Some perspective on Jews and Israel

 Here is the link.

Realistic global warming projections for the 21st century

Nicola Scafetta at Judith Curry's blog.

On target.

-------------------------------------------My new paper demonstrates that realistic emissions scenarios and climate sensitivity values & scenarios of natural climate variability produce more realistic, non-alarming scenarios of 21st century climate.

I would like to thank Judith Curry for inviting me to write a short blog post on my just published paper:

Nicola Scafetta. Impacts and risks of “realistic” global warming projections for the 21st century. Geoscience Frontiers 15(2), 101774, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2023.101774

The paper is open access and, therefore, it is accessible to all.

I believe the work is significant because it addresses the central issue that is of general interest: how much warming can we expect in the 21st century? These are serious challenges that scientists must solve to truly assist policymakers. Is today’s climate alarmism founded on real science, or is it simply an extrapolated view based on flawed arguments?

Answering such a question defines the steps that must be taken to address any expected threats associated with possible future climatic changes. However, the uncertainties are so great that no consensus can be reached. Some argue that we are on the verge of a massive climatic disaster if net-zero emission policies are not imposed quickly, while others argue that nothing will happen. Technically, anyone can present arguments in support of his or her belief because of the large uncertainties surrounding these climate change issues.

I’ve opted to address the issue by highlighting recent research efforts to reduce uncertainties in order to obtain more “realistic” climate estimates for the twenty-first century. This might then be used to better analyze the actual impacts and hazards of climate change, with the hope that people will be able to agree on the best remedies.

I have identified four sources of uncertainties:

1) Which shared socioeconomic pathway (SSP) scenario for the twenty-first century is most plausible? According to recent scientific literature, it is the SSP2-4.5 scenario, which is a moderate and pragmatic scenario in which CO2 emission rates maintain around present levels until 2050, then reduce but do not reach net-zero by 2100. Unfortunately, most of the climate alarmism is based on unrealistic scenarios like SSP5-8.5 and SSP3-7.0, which result in overestimation of future projected warming and greater alarm.

2) How sensitive is the climate to CO2 increases? According to recent scientific research, the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) should be between 1 and 3 °C. Unfortunately, the IPCC AR6 relied heavily on Global Climate models with ECS ranging between 2.5 and 4 °C (likely range), which overestimates future projected warming.

3) Can we rely on the warming presented by surface temperature records to calibrate and/or validate which models to use for climate projections? Addressing this point is critical because recent literature has suggested that surface temperature records may be significantly influenced by non-climatic warm biases (e.g. contamination from urban heat islands, among others), and because satellite-based lower troposphere temperature records (e.g. UAH-MSU v6 and NOAA-STAR v5) show a warming rate that is 30% lower than recent surface temperature records (as shown also by the IPCC AR6). The concern is that the models expect that the troposphere will warm faster than the surface, not less. As a result, the warming rate of surface temperature records should be questioned. In this case, all CMIP6 GCMs are running “too hot,” indicating a very low actual value of ECS (1-2 °C), implying that future climate change would be more moderate than projected by the IPCC in all cases.

4) The fourth question is whether the GCMs accurately reflect natural climate change variability. The issue is significant since a vast body of research indicates that the CMIP6 GCMs are incapable of reproducing natural climate variability because they ignore multiple well-known climatic cycles at all time scales. There is a quasi-millennial climate oscillation with a likely solar origin that characterizes the entire Holocene and is responsible for the well-documented Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, which models are unable to reproduce (as timidly acknowledged by the IPCC AR6 figure 3.2). Other natural oscillations were also detected, such as the quasi-60-year oscillation seen in the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation signal, as well as many other oscillations classified as solar/astronomically driven in previous studies. While GCMs suggest that over 100% of the observed warming is manmade, these oscillations could have contributed significantly to the warming recorded in the twentieth century. Introducing cyclical natural variability predicts low ECS values (1-2 °C) and that the GCMs grossly underestimate the solar impact on climate.

Using the information discussed above, “realistic” climate change projections must be created using the SSP2-4.5 and: (1) only models with a low ECS (less than 3°C); (2) rescaling the models to the lower warming rate of the lower troposphere temperature records; and (3) adopting semi-empirical models of natural climate variability. As a result, in all three situations, the projected warming for the twenty-first century is congruent with the IPCC’s projected warming using the net-zero scenario SSP1-2.6. This is clearly demonstrated in the graphical abstract of my paper, which is displayed below:



Because future climate change is expected to be modest enough that any potential related hazards can be addressed efficiently through effective and low-cost adaptation strategies, the 2.0 °C Paris-agreement warming target for the twenty-first century can likely be met even under the feasible and moderate SSP2-4.5 emission scenario without the need for implementing rapid, extremely expensive, and technologically likely impossible net-zero decarbonization policies.

Happy New Year 2024 to all!

The rot at Harvard

 From John Cochrane at Substack.

JC is on target. It's not about plaigerism.

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

Argue Honesty in the Claudine Gay Affair

I think Harvard should fire Claudine Gay. But not for the reasons her critics are emphasizing, including Congressional testimony, public statements after October 7, and charges of plagiarism. Come on now, you don’t really think she’s a wonderful president doing a fantastic job, and it’s too bad we have to fire her over copied and pasted sentences in her thesis.

The larger goal is to reform the university. Being honest about the reasons for firing her matters to that goal.

Harvard faces a historic choice: Is its main mission advocacy for, advancement of, and indoctrination in a particular political and ideological cause, going by names such as “woke,” “social justice” “critical theory” and “diversity equity and inclusion” (a chillingly Orwellian name since it is exactly the opposite)? Or is its main mission the search for objective truth, via excellence, meritocracy, free inquiry, free speech, and critical discussion, bounded by classical norms of argument by logic and evidence; and to advance and pass on that way of thinking? Even though yes, most of those ideas originated from dead white men whose societies had, in retrospect, some unpleasant characteristics? And to get there, given the BS spreading like cancer and the political and ideological monoculture that pervades the university, it needs a top to bottom cleanup.

This is a key moment. After October 7, a lot of the larger community of alumni, donors, trustees, parents, government and employers, woke up. What, “decolonization” means kill the Jews? Who knew? Well you would have if you had been paying attention, one is tempted to answer, but ok, you had lives to lead and the Orwellian doublespeak is seductive if you’re not paying much attention. They then look a little harder and suddenly see the politicized rot that has taken over the whole university. Now is the chance to force a change.

Only a more honest firing will cure Harvard and her cousins. Forcing Harvard to get rid of her, ostensibly for failings that though real are also clearly a pretext, will not force Harvard to look hard in the mirror and make the choice I and Harvard’s critics want.

Gay is exactly what Harvard wanted, and a look-alike is exactly what it will get unless it wants something different.

Why do I think Gay should go? Because she persecuted Roland Fryer, the brilliant Black economist who inconveniently found the “wrong” results in a classic study of race and policing. Because she fired Ronald Sullivan, also incidentally Black, who had the temerity to provide legal counsel to Harvey Weinstein. The great defender of free speech and academic freedom before Congress found that the mere act of having provided Weinstein legal counsel made students feel “unsafe.” She forced Carole Hooven to resign, for teaching that sex is “binary and biological” in a biology class. She led efforts to expand “teaching in the broad domain of ethnicity, indigeneity, and migration.” (Two Blacks and a woman. If you hadn’t figured it out, this is about politics, not race). I haven’t followed the Ryan Enos (white man, but left wing research) affair carefully, but the charge that she quickly covered it up is out there. Harvard’s announcement of her appointment trumpeted that “She is the founding chair of Harvard’s Inequality in America Initiative” and similar efforts. Harvard is dead last in FIRE’s ranking of free speech and academic freedom.

But all this happened before she became president. Harvard knew exactly what it was getting, and wanted it.

Gay’s academic record, including allegations of plagiarism and quantitative mistakes, was widely discussed long before she became president, as the WSJ documents. That “Harvard said it first learned about allegations of plagiarism against Gay in October” is unserious. Yes, the allegations were aired on anonymous message boards that also included distasteful posts. But in a full year search process, did nobody even think to google “Claudine Gay,” read the results, and then make up their own minds? You don’t have to take EJMRs word for it, you can do a little work. It’s either extreme laziness, or again, Harvard knew exactly what it was getting.

