The gas stove furor and the flawed study that started it

Blair King discusses why the study that created the anti-gas crowd is fatally flawed. There is no evidence that gas stoves should be banned for health reasons.

BK is a Professional Chemist with an Interdisciplinary PhD in Chemistry and Environmental Studies with an undergraduate degree in Chemistry and Biology.

Once again, those driven by agenda and power as opposed to what is good for the Country, are using selective flawed statistics to mislead the rest of us. About the only thing you can count on from this ilk is dishonesty.

Here is BK's perspective.

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

The news has been full recently with stories about the risk of childhood asthma caused by natural gas stoves. As someone who specializes in risk assessment and has experience with indoor air chemistry this seemed like it was right up my alley. As I went digging through the research; however, I discovered that the research seemed less about providing a good scientific examination of the topic and and more about generating a lot of headlines and press discussion of the topic.

The furor is all derived from a recent study published in an open-source journal called Population Attributable Fraction of Gas Stoves and Childhood Asthma in the United States (Gruenwald et al., 2022). The paper itself doesn’t present any new data but rather applies a rather arcane type of mathematical attribution analysis (Population Attributable Fraction or PAF) to the results from a ten-year-old meta-analysis that summarized work from the 80’s and 90’s. Needless to say, the paper absolutely doesn’t advance the science in any useful manner and appears designed instead to induce political change rather than inform policy.

Two of the authors of the paper are Talor Gruenwald and Brady A. Seals. Many of us are familiar with these names as they both work for the Rocky Mountain Institute. For those not familiar RMI is:

an independent, non-partisan, nonprofit organization of experts across disciplines working to accelerate the clean energy transition and improve lives.

Now I’m not going to slag the RMI as it really does do good work. But it is absolutely fair to note that two authors who work for an organization that is dedicated to transforming the global energy system to secure a clean, prosperous, zero-carbon future for all might not be the totally objective scientists you want doing your research on natural gas stoves.

Before we get too deep into evaluating the data used in the paper, I think it is pretty important we start with a little background on the critical statistical tool used in this paper (PAF). As described in the literature PAF

is an epidemiologic measure widely used to assess the public health impact of exposures in populations. PAF is defined as the fraction of all cases of a particular disease or other adverse condition in a population that is attributable to a specific exposure.

That sounds like a pretty useful measure but there is a hitch. PAF has been around since the 1950s but a Google Scholar search of the term finds less than 17,000 hits. From an academic perspective, this tells you a lot about the technique. A statistical tool in epidemiology (a field that publishes thousands of papers a year) that has been around for 70 years and only appears in a few thousand papers must have some issues, and PAF absolutely does. The big complaint is that PAF doesn’t work when there are multiple confounding variables. The challenge for academics unfamiliar with the tool PAF is

found in many widely used epidemiology texts, but often with no warning about invalidness when confounding exists.

So let’s consider Asthma as a disease. According to the American Lung Association Asthma can be caused by: Family History (genetics), Allergies. Viral respiratory infections in youth, Occupational exposures. Smoking, Air pollution and Obesity. Do you know what a statistician would call each of those SEVEN different causes of asthma? Confounding variables! So here we have a statistical analysis that is invalid when used in the presence of confounding variables and we have a disease that can be caused by a half dozen other factors, that are not controlled for in the analysis.

Reading the Gruenwald et al paper carefully, one discovers the terms “confounding” and “variable” do not appear. It is thus possible the authors simply did not recognize the issues with this statistical tool for this type of analysis as that omission would typically result in a bench rejection in most well-respected journals.

Another challenge with this paper is the data used to derive its conclusions. The research for this paper started with an evaluation of the academic literature. The authors started where most authors on this topic start. With the 2013 Meta-analysis of the effects of indoor nitrogen dioxide and gas cooking on asthma and wheeze in children by Lin, Brunekreef and Gehring. This is a seminal paper on this topic and I have seen it cited numerous times by those opposed to fossil fuel stoves. The major problem with the paper is that it is old. While it was written in 2013, it relies almost entirely on research articles from the 1980’s and 1990’s. From the perspective of indoor air assessment that is like the Stone Age. A look at the supplementary material for the work shows that most of the studies included were, by modern perspective, very small and had little statistical power.

