expressed surprise at the “whipping” claim.

Nevertheless, other Democratic politicians like Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) denounced the whipping, claiming it was “worse than what we witnessed in slavery” and said that the videotape showed “the cowboys who were running down Haitians and using their reins to whip them.” Again, the videotape clearly refuted that claim. Yet that did not stop politicians like Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) from proclaiming the incident as evidence of “white supremacist behavior.” The media dutifully followed suit in reporting that the evidence showed agents “whipping Haitian asylum seekers.”

Much of the coverage was reminiscent of the false reporting of the incident involving former Covington Catholic High School student Nicholas Sandmann and his encounter with a Native American activist in front of the Lincoln Memorial on Jan. 18, 2019; Sandmann later settled with the Washington Post, NBC, and CNN in defamation actions. There was widely available video of the incident showing that Sandmann did nothing wrong. He just stood there as the activist confronted him.

A president plays a critical role in reinforcing our system of justice. He not only represents our constitutional process of representative democracy, but he is given specific power to correct injustices through pardons and commutations. When passions turn to rage, a president can bring a needed voice for fairness and patience in allowing our system to function without prejudice or prejudgment. Conversely, if the president rushes to judgment, he becomes an enabler of mob justice.

Biden could skip the usual weight loss and work-out pledges this year in favor of something more tangible and meaningful. He could pledge to respect the legal process and withhold judgment on those accused. It may not make it easier to fit in those jeans, but he would fit better in the office that he currently holds.

Daniel Henninger gets it right about today’s culture – at the Wall Street Journal

 Here is DH's column.

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

With seven words Sunday—“This is a no on this legislation”— Sen. Joe Manchin sent Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer stumbling amid the ruins of Build Back Better. But it’s possible to argue that the Manchin refusal may be even bigger than that: What if Mr. Manchin’s “no” threatens the entire temple of progressivism?

In a next-day interview with a West Virginia radio station, Mr. Manchin pointed American politics and indeed its culture toward the long-term lesson of his stand:

“They just never realized it, because they figured, ‘Surely, dear God, we can move one person—surely we can badger and beat one person up, surely we can get enough protesters to make that person uncomfortable enough [that] they’ll just say: “I’ll go for anything. Just quit.” ’ ”

Why did it occur to a senator from West Virginia to describe his experience in that way—the belief by his opposition that if they threw enough flak at him, he’d break and give them what they wanted?

The short answer is: Joe Manchin has been there, seen that. Like uncountable other Americans whose politics don’t run to the far left, he has seen for at least a decade that what the American left tried on him has become the their modus operandi for everything.

Their tactics—whether used against politicians or average people—include relentless moral condescension, the messianism of mass protests, physical intimidation, social ostracism and demands that you simply shut up and give in.

People wondered what the White House thought it gained by putting out a statement Sunday afternoon that Mr. Manchin’s words were “at odds” with what he told President Biden days earlier, essentially calling the senator a liar. Impolitic as it might strike anyone in normal politics (a space Mr. Biden once inhabited), this ad hominem hammer is the way the left does politics. It’s the only thing they know how to do.

Commenting on Sen. Manchin’s call to her after the decision, House Progressive Caucus Chairman Pramila Jayapal said his “lack of integrity was stunning.”

The left never sleeps. Recall how several months ago liberal Justice Stephen Breyer became the target of a campaign to abandon his seat, until he pointedly told an interviewer he wasn’t stepping down. They’re back. CNN reported this week that “multiple Senate Democrats” say Justice Breyer “seems to have let his ego overtake him.”

Recall, for that matter, the Senate confirmation hearings for Brett Kavanaugh. We may assume Sen. Manchin (the only Democrat who voted to confirm Justice Kavanaugh) absorbed how low that strategy stooped. It included his Senate colleague and Kavanaugh supporter Ted Cruz and his wife being driven from a restaurant by a group called Smash Racism DC, which said: “You are not safe. We will find you.” The Build Back Better factions found Sen. Kyrsten Sinema in a Phoenix bathroom stall.

That sounds like the lunatic fringe, until you realize the extent to which participating in the progressives’ cancel culture became just another day at the office for many mainstream U.S. institutions. In October, the Justice Department announced investigative “measures” after complaints about parents objecting to unilateral impositions of progressive school curriculums.