And even then, the allegation of plagiarism is mostly that she copied and pasted literature reviews. The allegation of fudging numbers is more serious. But why not talk about the real question: is this work any good anyway? Or, who cares? You don’t have to be a great academic to be a great administrator.

Nellie Bowles is as usual hilariously on point

I still think Claudine Gay is too big to fail. She is a symbol. And the perfect one for a once-great American institution running on prestige fumes and foreign dollars. Of course her papers are flawed and plagiarized. …Claudine herself has played a major role in smearing several truly great black academics throughout her career. No, the statement Claudine Gay as president of Harvard makes is that politics matter more than anything else….mediocrity, so long as it’s wedded to ideology, is enough. We’ll even call mediocrity genius and give it the most prestigious academic job in the land, so long as you say just the right things about this list of issues. In conclusion, Claudine Gay is the perfect president of Harvard.

Harvard selected her and hired her for the former job. She is eminently qualified for that job, and was doing it well. Forced to get rid of her on a pretext, they’ll just pick someone similar.

By way of example, Stanford recently unseated its president, ostensibly over research conduct in his pre-presidential career. He was cleared by the official investigation, but ousted nonetheless. As with Gay, I sense that his enemies really didn't care a whit about just how photoshopped photographs appeared in 20 year old articles. A lot of Stanford didn’t like him because he wasn’t left-wing enough. Stanford has plenty of academic freedom horror stories, from censuring Scott Atlas and Jay Bhattacharya for actually following science on covid policy, to the Internet Observatory, specifically named in the Missouri v. Biden decision for politicized internet censorship, a DEI office every bit as pernicious as the one Harvard just scrubbed from its website, the Stanford Hates Fun outbreak and more. We were very lucky that our new interim president had only been in office a few months when Congress called and couldn’t be dragged in for interrogation! Stanford faces the same historic choice, left-wing politics vs. excellence, ideological and political diversity, freedom, and meritocracy.

The trustees appointed a 20-person presidential search committee September 14 to find his replacement. “The committee includes faculty members, undergraduate and graduate students, a postdoctoral scholar, staff, and trustees, who will seek community input…” Time on hands seems to be a precondition. The faculty co-chair lists her first affiliation as “Senior Associate Dean, Faculty Development and Diversity.” The staff representative is the “Vice Provost for Institutional Equity, Access & Community.” Don’t hold your breath that this process will yield the clear choice and mandate to clean up the mess that you’re hoping for.

Gay was excoriated for her Congressional Testimony. The full text of the congressional testimony is revealing. The media soundbite seemed terrible:

ELISE STEFANIK: … Dr. Gay, at Harvard, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard’s rules of bullying and harassment, yes or no?

CLAUDINE GAY: It can be. Depending on the context….Targeted as an individual, targeted as — at an individual, severe, pervasive….Anti-Semitic rhetoric, when it crosses into conduct, that amounts to bullying, harassment, intimidation. That is actionable conduct, and we do take action.

ELISE STEFANIK: So, the answer is yes, that calling for the genocide of Jews violates Harvard code of conduct, correct?

CLAUDINE GAY: Again, it depends on the context.

Earlier, she gave a nice speech about free speech on campus:

The free exchange of ideas is the foundation upon which Harvard is built, and safety and well-being are the prerequisites for engagement in our community. Without both of these things, our teaching and research mission founder. …

We have reiterated that speech that incites violence threatens safety or violates Harvard’s policies against bullying and harassment is unacceptable. We have made it clear that any behaviors that disrupt our teaching and research efforts will not be tolerated, and where these lines have been crossed, we have taken action.

I was, initially, a bit sympathetic. Gay was, technically, right. The written code of conduct, and other policies, do pretty much say that 1st Amendment freedom of speech applies on college campuses. The policies do state that you can say anything, even the most heinous, so long as it does not cross to action.

Nellie Bowles explains political theater:

like when Republicans asked college presidents whether calling for the genocide of Jews would violate the student code of conduct. That’s called a gimme. You make a sad face and say: “Yes.” It doesn’t matter what the student handbook actually says. No one cares. You say genocide is so sad, so bad.

Now one can be critical, as many were, that the job of university president is not to repeat lawyered up HR boilerplate, make sure you don’t say anything that can get the university sued; university presidents should know to make clear statements and know how to play the gotcha game in Congress. But again, Harvard (and Penn, and MIT) knew exactly what it was getting, and reportedly prepped Gay well for the former, not the latter task.

But this isn’t about free speech.

“Speech” had already turned in to “conduct” well before the hearing. Harassment of Jews — Jews, not just pro-Israel protesters — was already routine on campus. Interruptions of classes and occupation of library and other spaces was already going on. And Harvard and the others didn’t do anything about it — though you can be sure if similar opinions were being expressed by men in white sheets the reaction would have been swift and brutal.

The hypocrisy is evident. Oh now you’re for free speech and academic freedom, yet not for the tiny micro aggressions that had earned disciplinary responses before.

The issue is, how in the world did Harvard university end up accepting, hiring, and promoting, so many people who, given the opportunity to speak freely, do so in defense of murder, rape, and terrorism? How did Harvard become such a monoculture of far left-wing politics?

And, it turns out in the full record, the Congresspeople got all that. Selective free speech:

TIM WALBERG:…It seems that, perhaps, Harvard’s commitment to free speech is pretty selective. …

Tyler J. Van der Wiel was deemed guilty for those crimes, related to his views on marriage and abortion. And then, …Carroll Hooven, an evolutionary biologist, was forced to resign, because she stated that a person’s sex is biological and binary. …

And so, President Gay, in what world is a call for violence against Jews protected speech, but a belief that sex is biological and binary isn’t?

CLAUDINE GAY: Thank you for your question. So from the moment that our students arrive on campus, whether it is to begin their Harvard journey as an undergraduate, or at one of the professional schools, the message to them is clear — that we are an inclusive community but one deeply committed to free expression. And that means that we have expectations that that right is exercised mindfully and with empathy towards others.

We reinforce that during their time at Harvard, by helping them build the skills that allow them to engage in constructive dialogue, even on the most complex and divisive issues. Because what we seek is not simply free expression, but the reasoned dialogue that leads to truth and discovery and that does the work of moving us all forward…

TIM WALBERG: But you are professors — — and when they transgress, they’re held accountable. — come under that, as well, don’t they? Your professors come under that as well, don’t they?

CLAUDINE GAY: Absolutely.

TIM WALBERG: And so, for Professor Van der Weil and Hooven, that didn’t work for them — the free expression of views, at the very least views, whether fact or truth, I guess we’ll leave that to understanding. But nonetheless, they were removed from their positions…

It turns out President Gay is superb at not answering questions and going off on a rant of boilerplate.

Politcal Diversity:

JOE WILSON: …What is the percentage of conservative professors at your institutions? …

CLAUDINE GAY: Thank you, Congressman. So, I can’t provide you that statistic because it’s not data that we collect. ..

LIZ MAGILL: Representative, I strongly believe in a wide variety of perspectives. We do not track that information, so I can’t give that to you.

SALLY KORNBLUTH: We do not document people’s political views, but conservatives are welcome to teach on our campus.

JOE WILSON: And I think this is so sadly and shamefully revealing that there is no diversity and inclusion of intellectual thought…. And you might look into that when you get your next government grant.

Again, beautiful lawyerly obfuscation. Because numbers are easily available. For example, voter registration data, which shows astounding democrat/republican ratios on campus. And the huge DEI bureaucracy, which collects detailed data on refined racial, ethnic, sexual, and gender identities, has plenty of time on its hands, could easily collect data on political identity. “Why not?” would be a good question!

Stanford’s DEI (“IDEAL”) website statement on the value of diversity, proclaims

At Stanford, we strive to ensure that a diversity of cultures, races and ethnicities, genders, political and religious beliefs, physical and learning differences, sexual orientations and identities is thriving on our campus.

Nice. But outside this statement, zero effort to even measure the size of the donkey in the room. (The elephant got canceled.)