Given that knowledge the authors of Gruenwald et al., looked for newer work and but unfortunately found no new data. Why? Because

Full manuscripts (n = 27) were independently reviewed…none reported new associations between gas stove use and childhood asthma specifically in North America or Europe.

So there were 27 major studies they could have included in their analysis but the authors deliberately limited their inputs by requiring the work be done entirely in North America and Europe because they were looking for “similarities in housing characteristics and gas-stove usage patterns”.

By making this editorial choice the authors managed to exclude the definitive research on the topic: Cooking fuels and prevalence of asthma: a global analysis of phase three of the International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (ISAAC). The ISAAC study was

a unique worldwide epidemiological research program established in 1991 to investigate asthma, rhinitis and eczema in children due to considerable concern that these conditions were increasing in western and developing countries. ISAAC became the largest worldwide collaborative research project ever undertaken, involving more than 100 countries and nearly 2 million children and its aim to develop environmental measures and disease monitoring in order to form the basis for future interventions to reduce the burden of allergic and non-allergic diseases, especially in children in developing countries

The ISAAC study collected data from 512,7070 students between 1999 and 2004. It has incredible statistical power due to its massive sample size and one of its signature conclusions was:

we detected no evidence of an association between the use of gas as a cooking fuel and either asthma symptoms or asthma diagnosis.

Arguably, in any study to evaluate the “Population Attributable Fraction of Gas Stoves and Childhood Asthma in the United States” a massive, recent, international study that showed that there was no evidence of an association between natural gas as a cooking fuel and asthma might be considered relevant. But no, that landmark study was ignored in this analysis.

Even worse…and I can’t believe I am saying this, even the seminal meta-analysis by Lin, Brunekreef and Gehring barely met their standard. Of the 41 papers evaluated in that meta-analysis the Gruenwald et al authors chose only to consider 10 (those where all subjects were from Europe or the US). The limitation of relying solely on European and US data was nominally due to the “similarities” between housing characteristics in the US and Europe but it further degraded the statistical power of their analysis

Now I am not speaking out of school when I point out that houses in the US are really not more comparable to European homes than homes in Australia or Japan. Anyone who has ever travelled to Europe can attest to how similar their housing design is to US building and frankly American houses are not all that comparable either. I would argue that the differences between houses in Nevada and New Hampshire would greatly exceed the differences between those in Nevada and Australia. Thus, it is fair to ask whether imposing this restriction was really about maintaining internal consistency of the data or whether other factors might have played a role?

To conclude, I can only restate that the Gruenwald et al paper seems to have some clear challenges that would typically preclude it from consideration in a policy-making process.

• Its underlying data is of low statistical power.

• Its conclusion is directly contradicted by more recent studies with significantly greater statistical power. and

• It relies on a statistical tool that is considered invalid in situations with confounding variables yet it is being used to analyze an association that is absolutely rife with confounding variables.

Put simply, this is not the study I would rely on to make a major policy change that will affect millions of people and will cost billions to implement. As to its conclusion: are 12.7% of childhood asthma cases in the US attributable to cooking with natural gas? Based on the points above, that conclusion is almost certainly not the case.

The once great Stanford Law School

 Woke and cancel is alive and well at the Stanford Law School - thanks to nobody willing to do anything about it.

For some time, the judicial system has suffered from abuse by elements of the legal profession. Stanford and its ilk are helping to accelerate the dysfunction.

Here is Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan at the Wall Street Journal.

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

Stanford Law School’s website touts its “collegial culture” in which “collaboration and the open exchange of ideas are essential to life and learning.” Then there’s the culture I experienced when I visited Stanford last week. I had been invited by the student chapter of the Federalist Society to discuss the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, on which I’ve served since 2018. I’ve spoken at law schools across the country, and I was glad to accept this invitation. One of my first clerks graduated from Stanford. I have friends on the faculty. I gave a talk there a few years ago and found it a warm and engaging place, but not this time.