The current strategy of obliterating opponents began of course on the campuses, a smart place for a test run because so many university leaders blow with the wind or are themselves on board.

Thus in 2017 Charles Murray was run off a stage at Middlebury College. Banning speech worked, so they’ve never stopped. In September, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology disinvited University of Chicago scientist Dorian Abbott, citing his article, “The Diversity Problem on Campus.”

One of the most used words in the progressive lexicon is “dialogue,” which they say it’s always “important to have.” That’s a cover story. After endless “dialogue” with the Biden White House and the congressional left, Joe Manchin nailed this one: Their goal is to get you to “just quit.”


After George Floyd’s killing in May 2020, the activist group Black Lives Matter rose to seize the commanding heights of American politics and culture. What some thought was supposed to be a “dialogue” with their supporters about police practices was in fact a strategy to defund or disarm the police.

It worked. Cops quit or stepped away from making arrests. The nearly instant urban chaos this abrupt change created now has even San Francisco Mayor London Breed sounding like the second coming of a law-and-order hard hat, denouncing the “bull— that has destroyed our city.”

Earlier this week, the inevitable coda to the Manchin decision surfaced on Twitter. Bette Midler, the singer, tweeted that Joe Manchin wants “us all” to be like West Virginia—“poor, illiterate and strung out.”

It was inevitable that eventually a counterrevolution would start somewhere against progressivism’s brand of politics—its cancellations, silencings and unearned condescension of anyone who isn’t them or won’t join them. Whether or not he intended it, that counterrevolution may have begun when Joe Manchin of West Virginia simply said no.

The Dangerous and Unprincipled Elizabeth Warren

 Jonathan Turley gets it right on Elizabeth Warren.

The same could be said on many Democrat leaders.

Politics today is a power struggle between two teams, Democrats and Republicans. Both fail to do what is best for the Country. Both have reduced our freedom and mismanaged our economy. Neither appreciates that a free market dominates a Government micromanaged economy.

The issue is not which party is good - neither is. The issue is which team is likely to do the most damage. The winning team on that issue is the Democrats.

Here is JT's blog entry.

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

This week, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) finally buried her former persona as a law professor. In a transition that began in 2011, Warren has struggled with the demands of politics that often pit her against core legal principles. Warren’s final measure of devotion to politics came in her Boston Globe op-ed where she called for the Supreme Court to be packed with a liberal majority. She justified her call by denouncing the court for voting wrongly on decisions and, perish the thought, against “widely held public opinion.” Of course, the Framers designed the courts to be able to resist “widely held public opinion” and, yes, even the Congress. Warren’s solution is to change the Court to make it more amenable to the demands of public (and her) opinion. Some of us have been discussing the expansion of the Court for decades. However, there is a difference between court reform and court packing. What Democratic members are demanding is raw court packing to add four members to the Court to give liberals an instant majority — a movement denounced by figures like the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Stephen Breyer.Last year, House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass, and others stood in front of the Supreme Court to announce a court packing bill to give liberals a one-justice majority. This follows threats from various Democratic members that conservative justices had better vote with liberal colleagues . . . or else.Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., recently issued a warning to the Supreme Court: reaffirm Roe v. Wade or face a “revolution.” Sen. Richard Blumenthal previously warned the Supreme Court that, if it continued to issue conservative rulings or “chip away at Roe v Wade,” it would trigger “a seismic movement to reform the Supreme Court. It may not be expanding the Supreme Court, it may be making changes to its jurisdiction, or requiring a certain numbers of votes to strike down certain past precedents.”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer also declared in front of the Supreme Court “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.”

For her part, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. questioned the whole institution’s value if it is not going to vote consistently with her views and those of the Democratic party: “How much does the current structure benefit us? And I don’t think it does.”

Warren seems to be channeling more AOC than FDR. Roosevelt at least tried to hide his reckless desire to pack the Court by pushing an age-based rule. It was uniquely stupid. The bill would have allowed Roosevelt to add up to six justices for every member who is over 70 years old. Warren, like AOC, wants the Democratic base to know that she is pushing a pure, outcome-changing court packing scheme without even the pretense of a neutral rule.