“And you might look into that when you get your next government grant” is a fascinating comment. Right now many granting agencies are requiring diversity statements, diversity programs, some even acknowledging “native ways of knowing,” as part of an “all of government” effort. That could change with the next election. Or with a congressional committee that hauls in heads of agencies to answer the same sorts of questions.

The next exchange also focuses on the political monoculture issue,

GLENN GROTHMAN: …I’m going to follow up on some of the things Mr. Wilson had to say. … in 2016, they found about 2 percent of the faculty of Harvard … viewed President Trump, I think, is Ok or good. And I think in the 2020 election, the Crimson, your local paper there, found 1 percent of the students voting for Donald Trump, which given that nationwide, it is about 50, 50 was kind of shocking.

Does it concern you at all, that you apparently have a great deal, a lack of ideological diversity at Harvard? And you think that atmosphere is maybe one of the reasons why there seems to be such an outbreak of anti-Semitism at your institution?…what are you — what are you going to do about it? Do you think it’s a concern?

CLAUDINE GAY: We … strive to have as diverse a faculty as… we can, because we want to make sure that we are sampling from the broadest pool of talent available in the world. That’s how we ensure academic excellence. And then —

GLENN GROTHMAN: Wait, wait, wait, wait. ……2 percent of your faculty viewed Donald Trump as something [inaudible] poor. In 2016, and after four years of working for diversity, 1 percent voted for him. Now I know all sorts of good people who don’t like President Trump. But I’m just saying, when you compare the way people think at your campus, compared to America as a whole, if there’s one thing you are — it’s not diverse. Right? Do you consider that a problem…?

CLAUDINE GAY: So, Congressman, I can’t speak to the specific data that you are referring to. What I can say is, that at Harvard, we try to create as much space as possible for a wide range of views and perspectives, because we believe that allows for a thriving academic community.

GLENN GROTHMAN: Well, how in the world is that even possible, and that that you’re trying to do that? Do you really feel that you’re — that your faculty are ideologically diverse? You came out of a, what was it a, political science background at Stanford?…

CLAUDINE GAY: So here’s what I can say on the topic that you’re exploring. And it’s — we want the most brilliant, talented faculty to come to Harvard and to build their careers there. And then —

This is a brilliant lesson in obfuscation. Note to self if ever testifying before a hostile committee. Just lie. Over and over bigger and bigger. “ I can’t speak to the specific data that you are referring to.” Of course you can. You’re a quantitative political scientist who reads the newspapers. “We want the most brilliant, talented faculty to come to Harvard and to build their careers there.” “We try to create as much space as possible for a wide range of views and perspectives.” Ha!

Gay is great at doing exactly what Harvard wants! Pursue the far left purification agenda, but lawyer and HR up when asked in plain English to account for it. She should be promoted for this effort! But no, Harvard should fire her because the cause is rotten, not the execution. Grothman noticed:

GLENN GROTHMAN: Ok, …you’re not going to answer the question, and they only give me five minutes.

It turns out he knows about “diversity statements” the new tool used to make sure faculty have the right politics:

Is it common at Harvard to ask faculty to submit a diversity statement?

CLAUDINE GAY: That’s a practice that varies across schools at Harvard.…

GLENN GROTHMAN: Ok. Could a scientist ever get cut from consideration for from a job, because they had the wrong view of diversity?

CLAUDINE GAY: What I would say, is that we aim to draw to our faculty, the broadest pool of talent.

GLENN GROTHMAN: …when you hear that 1 percent of your faculty voted for a presidential candidate who got about 50 percent of the vote, nationwide, does that concern you, or do you feel you’re not as diverse as you should be?

CLAUDINE GAY: What I’m focused on, is making sure that we’re bringing the most academically talented faculty to our campus and that they are effective in the classroom.

GLENN GROTHMAN:… Has Harvard ever made a faculty job contingent on a strong diversity statement?

CLAUDINE GAY: We look at everything a faculty member will bring to our campus — academic brilliance and excitement and ability to teach a campus community and student community that is diverse —

I quote at length because the merry go round of refusing to answer the question and repeatedly asserting a false boilerplate about recruiting is so brilliantly executed.

Enough. Yes, Gay must go. But don’t let them say so sorry, you copied and pasted an abstract during the literature review in your thesis, and you fudged some numbers, you were wonderful but we have to let you go for these little transgressions. Don’t let them paper over the murderous anti-semitism and continue the march thorough the institution. Don’t let them continue to undermine the foundations of our best universities, ripping out meritocracy, exams, actual competence, academic freedom, and pursuit of truth. Fire her for doing her job well, but we want someone to do a different job!

Yes, I know this is unrealistic, and not how political decisions are made. Still, the larger point remains. Firing Gay over plagiarism and data fudging, and sending Stanford’s 20 person committee to put in a replacement will not bring about the change we need.

Anti-Free Speech States

 From Jonathan Turley.

23 to 0 Democrat led to Republican led.

Statistically significant at the 0.00000162 level.

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

Are You in an Anti-Free Speech State? We Now Have The Definitive List

For years, we have discussed the alarming shift in the Democratic party on free speech with candidates running on pledges to censor opposing views and politicians supporting blacklisting and censorship on social media. Many citizens oppose such efforts to restrict their rights under the First Amendment, but are unaware of the work of their representatives to limit free speech. Now, a filing in the Supreme Court supporting censorship efforts by the Biden Administration has supplied a handy list of the anti-free speech states for citizens.

The 5th Circuit previously ruled in Missouri v. Biden that administration officials “likely violated” the First Amendment and issued a preliminary injunction banning the government from communicating with social media companies to limit speech.

Not surprisingly, the state of California is leading the effort to get the Supreme Court to reverse a decision enjoining the government from censorship efforts. California has long sought to impose speech limits on doctors, businesses, and citizens to silence opposing viewpoints.

However, 23 Democrat-led states joined this ignoble effort in signing on to the brief of California Attorney General Rob Bonta. The brief lauds past efforts of these states to combat “harmful content” on the Internet and to protect the public from “misleading information” through partnerships with social media companies.

So here is the list to see if you are residing in an anti-free speech state:

Arizona

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Hawaii

Illinois

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Nevada

New Jersey

New Mexico,

New York

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

Vermont

Washington

Wisconsin

District of Columbia

Here is the brief: Missouri v. Biden–New York et al. Amicus Br.

Going “woke’ has endangered American Jews

 From the Jewish World Review.

On target.

A lot of other groups are endangered, too.

"Woke" will destroy our freedoms if it is not stopped.

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

It was just one result among a blizzard of other poll results in a single survey. But one data point in the Harvard/Harris monthly survey of public opinion not only jumped out at observers like a five-alarm fire but also called into question the future security of American Jewry. Amid many other questions, the pollster asked a random sample of 2,034 registered voters the following question: "Do you think that Jews as a class are oppressors and should be treated as oppressors, or is that a false ideology?"

The question may have been loaded, and its results are, at least to some extent, contradicted by the answers to some of the other questions in the survey. But the fact that 67% of participants ages 18 to 24 responded that Jews are "oppressors" is deeply shocking though hardly surprising. If that proves an accurate assessment of opinion among generations that will lead the nation in the future, then it also means that the assumption on the part of many Jews that "it can't happen here" — based on the idea of American exceptionalism setting it apart from other Western nations — will be proven wrong.

A belief that Jews are 'oppressors'

The numbers in the poll contrast the markedly different results from other age groups. The older one gets, the more likely the respondent was to correctly label talk of Jewish oppressors as a "false ideology." Those aged 25 to 34 answered 56% to 44% that it was false. Those aged 35 to 44 gave a 64% to 35% majority to the "false ideology" answer with those aged 45 to 54, 55 to 64, and 65 and older opposing this smear by 76%, 85% and 91%, respectively.

We know that those in the 18-24 age bracket have been subjected to indoctrination in intersectional and critical race theory myths so prevalent in the American educational system. These toxic ideas don't merely heighten racial divisions, but identify Jews and Israel as possessing "white privilege" and "oppressors" of Palestinian "people of color." That's in spite of the fact that the conflict between Israelis and Arabs isn't racial and the majority of Israeli Jews are themselves considered "people of color since they trace their origins to the Middle East or North Africa.