When I arrived, the walls were festooned with posters denouncing me for crimes against women, gays, blacks and “trans people.” Plastered everywhere were photos of the students who had invited me and fliers declaring “You should be ASHAMED,” with the last word in large red capital letters and a horror-movie font. This didn’t seem “collegial.” Walking to the building where I would deliver my talk, I could hear loud chanting a good 50 yards away, reminiscent of a tent revival in its intensity. Some 100 students were massed outside the classroom as I entered, faces painted every color of the rainbow, waving signs and banners, jeering and stamping and howling. As I entered the classroom, one protester screamed: “We hope your daughters get raped!”

I had been warned a few days before about a possible protest. But Stanford administrators assured me they were “on top of it,” that Stanford’s policies permitted “protest but not disruption.” They weren’t “on top of it.” Before my talk started, the mob flooded the room. Banners unfurled. Signs brandished: “FED SUCK,” “Trans Lives Matter” (this one upside down), and others that can’t be quoted in a family newspaper. A nervous dog—literally, a canine—was in the front row, fur striped with paint. A man with a frozen smile approached me, identified himself as the “dean of student engagement,” and asked, “You doing OK?” I don’t remember what I said.

The protesters weren’t upset by the subject of my talk—a rather dry discourse on how circuit courts interact with the Supreme Court in times of doctrinal flux. Rather, I was their target. While in practice, I represented clients and advanced arguments the protesters hate—for instance, I defended Louisiana’s traditional marriage laws. As for my judicial decisions, among the several hundred I’ve written, the protesters were especially vexed by U.S. v. Varner. A federal prisoner serving a term for attempted receipt of child pornography (and with a previous state conviction for possession of child porn) petitioned our court to order that he be called by feminine pronouns. As my opinion explained, federal courts can’t control what pronouns people use. The Stanford protesters saw it differently: My opinion had “denied a transwoman’s existence.”

When the Federalist Society president tried to introduce me, the heckling began. “The Federalist Society (You suck!) is pleased to welcome Judge Kyle Duncan(You’re not welcome here, we hate you!). . . . He was appointed by President Trump to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Embarrassing!).” And so on. As I began, the heckling continued. Try delivering a speech while being jeered at every third word. This was an utter farce, a staged public shaming. I stopped, pleaded with the students to stop the stream of insults (which only made them louder), and asked if administrators were present.

Enter Tirien Steinbach, associate dean for diversity, equity and inclusion. Ms. Steinbach and (I later learned) other administrators were watching from the periphery. She hadn’t introduced herself to me. She asked to address the students.

Something felt off. I asked her to tell the students their infantile behavior was inappropriate. She insisted she wanted to talk to all of us. Students began screaming, and I reluctantly gave way. Whereupon Ms. Steinbach opened a folio, took out a printed sheaf of papers, and delivered a six-minute speech addressing the question: “Is the juice worth the squeeze?”

What could that mean? While the students rhythmically snapped, Ms. Steinbach attempted to explain. My “work,” she said, “has caused harm.” It “feels abhorrent” and “literally denies the humanity of people.” My presence put Ms. Steinbach in a tough spot, she said, because her job “is to create a space of belonging for all people” at Stanford. She assured me I was “absolutely welcome in this space” because “me and many people in this administration do absolutely believe in free speech.” I didn’t feel welcome—who would? And she repeated the cryptic question: “Is the juice worth the squeeze?”

I asked again what she meant, and she finally put the question plainly: Was my talk “worth the pain that this causes and the division that this causes?” Again she asserted her belief in free speech before equivocating: “I understand why people feel like the harm is so great that we might need to reconsider those policies, and luckily, they’re in a school where they can learn the advocacy skills to advocate for those changes.” Then she turned the floor back over to me, while hoping I could “learn too” and “listen through your partisan lens, the hyperpolitical lens.” In closing, she said: “I look out and I don’t ask, ‘What’s going on here?’ I look out and I say, ‘I’m glad this is going on here.’ ” This is on video, and the entire event is on audio, in case you’re wondering.