Despite the fact that the Court has more often voted on non-ideological lines (and regularly issued unanimous decisions), Warren denounced the Court as an “extremist” body that has “threatened, or outright dismantled, fundamental rights in this country.” Those “fundamental” values do not apparently include judicial independence.

What is most striking is Warren’s use of a clearly false premise: that the Republicans packed the Court first: “This Republican court-packing has undermined the legitimacy of every action the current court takes.” She is referring to the Republicans refusing to vote on the nomination of Merrick Garland during the Obama Administration. Many of us criticized the lack of a Senate vote at the time. However, that is not court packing. It did not add seats to the Court. The Senate has the constitutional authority to vote or not to vote on a nominee. It was perfectly constitutional. What Warren is advocating is the addition of seats to the Court, which the Congress can do but most voters oppose as unprincipled and dangerous.

For Warren to call the Garland controversy “court packing” is all that you have to know about her column. She knows that that was not court packing, just as she knows that court packing is fundamentally wrong. However, the Warren op-ed was her Rubicon where she crossed over from being a law professor to being a politician.

That transition has not been an easy one for Warren. As an academic, Warren was described as a “die-hard conservative” who was a leading advocate for corporations. All of that had to go when she decided to seek the Democratic nomination for the Senate. Even more has to go if you seek the Democratic nomination for president (an even greater priority now as Democrats and media figures seek alternatives to President Biden).

Academics often evolve in their views of constitutional or statutory issues. However, Warren never made the transition from a corporate defender to an anti-corporate activist in her academic writings. It came largely after her entry into politics without an explanation of the reasons for adopting the new positions. The fact is that Warren had some interesting scholarship in the business law area and it would be equally interesting to understand why she has moved away from those positions.

That however was not enough. In the age of rage, one has to show that you are willing to do what others are not willing to do . . . like put a bullet in the head of the leading judicial institution in our constitutional system. If you are going to run in the Democratic primary, you need to be a “made” politician who has demonstrated that you can dispense with the niceties of the Constitution and do what makes others cringe. After all, how does the Court “benefit us”? Those other candidates may support higher taxation or spending bills but they are weaklings if they balk at packing the Supreme Court.

There is an element of release to crossing that Rubicon. You are no longer burdened by the need to justify one’s actions in light of constitutional history or values. For example, during the confirmation hearing for Justice Kavanaugh, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) demanded that Kavanaugh promise to respect stare decisis on cases like Roe, but then called for overturning cases like Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

It is the same glaring hypocrisy of democratic leaders like Warren denouncing the conservative majority as “partisan” while demanding the packing of the court to guarantee an immediate liberal majority.

The Warren column is perfectly Orwellian in declaring that the Supreme Court now “threatens the foundations of our nation” while using that claim to destroy our highest court. It is the judicial version of the explanation in the Vietnam War that “it became necessary to destroy the town to save it.” Warren would open up the Court to continual manipulation by shifting majorities in Congress — recreating the Court in the image of our dysfunctional Congress.

So, on December 15, 2021, Elizabeth Warren finally transitioned to being a pure politician unburdened and unrestrained. From “Tax the Rich” to “Pack the Court,” Warren is now soundbite ready and principle resistant for 2024.

Scientific American Goes Woke: A case study in how identity politics poisons science

 Here is a link to an article by Michael Shermer at substack.

A sad story - Scientific American used to be one of the best examples of objectivity. For some time now that has not been the case.

Here are some excerpts from MS's article.

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

In April of 2001 I began my monthly Skeptic column at Scientific American, the longest continuously published magazine in the country dating back to 1845. With Stephen Jay Gould as my role model (and subsequent friend), it was my dream to match his 300 consecutive columns that he achieved at Natural History magazine, which would have taken me to April, 2026. Alas, my streak ended in January of 2019 after a run of 214 essays.