Those of college- and graduate-school age are particularly likely to have been exposed to these false ideas. They also have most likely been in classes where these ideas were treated not as controversial theories but as current orthodoxy that cannot be questioned, let alone disputed, without exposing oneself to the danger of being falsely labeled as a "racist."

So, it figures that a question pushing those specific buttons would elicit an answer from this group that affirms the big lie about Jews being "oppressors." The same factor explains other responses to the survey.

An equally shocking 60% of 18- to 24-year-olds also said that the Hamas atrocities of Oct. 7 were "justified by the grievances of the Palestinians." Large majorities of every other age group said they were not justified. Fully 60% of the 18- to 24-year-olds also supported the smear that Israel is committing "genocide" in Gaza, and 76% of them bought into the fairy tale that Hamas "can be negotiated with to create peace rather than merely being committed to Israel's destruction," though sadly, larger numbers of older Americans were also willing to accept those false claims. And 53% of 18- to 24-year-olds think that college students should be free to advocate for the genocide of Jews.

It's possible to exaggerate the significance of these results. Other answers from the 18-24 age category contradict them. Astonishingly, 70% think that Israel is trying to avoid killing civilians in Gaza and 58% of them think that Hamas would like to commit genocide in Israel. Another 62% also agree that Hamas is using civilians as human shields.

It should also be noted that the 18- to 24-year-olds are the only group in the poll that believes, by a 64%-36% majority, that Hamas is supported by the majority of Palestinians. In this case, it is the 18- to 24-year-olds who are right, and older Americans, who hold onto the myth that most of them oppose the terrorists, who are wrong, as polls of Palestinians affirm.

To put it in a broader context, the 18- to 24-year-olds also said they support the idea that "white people are oppressors" and non-whites "should be favored at universities and employment," a stance opposed by other age groups.

Taken as a whole, the Harvard/Harris poll shows that young people are confused about most of the facts of the current war between Israel and the Hamas terrorist organization in the Gaza Strip. But even if you regard many of the questions as phrased in a manner to produce the answers the pollsters got, these numbers are in line with many other polls that show widespread support for woke ideology and hostility to Israel among the young.

Post-October 7 antisemitic surge

There was already an abundance of evidence showing that leftist ideologies divide humanity into two groups — oppressors and victims — and labeling Jews and Israel among the former was influencing American society. Antipathy for Israel and Zionism in most academic venues — rooted in neo-Marxist ideas about imperialism that go back to Soviet propaganda and the American New Left of the 1960s — was already a given in the second decade of the 21st century. But it became more obvious once the Black Lives Matter movement embraced anti-Israel smears and legitimized the intersectional myth that the Palestinian war to destroy Israel was analogous to the struggle for civil rights in the United States. Still, this link, which was politically problematic for those who wished to stay in sync with fashionable liberal causes, was dismissed by most mainstream Jewish groups as either untrue or insignificant.

But in the aftermath of the Hamas atrocities of Oct. 7, the surge in hatred for Israel and Jews that manifested itself in mass demonstrations on the streets of American cities and at college campuses made the reasons for this impossible to ignore any longer.

To the shock of many Jews and mainstream liberals of all faiths, including those who had always been critical of Israeli governments and sympathetic to the Palestinians, the largest mass slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust provoked a massive wave of sympathy for the killers and hostility to the victims.

The only way to explain that is a recognition that a generation of Americans has been educated to believe that Israel is a colonial implant in the Middle East where "whites" oppress people of color much in the same way they believe that America and the West is also institutionally racist. This ignores the fact that the Jews are the indigenous people of Israel not foreign colonizers.

The notion that America is an irremediably racist nation is itself a slander aimed at tearing down U.S. institutions that are themselves dedicated to advancing the cause of liberty and equality. In their place, the newly ascendant leftist establishment offers a woke catechism of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). That new faith opposes diversity of opinion, demands equity or equal outcomes determined by race as opposed to equal opportunity, and includes only certain approved minorities — but not Jews.

Foolishly, for some in the Jewish community, including the Anti-Defamation League, the answer to this problem is to get the Jews included in DEI. More of this racial division is bad for America in general. But it also won't work because the intersectional mindset is based on Marxist ideas that demonize Israel and the Jews. Advocates for this ideology have already conquered academia, and are now doing the same in the corporate world and even the government due to the Biden administration's embrace of DEI.

This is why so many people who consider themselves "progressives" and claim to oppose hate are chanting for Israel's destruction ("from the river to the sea") and the genocide of the Jews ("globalize the intifada"). It also explains why feminists refuse to condemn the rapes of Israeli women and girls (and in some instances, men) by Palestinians, and others tear down posters of Israeli kidnapping victims. They consider any attention diverted from the plight of Palestinians to be pro-Israel "propaganda," dismissing or denying the atrocities that took place on Oct. 7.

This is outrageous in and of itself, as well as deeply troubling for American Jews, including those who weren't previously particularly concerned about defending the security of Israel. But what even many who have focused on particular elements of this problem — whether feminist hypocrisy or the willingness of university administrators to either justify or refuse to oppose actions that endanger Jewish students — are missing is that it points to an even bigger problem.

Exceptionalism in peril

American Jews have prospered specifically because this country was not like any other place on earth, including the democracies of Western Europe. That was based not just on a constitutional system that prohibited discrimination on the basis of religion but on a value system that prioritized the rights of the individual and equal opportunity. And it is those specific values that are considered obsolete by the true believers in DEI and the intersectional left. If they succeed — and their long march through U.S. institutions has already been largely successful — then American exceptionalism is finished.

It's not just that a generation of Americans is being exposed to these toxic concepts in schools that have been taken over by adherents of these ideologies, and therefore naturally more inclined to think ill of Israel and the Jews. It's that their influence over U.S. culture and discourse will make the country a less friendly place for Jewish life. An America that is no longer different from the rest of the world simply cannot continue to be the freest and best place for Jews in the history of the Diaspora.

If DEI is not rolled back in the universities, the secondary schools and everywhere it has been implanted — a daunting but not impossible task — then it isn't going too far to say that Jewish life in the United States will never be the same. The Harvard/Harris poll results about young Americans believing in antisemitic tropes about Jewish oppressors are just a hint at what's to come if the task of defeating the intersectional left isn't prioritized. It is a reminder that the litmus test indicating whether someone is willing to stand up against antisemitism is now their attitude towards woke ideology.

Corporate Influences on Science and Health

Corporate Influences on Science and Health—the Case of Spinal Cord Stimulation

Adrian C. Traeger, PhD1; Lisa A. Bero, PhD2

Author Affiliations Article Information

JAMA Intern Med. Published online December 18, 2023. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.6962

Corporations have been developing tactics to undermine independent science for decades.1 In the 1950s, on learning of the damaging effects of tobacco on health, the tobacco industry used campaigns of criticism to defend their products and the substantial revenue they were generating. Corporations could effectively cast doubt over any unfavorable findings by creating industry-funded counterevidence (original studies and reviews), supporting researchers to write criticisms, and providing a venue for publication in industry-sponsored journals. These tactics and others extended beyond the tobacco industry: pharmaceutical, lead, vinyl chloride, and silicosis-generating industries have all used similar approaches to protect profits.2 Recently, we have observed some of the same tactics used by the spinal cord stimulator industry.

In the past 3 years, several independent studies have questioned the safety and efficacy of spinal cord stimulation to manage pain. Our 2023 Cochrane review,3 an earlier review by O’Connell and colleagues,4 and key articles published in JAMA5,6 and JAMA Neurology7 from industry-independent teams found evidence of no benefit on pain and risk of harms. Authors funded by the spinal cord stimulator industry were swift to respond. We located 18 critiques of the Cochrane reviews and JAMA Network articles, all written by industry-funded authors. Herein, we share our experiences, as a recent subject of these critiques (A.C.T.) and as a researcher of commercial interests in research (L.A.B.), and reflect on how the critiques illustrate broader issues in the way corporations continue to influence science and health.