The mob’s leader, a young woman, then addressed the crowd: “I want to ask that half the folks walk out in protest and the rest of us, let’s tone down the heckling slightly so that he can get to our questions.” I didn’t see how I could continue, so after the partial walkout, I dispensed with my prepared remarks and opened the floor. That went poorly, and the plainly hostile questions were the least of it. Students hurled abuse, including vile sexual innuendo; some filed past me spitting insults (“You’re scum!”). Two U.S. Marshals decided it was time to escort me out.

Two days later, Jenny Martinez and Marc Tessier-Lavinge, respectively the law school’s dean and the university’s president, formally apologized, confirming that protesters and administrators had violated Stanford policy. I’m grateful and I accepted. The matter hasn’t dropped, though. This week, nearly one-third of Stanford law students continued the protest—donning masks, wearing black, and forming a “human corridor” inside the school. They weren’t protesting me; I’m long gone. They were protesting Ms. Martinez for having apologized to me.

The most disturbing aspect of this shameful debacle is what it says about the state of legal education. Stanford is an elite law school. The protesters showed not the foggiest grasp of the basic concepts of legal discourse: That one must meet reason with reason, not power. That jeering contempt is the opposite of persuasion. That the law protects the speaker from the mob, not the mob from the speaker. Worst of all, Ms. Steinbach’s remarks made clear she is proud that Stanford students are being taught this is the way law should be.

I have been criticized in the media for getting angry at the protesters. It’s true I called them “appalling idiots,” “bullies” and “hypocrites.” They are, and I won’t apologize for saying so. Sometimes anger is the proper response to vicious behavior.

Citizens using guns to defend themselves and others

 From the Crime Prevention Research Center.

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

Defensive Gun Uses By People Legally Carrying Guns: 20 Cases During November 2022.

Wyoming, MI, November 1, 2022 (WOOD TV)

The attempted robbery happened around 7:15 p.m. Tuesday at Olympic Market on S. Division Avenue between 35th and Wexford streets. Wyoming Department of Public Safety Lt. Rory Allen said the three people tried a “takeover robbery” at the store — essentially, trying to physically overwhelm the shopkeepers with force or numbers.

The clerk, who was the only person in the store, was surrounded and fought back, Allen said. The clerk ultimately pulled a handgun and fired one shot. The 15-year-old was hit in the chest…

Allen said the clerk, who was not injured, is cooperating with investigators. He owned the handgun legally and had a license to carry it…Rachel Van Gilder, “Police: Clerk shot 15-year-old in ‘takeover robbery’ attempt,” WOOD TV, November 2, 2022.

Mobile, AL, November 1, 2022 (WKRG)

According to officers, three victims and two suspects were shot during the incident. Officers said they were called to the 8000 block of Zeigler Boulevard, near Glenn Acres and the Zeigler Boulevard and Shillinger Road intersection in regards to a shooting.

When officers arrived, they found three victims who had been shot inside a vehicle. The victims told officers they were approached by two people who were armed and demanded the victim’s things. The two subjects began firing in the air, which is when one of the victims shot at the two. The two subjects then shot the three victims and the car multiple times. The subjects ran from the scene before officers arrived. The victims were transported to the hospital but had no life-threatening injuries…Summer Poole, “5 people shot in Zeigler Blvd attempted robbery: Mobile Police,” WKRG, November 2, 2022.

St. Paul, MN, November 1, 2022 (Star Tribune)

Deandre L. Buckner, 28, of St. Paul, died shortly after 10 p.m. Tuesday off Payne Avenue on the western edge of the Dayton’s Bluff neighborhood, police said.

A 20-year-old man was quickly arrested near the shooting scene on suspicion of murder.

However, Ramsey County Attorney’s Office said in a statement late Friday afternoon that “we declined to file charges in this incident due to facts uncovered in the police investigation that strongly support a self-defense and defense-of-others claim by the person who fired the fatal shot.”…Paul Walsh, “Prosecutors cite self defense, won’t charge man in fatal shooting this week in St. Paul,” Star Tribune, November 4, 2022.