Since then, I have received many queries about why my column ended and, more generally, about what has happened over at Scientific American, which historically focused primarily on science, technology, engineering and medicine (STEM), but now appears to be turning to social justice issues. There is, for example, the August 12, 2021 article on how “Modern Mathematics Confronts its White Patriarchal Past,” which asserts prima facie that the reason there are so few women and blacks in academic mathematics is because of misogyny and racism. Undoubtedly there are some misogynists and racists in mathematics, as there are in all walks of life, but we know that the number and percentage of such people throughout society has been decreasing for decades (see Steven Pinker’s The Better Angels of Our Nature and my own The Moral Arc). As well, this may be another example of base rate neglect: before indicting academic hiring committees as hotbeds of misogyny and racism, which they most assuredly are not (academics are among the most socially liberal people in any profession), we need to know how many women and blacks are applying for such jobs compared to whites. The percentage is lower, and according to a 2019 Women in Mathematics survey “senior faculty composition both reflects the BA and PhD pipeline of prior years, and also influences the gender composition of new graduates.” If “structural” causes are the culprits—for example, if base rate comparisons do not match population percentages because of differential educational opportunities or vocational interests—such variables should also be factored into any scientific analysis of causality, especially in a popular and respected science publication. Again, there is no denying that some bias against some women in some fields exist, but that this is the only explanation on offer is unscientific.

And, unsurprisingly, reverse asymmetries never warrant explanations of reverse biases. To wit, this same study reported that “women earned 57%, 60% and 52% of all Bachelor’s, Master’s and Doctoral degrees respectively in the U.S. in 2013-14,” but proposed no reverse biases against men to account for such imbalances. Neither did a 2019 Council of Graduate Schools study that found for the 11th year in a row women earned a majority of doctoral degrees awarded at US universities (41,943 vs. 37,365, or 52.9% vs. 47.1%). Our attention is drawn to the lower percentages of female doctorates in engineering (25.1%), mathematics and computer sciences (26.8%), physical and earth sciences (35.1%), and business (46.7%), followed by discussions of systemic bias, but no such structural issues are on offer for the lower percentages of male doctorates in public administration (26.4%), health and medical sciences (29%), education (31.6%), social and behavioral sciences (39%), arts and humanities (48.1%), and biological sciences (48.6%). When the data is presented in a bar graph rank ordered from highest to lowest percentages for females earning doctorates (below), the claim that the fields in which women earn lower percentages than men can only be explained by misogyny and bias is gainsaid by the top bars where the valance is reversed, unless we are to believe that only in those bottom fields are faculty and administrators still bigoted against women whereas those in the top fields are enlightened.

Then there is the July 5, 2021 Scientific American article that “Denial of Evolution Is a Form of White Supremacy.” Because we are all from Africa and thus black, the author Allison Hopper avers, evolution deniers (AKA creationists) are ipso facto white supremacists. “I want to unmask the lie that evolution denial is about religion and recognize that at its core, it is a form of white supremacy that perpetuates segregation and violence against Black bodies,” she begins. “The fantasy of a continuous line of white descendants segregates white heritage from Black bodies. In the real world, this mythology translates into lethal effects on people who are Black.” Setting aside what, exactly, Hopper means by “lethal effects”, or that the vogue reference to “Black bodies” seems to reduce African Americans to nothing more than mindless matter, her thesis is verifiably wrong. As I and other historians of science have documented extensively (see, for example, Edward Larson’s Summer for the Gods, Eugenie Scott’s Evolution and Creationism, Ronald Numbers’ The Creationists, Robert Pennock’s Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics, and my own Why Darwin Matters), the primary motivation behind creationism is religious (and secondarily political), not racist. Again, no doubt some creationists in the first half of the 20th century were also white supremacists, as were many more people throughout America then compared to today, but the chain of reasoning Hopper employs—that the Genesis story of Cain and Able suggests that “the curse or mark of Cain for killing his brother was a darkening of his descendants’ skin,” ergo the Bible endorses white supremacy—is not an argument made by mainstream creationists then or now. In any case, the hypothesis is gainsaid by the fact that polls consistently show a larger percentage of blacks than whites hold creationist beliefs. Apparently they didn’t get the white supremacist talking points. Finally, since anecdotes are often treated as data these days, let me add that I personally know a great number of creationists and I can attest that they would be horrified at the accusation. They are creationists not because they are white supremacists who wish to perpetuate “violence against Black bodies” but because they believe that God created the universe, life, humans, consciousness, and morality, and that the design inference to a designer makes the most sense to them (however wrong in their reasoning I believe them to be).