Control the Discourse

Industry-funded critics of independent studies often do not follow the usual route of scientific discourse. Rather than respond to the journal where the original study was published, critics frequently publish in journals where they are the editors and can control the discourse (15 of 18 letters criticizing the independent studies cited in this article appeared in journals with industry-affiliated editors). The journal can then choose to paywall the subsequent response from the independent authors, giving critics the last word. Critics of our Cochrane review3 claiming errors published a 1400-word open access critique in their own journal. We were then allowed 700 words to respond, and that response was paywalled (though we did have the option to pay an open access fee for $4612). The Cochrane review by O’Connell and colleagues4 attracted a 4000-word critique in a journal where the senior author was editor in chief. In both cases, critics were industry funded and chose to avoid accepted Cochrane channels, where conflicts must be declared.

Attack the Credibility of Independent Scientists

Another industry strategy to undermine science is to attack the credibility of the researchers rather than the research. We and other independent researchers of spinal cord stimulation have been accused of being incompetent, naive, or ourselves conflicted. Dhruva and colleagues7 were accused of conflict due to affiliation with an insurance company that would not benefit directly from the outcome of their study. The credibility of our review team was attacked because one of the authors of our Cochrane review3 had authored books on harms in health care. Critics may attack an author team’s professional expertise. These tactics distract readers by implying that all authors have conflicts of some kind and that only experts in interventional pain management can conduct rigorous research.

Emphasize “Real-World Studies” Over Rigorous Trials

Both Cochrane reviews3,4 were criticized for excluding studies that did not meet their published, prespecified inclusion criteria. Critics suggested that efficacy and safety have already been established, so the focus of research should be on “real-world studies” rather than on placebo-controlled trials. In this context, a real-world study is an unblinded study that compares different patterns of stimulation in people who already have a stimulator implanted, or one that compares spinal cord stimulation with other care options such as spinal surgery. Although well-designed unblinded studies can inform practice, these study designs are at risk of performance bias and, in the absence of evidence of efficacy, could be comparing 2 or more harmful treatments. Until efficacy is established through rigorous trials, the real-world studies promoted by critics are likely to be more misleading than informative, hence their exclusion from the Cochrane reviews.

Critique Parts of the Research but Not the Whole

The trial by Hara and colleagues,5 published in JAMA, was, to our knowledge, the first placebo-controlled trial of spinal cord stimulation from a team without financial conflicts. It successfully blinded patients, surgeons, investigators, and the trial statistician. The trial found no benefit of spinal cord stimulation on pain and disability outcomes in people with radicular pain. Industry-funded critics attempted to invalidate the findings by claiming the stimulation settings used during the intervention periods were incorrect. The trial was also criticized for preventing patients from controlling their own stimulator settings (to preserve patient blinding). However, Hara and colleagues used the stimulation settings recommended by the manufacturer, and their 6-month follow-up study6 has since shown no benefit of allowing patients to control their own stimulation settings. Of the 8 letters we located criticizing the trial, all focused on the stimulation settings, and none acknowledged the robust methods used to reduce risk of selection, performance, attrition, and reporting bias.

Fund Research and Scientists

Corporations influencing the design, conduct, and publication of studies to favor an industry-sponsored intervention is widely documented.1 By flooding the scientific literature with studies that favor their products, corporate interests appear to be proscience while distracting from unfavorable research. Critiques may cite industry-led studies as counterevidence. For example, most of the critiques of the trial by Hara and colleagues5 exclusively cited research from industry-funded authors.

Conflate Regulatory Approval With Efficacy and Safety

Critics claim that because the US Food and Drug Administration has approved use of spinal cord stimulators, and they have been widely used for decades, there is already evidence for efficacy and safety. This is not the case. Provision 510(k) requires that new medical devices need only be “substantially equivalent” to a product already on the market, even if the earlier product is itself untested.8 When the active device may be no more effective than placebo, the new device could have little to no effect and still enter the market.

Conclusions

The responses to recent research on spinal cord stimulation illustrate how corporations continue to undermine independent science. We have focused on tactics used in the academic literature; independent scientists are also at risk of industry-led attacks in the media, lawsuits, and attempts to have them expelled or sanctioned by their institutions. One solution would be to eliminate financial conflicts from research: the scientific community simply stops accepting funding or publishing work from industry-funded researchers (eg, BMJ, Cochrane, other journals that have prohibited publication of industry-funded research). Without a venue for publication, those with financial interests would lose their ability to launch critical campaigns in the literature. Solutions should extend further than journal policies. Academic institutions could commit to defending targeted individuals publicly (eg, through a focused communications strategy) and, if necessary, provide legal support in more serious cases. To maintain independence, professional organizations should not accept industry funding and should have strict policies to actively manage financial conflicts of their members. At a minimum, readers should recognize that attacks on independent science are often sustained and repetitive industry tactics to protect profits and should discount these criticisms.

Article Information

Corresponding Author: Adrian C. Traeger, PhD, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Level 10N, King George V Building, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (C39), PO Box M179, Missenden Road NSW 2050, Australia (adrian.traeger@sydney.edu.au).

Published Online: December 18, 2023. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.6962

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Bero is Senior Research Integrity Editor for Cochrane, for which the University of Colorado receives remuneration outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Shotgun Gold

 Here is the link.

What the climate models leave out - a fatal flaw

 A talk by Nir Shaviv and Henrik Svensmark.

Here is the link.

Another nail in the Climate Alarmists’ coffin?

 Ross McKitrick at Judith Curry's blog.

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

Climate attribution method overstates “fingerprints” of external forcing

I have a new paper in the peer-reviewed journal Environmetrics discussing biases in the “optimal fingerprinting” method which climate scientists use to attribute climatic changes to greenhouse gas emissions. This is the third in my series of papers on flaws in standard fingerprinting methods: blog posts on the first two are here and here.

Climatologists use a statistical technique called Total Least Squares (TLS), also called orthogonal regression, in their fingerprinting models to fix a problem in ordinary regression methods that can lead to the influence of external forcings being understated. My new paper argues that in typical fingerprinting settings TLS overcorrects and imparts large upward biases, thus overstating the impact of GHG forcing.

While the topic touches on climatology, for the most part the details involve regression methods which is what empirical economists like me are trained to do. I teach regression in my econometrics courses and I have studied and used it all my career. I mention this because if anyone objects that I’m not a “climate scientist” my response is: you’re right, I’m an economist which is why I’m qualified to talk about this.

I have previously shown that when the optimal fingerprinting regression is misspecified by leaving out explanatory variables that should be in it, TLS is biased upwards (other authors have also proven this theoretically). In that study I noted that when anthropogenic and natural forcings (ANTH and NAT) are negatively correlated the positive TLS bias increases. My new paper focuses just on this issue since, in practice, climate model-generated ANTH and NAT forcing series are negatively correlated. I show that in this case, even if no explanatory variables have been omitted from the regression, TLS estimates of forcing coefficients are usually too large. Among other things, since TLS-estimated coefficients are plugged into carbon budget models, this will result in a carbon budget being biased too small.

Background

In 1999 climatologists Myles Allen and Simon Tett published a paper in Climate Dynamics in which they proposed a Generalized Least Squares or GLS regression model for detecting the effects of forcings on climate. The IPCC immediately embraced the Allen&Tett method and in the 2001 3rd Assessment Report hailed it as the way to show a causal link between greenhouse forcing and observed climate change. It’s been relied upon ever since by the “fingerprinting” community and the IPCC. In 2021 I published a Comment in Climate Dynamics showing that the Allen & Tett method has theoretical flaws and that the arguments supporting its claim to be a valid method were false. I provided a non-technical explainer through the Global Warming Policy Foundation website. Myles Allen made a brief reply, to which I responded and then economist Richard Tol provided further comments. The exchange is at the GWPF website. My comment was published by Climate Dynamics in summer 2021, has been accessed over 21,000 times and its Altmetric score remains in the top 1% of all scientific articles published since that date. Two and a half years later Allen and Tett have yet to submit a reply.

Note: I just saw that a paper by Chinese statisticians Hanyue Chen et al. partially responding to my critique was published by Climate Dynamics. This is weird. In fall 2021 Chen et al submitted the paper to Climate Dynamics and I was asked to provide one of the referee reports, which I did. The paper was rejected. Now it’s been published even though the handling editor confirmed it was rejected. I’ve queried Climate Dynamics to find out what’s going on and they are investigating.