The most bizarre example of Scientific American’s woke turn toward social justice is an article published September 23, 2021 titled “Why the Term ‘JEDI’ is Problematic for Describing Programs that Promote Justice, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion.”

Most plausible 2005-2040 emissions scenarios project less than 2.5 degrees C of warming by 2100

 Here is a link to the paper.

More evidence that the climate alarmists are just that.

Here is the abstract.

Emissions scenarios used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are central to climate change research and policy. Here, we identify subsets of scenarios of the IPCC 5th (AR5) and forthcoming 6th (AR6) Assessment Reports that project 2005-2040 fossil-fuel CO2 emissions growth rates most consistently with observations from 2005-2020 and International Energy Agency (IEA) projections to 2040—71% of these scenarios project between 2 degrees C and 3 degrees C of warming by 2100, with a median of 2.2 degrees C. Though these IPCC scenarios do not represent all possible trajectories of future emissions and warming, and they assume continued mitigation progress, they do suggest the world is presently on a lower emissions trajectory than is often assumed. However, the scenarios also indicate that the world is still off track from limiting 21st-century warming to 1.5 degrees C.

An interesting article about the Webb space telescope

Here is a link to an article at quantamagazine.org about the Webb space telescope.  It is well worth reading.

Be sure to watch the video.

A Climate Scientist provides much needed perspective

 Here is a link to an interview of Judith Curry by Christopher Balkaran. JC is a climate scientist who is objective and has no agenda.

Here are some excerpts.

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

A model that simulates the warming since 1970 based on CO2 emissions does not constitute proof that CO2 has caused the warming. The latest post on my blogs cites some papers that show that solar variability can explain pretty much all of the recent warming. So you can have models that get the right answer or something close to the right answer for the wrong reasons.

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

And then if you go to energy security, I mean, what is the point of all this? If we destroy the energy security of the planet, by having electricity that’s intermittent, unreliable and too expensive, that’s not helpful to anyone. We’re headed towards a real reckoning here, you can’t run industrial economies on wind and solar. People are starting to realize this.

Within the last few months alot of people and some governments are suddenly saying nuclear is the answer. Well, yeah, it sort of is, but why are you just realizing this now? The realities of wind power are being realized. In the North Sea, they have all these offshore wind turbines. In 2020 these produced 25% of England’s power, which is fabulous. But in the first 10 months of 2021, they produced 7% of the power. So England and the rest of Europe is scrambling, having to pay too much money for natural gas and then with all the political problems with the natural gas supply from Russia. So, being able to produce your energy from within your country has a lot of appeal.

The one advantage of solar and wind as it gave some local autonomy to the countries, but wind and solar are not enough to run an industrial economy. And nuclear power gives you the best of both worlds. And also if the countries were to frack for natural gas, that’s another energy source that could be more local. The most important issue is energy security, so that its abundant and reliable, and you’re not held hostage to other countries or crazy price spikes.

I have no problem with going to cleaner energy sources. Everybody would prefer clean over dirty energy. But energy security has to be first and foremost, we have to have reliable, affordable energy. Otherwise, none of this makes sense.

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

Oh, but the science is ‘settled’ everyone knows that. They’ve been so brainwashed about global warming that there’s only one thing that’s going to change it. if I’m right about natural variability having sort of a cooling effect in the coming decades, this will be the one piece of evidence that people will have to pay attention to. If that transpires, I would say that would be the single most effective thing at bringing this dialogue back to some level of rationality, but how much confidence do I have in that prediction? How much money am I going to bet on that? I don’t know, but it’s a very plausible scenario that natural variability will lead to cooling in the coming decades, or at least slow down the warming. So we’ll see if that transpires. If it does, that would be the single most effective thing at bringing the dialogue back to normal in some sensible way, so people look at this problem more broadly. On the current path, we are not managing this risk in a sensible way that would leave our countries stronger and less vulnerable to whatever my transpire in the future.