One of the arguments against my critique was that the Allen and Tett paper had been superseded by Allen and Stott 2001. While that paper incorporated the same incorrect theory from Allen and Tett 1999, its refinement was to replace the GLS regression step with TLS as a solution to the problem that the climate model-generated ANTH and NAT “signals” are noisy estimates of the unobservable true signals. In a regression model if your explanatory variables have random errors in them, GLS yields coefficient estimates that tend to be biased low.

This problem is well-known in econometrics. Long before Allen and Stott 2001, econometricians had shown that a method called Instrumental Variables (IV) could remedy it and yield unbiased and consistent coefficient estimates. Allen and Stott didn’t mention IV; instead they proposed TLS and the entire climatology field simply followed their lead. But does TLS solve the problem?

No one has been able to prove that it does except under very restrictive assumptions and you can’t be sure if they hold or not. If they don’t hold, then TLS generates unreliable results, which is why researchers in other fields don’t like it. The problem is that TLS requires more information than the data set contains. This requires the researcher to make arbitrary assumptions to reduce the number of parameters needing to be estimated. The most common assumption is that the error variances are the same on the dependent and explanatory variables alike.

The typical application involves regressing a dependent “Y” variable on a bunch of explanatory “X” variables, and in the errors-in-variables case we assume the latter are unavailable. Instead we observe “W’s” which are noisy approximations to the X’s. Suppose we assume the variances of the errors on the X’s are all the same and equal S times the variance of the errors on the Y variable. If this turns out to be true, so S=1, and we happen to assume S=1, TLS can in some circumstances yield unbiased coefficients. But in general we don’t know if S=1, and if it doesn’t, TLS can go completely astray.

In the limited literature discussing properties of TLS estimators it is usually assumed that the explanatory variables are uncorrelated. As part of my work on the fingerprinting method I obtained a set of model-generated climate signals from CMIP5 models and I noticed that the ANTH and NAT signals are always negatively correlated (the average correlation coefficient is -0.6). I also noticed that the signals don’t have the same variances (which is a separate issue from the error terms not having the same variances).

The experiment

In my new paper I set up an artificial fingerprinting experiment in which I know the correct answer in advance and I can vary several parameters which affect the outcome: the error variance ratio S; the correlation between the W’s; and the relative variances of the X’s. I ran repeated experiments based in turn on the assumption that the true value of beta (the coefficient connecting GHG’s to observed climate change) is 0 or 1. Then I measured the biases that arise when using TLS and GLS (GLS in this case is equivalent to OLS, or ordinary least squares).

These graphs show the coefficient biases using OLS when the experiment is run on simulated X’s with average relative variances (see the paper for versions where the relative variances are lower or higher).



The left panel is the case when the true value of beta = 0 (which implies no influence of GHGs on climate) and the right is the case when true beta=1 (which implies the GHG influence is “detected” and the climate models are consistent with observations). The lines aren’t the same length because not all parameter combinations are theoretically possible. The horizontal axis measures the correlation between the observed signals, which in the data I’ve seen is always less than -0.2. The vertical axis measures the bias in the fingerprinting coefficient estimate. The colour coding refers to the assumed value of S. Blue is S=0, which is the situation in which the X’s are measured without error so OLS is unbiased, which is why the blue line tracks the horizontal (zero bias) axis. From black to grey corresponds to S rising from 0 to just under 1, and red corresponds to S=1. Yellow and green correspond to S >1.

As you can see, if true beta=0, OLS is unbiased; but if beta = 1 or any other positive value, OLS is biased downward as expected. However the bias goes to zero as S goes to 0. In practice, you can shrink S by using averages of multiple ensemble runs.

Here are the biases for TLS in the same experiments:

There are some notable differences. First, the biases are usually large and positive, and they don’t necessarily go away even if S=0 (or S=1). If the true value of beta =1, then there are cases in which the TLS coefficient is unbiased. But how would you know if you are in that situation? You’d need to know what S is, and what the true value of beta is. But of course you don’t (if you did, you wouldn’t need to run the regression!)

What this means is that if an optimal fingerprinting regression yields a large positive coefficient on the ANTH signal this might mean GHG’s affect the climate, or it might mean that they don’t (the true value of beta=0) and TLS is simply biased. The researcher cannot tell which is the case just by looking at the regression results. In the paper I explain some diagnostics that help indicate if TLS can be used, but ultimately relying on TLS requires assuming you are in a situation in which TLS is reliable.

The results are particularly interesting when the true value of beta=0. A fingerprinting, or “signal detection” test starts by assuming beta=0 then constructing a t-statistic using the estimated coefficients. OLS and GLS are fine for this since if beta=0 the coefficient estimates are unbiased. But if beta=0 a t-statistic constructed using the TLS coefficient can be severely biased. The only cases in which TLS is reliably unbiased occur when beta is not zero. But you can’t run a test of beta=0 that depends on the assumption that beta is not zero. Any such test is spurious and meaningless.

Which means that the past 20 years worth of “signal detection” claims are likely meaningless unless steps were taken in the original articles to prove the suitability of TLS or verify its results with another nonbiased estimator.

I was unsuccessful in getting this paper published in the two climate science journals to which I submitted it. In both cases the point on which the paper was rejected was a (climatologist) referee insisting S is known in fingerprinting applications and always equals 1/root(n) where n is the number of runs in an ensemble mean. But S only takes that value if, for each ensemble member, S is assumed to equal 1. One reviewer conceded the possibility that S might be unknown but pointed out that it’s long been known TLS is unreliable in that case and I haven’t provided a solution to the problem.

In my submission to Environmetrics I provided the referee comments that had led to its rejection in climate journals and explained how I expanded the text to state why it is not appropriate to assume S=1. I also asked that at least one reviewer be a statistician, and as it turned out both were. One of them, after noting that statisticians and econometricians don’t like TLS, added:

“it seems to me that the target audience of the paper are practitioners using TLS quite acritically for climatological applications. How large is this community and how influential are conclusions drawn on the basis of TLS, say in the scientific debate concerning attribution?”

In my reply I did my best to explain its influence on the climatology field. I didn’t add, but could have, that 20 years’ worth of applications of TLS are ultimately what brought 100,000 bigwigs to Dubai for COP28 to demand the phaseout of the world’s best energy sources based on estimates of the role of anthropogenic forcings on the climate that are likely heavily overstated. Based on the political impact and economic consequences of its application, TLS is one of the most influential statistical methodologies in the world, despite experts viewing it as highly unreliable compared to readily available alternatives like IV.

Another reviewer said:

“TLS seems to generate always poor performances compared to the OLS. Nonetheless, TLS seems to be the ‘standard’ in fingerprint applications… why is the TLS so popular in physics-related applications?”

Good question! My guess is because it keeps generating answers that climatologists like and they have no incentive to come to terms with its weaknesses. But you don’t have to step far outside climatology to find genuine bewilderment that people use it instead of IV.

Conclusion

For more than 20 years climate scientists—virtually alone among scientific disciplines—have used TLS to estimate anthropogenic GHG signal coefficients despite its tendency to be unreliable unless some strong assumptions hold that in practice are unlikely to be true. Under conditions which easily arise in optimal fingerprinting, TLS yields estimates with large positive biases. Thus any study that has used TLS for optimal fingerprinting without verifying that it is appropriate in the specific data context has likely overstated the result.

In my paper I discuss how a researcher might go about trying to figure out whether TLS is justified in a specific application, but it’s not always possible. In many cases it would be better to use OLS even though it’s known to be biased downward. The problem is that TLS typically has even bigger biases in the opposite direction and there is no sure way of knowing how bad they are. These biases carry over to the topic of “carbon budgets” which are now being cited by courts in climate litigation including here in Canada. TLS-derived signal coefficients yield systematically underestimated carbon budgets.

The IV estimation method has been known at least since the 1960s to be asymptotically unbiased in the errors-in-variables case, yet climatologists don’t use it. So the predictable next question is why haven’t I done a fingerprinting regression using IV methods? I have, but it will be a while before I get the results written up and in the meantime the technique is widely known so anyone who wants to can try it and see what happens.

Predicting aortic aneurysm with 98% accuracy

 Here is the link.

Here are some excerpts.

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

Northwestern University researchers have developed the first physics-based metric to predict whether or not a person might someday suffer an aortic aneurysm, a deadly condition that often causes no symptoms until it ruptures.

In the new study, the researchers forecasted abnormal aortic growth by measuring subtle "fluttering" in a patient's blood vessel. As blood flows through the aorta, it can cause the vessel wall to flutter, similar to how a banner ripples in the breeze. While stable flow predicts normal, natural growth, unstable flutter is highly predictive of future abnormal growth and potential rupture, the researchers found.

Called the "flutter instability parameter" (FIP), the new metric predicted future aneurysm with 98% accuracy on average three years after the FIP was first measured. To calculate a personalized FIP, patients only need a single 4D flow magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan.

Using the clinically measurable, predictive metric, physicians could prescribe medications to high-risk patients to intervene and potentially prevent the aorta from swelling to a dangerous size.

The research was published this week (Dec. 11) in the journal Nature Biomedical Engineering.

"Aortic aneurysms are colloquially referred to as 'silent killers' because they often go undetected until catastrophic dissection or rupture occurs," said Northwestern's Neelesh A. Patankar, senior author of the study. "The fundamental physics driving aneurysms has been unknown. As a result, there is no clinically approved protocol to predict them. Now, we have demonstrated the efficacy of a physics-based metric that helps predict future growth. This could be transformational in predicting cardiac pathologies."

An expert on fluid dynamics, Patankar is a professor of mechanical engineering at Northwestern's McCormick School of Engineering. He co-led the study with Dr. Tom Zhao, who specializes in first principles biomechanics.

Growing danger

An aortic aneurysm occurs when the aorta (the largest artery in the human body) swells to greater than 1.5 times its original size. As it grows, the aorta's wall weakens. Eventually, the wall becomes so weak that it can no longer withstand the pressure of blood flowing through it, causing the aorta to rupture. Although rare, an aortic rupture is usually unpredictable and almost always fatal.

Several prominent people have died from aortic aneurysm, including Grant Wahl, a sports journalist who died suddenly one year ago at the 2022 FIFA World Cup. Other celebrity deaths include John Ritter, Lucille Ball and Albert Einstein.

"Most people don't realize they have an aneurysm unless it is accidentally detected when they receive a scan for an unrelated issue," Patankar said. "If physicians detect it, they can suggest lifestyle changes or prescribe medication to lower blood pressure, heart rate and cholesterol. If it goes undetected, it can rupture, which is an immediate catastrophic event."

"If it ruptures when the person is outside of a hospital, the death rate is close to 100%," Zhao added. "The blood supply to the body stops, so critical organs like the brain can no longer function."
Removing the guesswork

For current standard of care, physicians estimate chance of rupture based on risk factors (such as age or smoking history) and the size of the aorta. To monitor a growing aorta, physicians track it with regular imaging scans. If the aorta starts to grow too quickly or become too large, then a patient often will undergo a surgical graft to reinforce the vessel wall, an invasive procedure that carries its own risks.

"Our collective lack of understanding makes it hard to monitor aneurysm progression," Zhao said. "Doctors need to regularly track the size of an aneurysm by imaging its location every one to five years depending on how fasts it grew previously and whether the patient has any associated diseases. Over this 'wait and see' period, an aneurysm can fatally burst."

To remove the guesswork from predicting future aneurysms, Patankar, Zhao and their collaborators sought to capture the fundamental physics underlying the problem. In extensive mathematical work and analyses, they discovered that problems arise when the fluttering vessel wall transitions from stable to unstable. This instability either causes or signals an aneurysm.

"Fluttering is a mechanical signature of future growth," Patankar said.

John Cochrane on the theory of regulation

 Here is the link to his blog.

JC is on target.

Freedom is waning fast.

Here are some excerpts.

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

What's the basic story of economic regulation?

Econ 101 courses repeat the benevolent dictator theory of regulation: There is a "market failure," natural monopoly, externality, or asymmetric information. Benevolent regulators craft optimal restrictions to restore market order. In political life "consumer protection" is often cited, though it doesn't fit that economic structure.

Then "Chicago school" scholars such as George Stigler looked at how regulations actually operated. They found "regulatory capture." Businesses get cozy with regulators, and bit by bit regulations end up largely keeping competition down and prices up to benefit existing businesses.

We are, I think, seeing round three, and an opportunity for a fundamentally new basic view of how regulation operates today.

The latest news item to prod this thought is FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr's scathing dissent on the FCC's decision to cancel $885 million contract to Starlink. Via twitter/X:



Quoting from the dissent itself (my emphasis):

Last year, after Elon Musk acquired Twitter and used it to voice his own political and ideological views without a filter, President Biden gave federal agencies a greenlight to go after him. During a press conference at the White House, President Biden stood at a podium adorned with the official seal of the President of the United States, and expressed his view that Elon Musk “is worth being looked at.”1 When pressed by a reporter to explain how the government would look into Elon Musk, President Biden remarked: “There’s a lot of ways.”2 There certainly are. The Department of Justice, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Trade Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have all initiated investigations into Elon Musk or his businesses.

Today, the Federal Communications Commission adds itself to the growing list of administrative agencies that are taking action against Elon Musk’s businesses. I am not the first to notice a pattern here. Two months ago, The Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote that “the volume of government investigations into his businesses makes us wonder if the Biden Administration is targeting him for regulatory harassment.”3 After all, the editorial board added, Elon Musk has become “Progressive Enemy No. 1.” Today’s decision certainly fits the Biden Administration’s pattern of regulatory harassment. Indeed, the Commission’s decision today to revoke a 2020 award of $885 million to Elon Musk’s Starlink—an award that Starlink secured after agreeing to provide high-speed Internet service to over 640,000 rural homes and businesses across 35 states—is a decision that cannot be explained by any objective application of law, facts, or policy.

When the Biden administration launches an "all of government" initiative, they mean all of government.

A tweeter queries



Show me the man, and I'll find the crime. Three felonies a day.

In the same vein, I found most interesting in the twitter files and scathing Missouri V. Biden decision the question, just how did the government force tech companies to censor the government's political opponents? "Nice business you have there. It would be a shame if the alphabet soup agencies had to look into it."

This doesn't fit either the econ 101, benevolent nanny, or regulatory capture view. Fundamentally, regulators have captured the industry, not the other way around. They hold arbitrary discretionary power to impose huge costs or just shut down companies. They use this power to elicit political support from the companies. There is a bit of old Chicago school capture in the deal. Companies get protected markets. But the regulators now don't just want a few three martini lunches and a cozy revolving door to "consultant" jobs. They demand, political support. The regulators are more political ideologues than gently corruptible insiders.

Sometimes regulators seem to attack businesses just for fun, like suing a moving company for age discrimination. But maybe here too they are showing everyone what they can do, or scoring some ideological points so people get the message.

The increasing arbitrariness of regulation is part of the process. I find myself nostalgic for the good old days of the Administrative Procedures Act, public comment, cost benefit analysis, and formal rule making. Now regulators just write letters or take legal action, which even if unsuccessful can bankrupt a company. Using administrative courts, the regulators are prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner all rolled in to one.

Unrelated. $885 million / 640,000 = $1,3825. The federal government apparently thinks it's worthwhile for taxpayers to pay $1,382 to give rural households access to satellite internet. If anyone asked, "would you rather $x in cash or a starlink account?" (which, I think, they also have to pay for) I wonder if x would be much more than $50.

Perspective on the Israeli – Hamas situation

 

Fast Shooting

Dave Anderson at the American Handgunner.

Here is the link. 

I Do Care

 Gustavo L. Franklin, MD, PhD at JAMA Neurology

I always strive to give attention to the patients I work with and seek to be kind and polite, even on the most difficult days for me. Like everyone, there are good days and bad days. I try to balance this with my family, and I always try not to get too involved, despite doing my best in my profession. However, today, in the last few minutes of a routine consultation, the husband of a patient with Alzheimer disease said to me that nobody cares. He said he tries not to care too, but he does care.

It startled me for a moment before he continued to say that each morning, he wakes up and doesn’t see his wife; he sees a child with a frightened look, a mere shadow of the person she once was, the one he loved, the one who raised their children. He gets up, speaks to her, but he is barely heard. Sometimes, he is not even remembered as she confuses him with someone else. When he feeds her, she dislikes the things she used to like. When he tells a joke, she no longer laughs. He shares all this with people, but nobody seems to care. When she does something wrong, he guides her; when she does something right, he praises her, but she seems not to care. He tells his family, and they say it’s the disease, there’s nothing to be done. It seems to him they don’t care either. He tells the physicians, and they say there’s no cure. He guesses they don’t care. The days go by, and they don’t get easier; they get harder. Much harder. He tries not to care, but he does care. He says she gave so much of herself to their family; she was the heart and soul. Today, the family doesn’t see her, doesn’t hear her, doesn’t feel her. Every night before going to sleep, he would kiss her and ask if she preferred the bathroom light on. He did that for 45 years, even knowing the answer, he asked every night. Tonight, when he goes to bed, whether he leaves it on or turns it off, it hardly matters. Sometimes he has moments of happiness when she remembers something or speaks as she used to, as if she were still his love. He confesses, it takes so little now to bring him joy. Other days, he says, he surrenders to despair. He says he tries not to care, but he does care. The other day, someone said to him that she will soon be gone. He spent a long two minutes trying to understand if that would be good or bad. Then they continued, saying that God knows what He’s doing. He says he tried to think of God, but he thinks He doesn’t care either....

When that gentle old man with a white beard finished pouring out his heart, I saw the significance of the physician facing the patient. The helplessness of patients and relatives in the face of insufficient medicine. Comfort may not be enough. From the height of the white coat’s sanctum and behind the marble of the desk that separated us, I could only remember Hippocrates’ phrase: “To cure when possible; to alleviate when necessary; to console always.” Then, I interrupted him: I care.

He cried. I cried.

Once again, I was reminded that we treat people, not diseases.

I confess. Sometimes, I try not to care.

But I do care.

FDA warns of rare but serious drug reaction to the antiseizure medicines le-vetiracetam (Keppra, Keppra XR, Elepsia XR, Spritam) and clobazam (Onfi, Sympazan)

FDA warns of rare but serious drug reaction to the antiseizure medicines levetiracetam (Keppra, Keppra XR, Elepsia XR, Spritam) and clobazam (Onfi, Sympazan) | FDA
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is warning that the antiseizure medicines levetiracetam (Keppra, Keppra XR, Elepsia XR, Spritam) and clobazam (Onfi, Sympazan), can cause a rare but serious reaction that can be life-threatening if not diagnosed and treated quickly. This reaction is called Drug Reaction with Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms (DRESS). It may start as a rash but can quickly progress, resulting in injury to internal organs, the need for hospitalization, and even death. As a result, we are requiring warnings about this risk to be added to the prescribing information and patient Medication Guides for these medicines.

This hypersensitivity reaction to these medicines is serious but rare. DRESS can include fever, rash, swollen lymph nodes, or injury to organs including the liver, kidneys, lungs, heart, or pancreas.

The Guardians of Democracy

 From Jonathan Turley.

JT is on target.

Democracy is under attack - most effectively by those who are claiming they are trying to protect it.

The intellectual dishonesty and just plain dishonesty in pursuit of power is astonishing. That so many voters are on board with it is even more astonishing (not really - what do you expect from the educational system).

Both Democrats and Repubicans fight for power. But, currently, it is the Democrats appear to be better at it and willing to do more damage to our freedom to obtain it - hence are more dangerous.

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

The Guardians of Democracy: Democrats Move to Protect Democracy from Itself

Below is my column in the Hill on efforts to bar or limit voting in the primary and general presidential elections. What is so striking is how these distinctly anti-democratic actions are being taken in the name of democracy.

Here is the column:

Across news sites, Democrats are warning of the imminent death of democracy. Hillary Clinton has warned that a Trump victory would be the end of democracy. MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow is warning of “executions.” Even actors like Robert DeNiro are predicting that this may be our very last democratic election.

Yet these harbingers of tyranny are increasingly pursuing the very course that will make their predictions come true. The Democratic Party is actively seeking to deny voters choices in this election, supposedly to save democracy.

Henry Ford once promised customers any color so long as it is black. Democrats are adopting the same approach to the election: You can have any candidate on the ballot, as long as it’s Joe Biden.

This week, the Executive Committee of the Florida Democratic Democracy told voters that they would not be allowed to vote against Biden. Even though he has opponents in the primary, the party leadership has ordered that only Biden will appear on the primary ballot.

And if you want to register your discontent with Biden with a write-in vote, forget about it. Under Florida law, if the party approves only one name, there will be no primary ballots at all. The party just called the election for Biden before a single vote has been cast.

This is not unprecedented. It happened with Barack Obama in 2012 and, on the Republican side, with George W. Bush in 2004. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now.

As Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.) noted, “Americans would expect the absence of democracy in Tehran, not Tallahassee. Our mission as Democrats is to defeat authoritarians, not become them.”

In Iran, the mullahs routinely bar opposition candidates from ballots as “Guardians” of the ballots.

There is good reason for the Biden White House to want the election called before it is held. A CNN poll found that two out of three Democrats believe that the party should nominate someone else. A Wall Street Journal poll that found 73 percent of voters say Biden is “too old to run for president.”

The party leadership is solving that problem by depriving Democratic voters of a choice.

In other states, Democratic politicians and lawyers are pursuing a different strategy: “You can have any candidate, as long as it isn’t Trump.”

They are seeking to bar Trump from ballots under a novel theory about the 14th Amendment. In states from Colorado to Michigan, Democratic operatives are arguing that Trump must be taken off the ballots because he gave “aid and comfort” to an “insurrection or rebellion.” Other Democrats have called for more than 120 other Republicans to be stripped from the ballots under the same claim tied to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

This effort is being supported by academics such as Laurence Tribe, who previously called for Trump to be charged with the attempted murder of former Vice President Mike Pence.

In a recent filing supporting this effort, figures as prominent as media lawyer Floyd Abrams and Berkeley Dean Erwin Chemerinsky have told the Colorado Supreme Court that preventing voters from being able to cast their votes for Trump is just a way of “fostering democracy.” So long as courts believe that a candidate’s speech is “capable of triggering disqualification,” that speech is unprotected in their view.

I have long criticized this theory as legally and historically unfounded. It is also an extremely dangerous theory that would allow majorities in different states to ban opposing candidates in tit-for-tat actions.

So far, these efforts around the country have met with defeat in court after court, but the effort continues, and with the support of many in the media.

Some national polls show Trump as the most popular candidate for the 2024 election, while a few show Biden slightly ahead. Yet, despite 74 million voters supporting Trump in the last election, these Democrats are insisting that voters should not be allowed to vote for him, in the name of democracy.

In fairness to Democratic partisans like Clinton and Maddow, they could well be right. The 2024 election could well prove the end to democracy — if these efforts succeeded in purging ballots of opposing candidates.

It is all part of an electoral variation on the Vietnam War claim that it is sometimes necessary to destroy a village in order to save it.

Democrats claim to be right and to have the best of motivations, which is why they feel justified in saving democracy by denying it to the voters. After all, it is all about motivation where any means are justified. They are trying to save democracy by limiting it.

Thus, it is an assault on democracy for Republican lawyers to challenge elections based on alleged problems with voting machines, but it is protecting democracy for former Clinton general counsel (and founder of the “Democracy Docket”) Marc Elias to claim that a machine could flip the results in favor of the GOP.

In Tehran, a popular joke emerged after the “Guardian Council” approved only one candidate, Chief Justice Ebrahim Raisi, to appear on a ballot. Democracy, the joke went, was safe, because the Guardians would allow Raisi to run against six other spellings of his own name.

The American election guardians in Florida did one better. They have arranged for there to be no ballot at all. Who needs the pretense of a primary when you can simply dictate the result?

Yet, rest assured, you may be able to cast a vote for an approved slate of candidates of healthy choices. Consider it a type of “Big Gulp” election, where you are protected against your own bad choices like a sugary drink at 7-11.

Actor Seth Rogen has pledged to “vote for whoever is the Democrat. That’s all I need to know.” If these efforts are successful, many voters could be left with that single liberating choice.