St. Louis, MO, November 2, 2022 (KMOV)

Around 11 a.m. neighbors said they heard several rounds of gunshots and then heard a woman screaming. Police confirmed the woman’s downstairs neighbor shot her in the leg. He then barricaded himself in his unit forcing the SWAT team and negotiators to come out…

Ward and another neighbor said if it wasn’t for a Good Samaritan down the street, with a weapon, they don’t know if the woman victim would’ve been okay.

“I will certainly never forget seeing. It’s like a real-life hero in action. Very responsible gun owner, did everything right. I saw him creeping down the street. He was just wanting to keep everyone safe,” the neighbor explained.

YoVan Young, who works for First Choice Heating and Cooling, was working a job about a block from where this shooting happened. He said he had his gun on him and his first reaction when he heard the victim screaming for help, was to head that way…

Young said he ran over to the victim and helped her get behind a car for safety because the suspect was still shooting. Young said he fired some warning shots at the suspect, took his belt off, and used it as a tourniquet on the victim’s leg to slow her bleeding down…Jenna Rae, “Good Samaritan saves South St. Louis woman after being shot by her neighbor,” KMOV, November 3, 2022.

Chicago, IL, November 5, 2022 (CWB Chicago)

The stakeout of the business in the 300 block of East 69th Street paid off around 3:26 a.m. Saturday, when the employees saw someone cut a hole in the perimeter fence and crawl onto the property, prosecutor Kenneth Flesch said.

Several employees watched as the intruder grabbed a tire rim from the property. Then, they moved in and confronted the man, identified as George Perkins.

Perkins swung a crowbar at three of the employees, prompting one to pull out a gun and fire shots into the air, Flesch said. But at least one of the bullets went somewhere else — into Perkins’ shoulder…

The employee who shot Perkins said he fired into the air because Perkins was resisting, Flesch said, but the employee was long gone when police arrived, and no charges have been filed against him…CWB Chicago Staff, “Business employees shot an early morning burglar, then waited more than 2 hours for Chicago police to show up: prosecutors,” CWB Chicago, November 6, 2022.

Newberry, FL, November 9, 2022 (My CBS 4)

The Alachua County Sheriff’s Office says they do not plan to charge a person who shot and killed their neighbor.

A spokesperson says the shooting happened after a dispute between two neighbors, but they believe the shooter acted in self defense.

The Sheriff’s Office says this happened around 9:30 Wednesday morning on Southwest 87th Avenue in Newberry.

The Sheriff’s Office says the person fired at their neighbor after being assaulted.Aaron Adelson, “Fatal shooting in Alachua County believed to be self defense, Sheriff’s Office says,” My CBS 4, November 9, 2022.

Topeka, KS, November 11, 2022 (Topeka Capital-Journal, 13 WIBW)

Dustin E. Oats, 42, was fatally shot on November 11 at S.W. 29th and Villa West Drive. The case is listed as apparently being justifiable.

According to TPD, officers were dispatched to 29th and Villa West Drive at 5:43 p.m., and upon arrival, they located a man with a life-threatening gunshot wound. He was transported to a local hospital where he was later pronounced deceased…

Officials also said upon completion of the case, it will be sent to the DA’s office with the possibility of self-defense consideration in this incident.Alex Carter, “1 killed in SW Topeka shooting,” 13 WIBW, November 11, 2022.

Philadelphia, PA, November 11, 2022 (6 ABC)

It happened at 5:30 a.m. in the 3900 block of Coral Street in the city’s Port Richmond section.

Sources tell Action News the driver was stopped at that location when he was held up by an armed man.

The driver, who has a license to carry, fired on the suspect who then ran off.

Police found the suspect a few blocks away…6 ABC Digital Staff, “Uber driver turns tables on attempted robber in Port Richmond,” 6 ABC, November 12, 2022.

Gonzales, TX, November 11, 2022 (The Gonzales Inquirer)

Lt. Jason Montoya of the Gonzales Police Department said at about 7:11 a.m. Friday, Nov. 11, GPD officers responded to Walmart, 1114 E. Sarah DeWitt Drive, regarding a call about shots fired. Upon arrival, officers made contact with a male complainant who said another man whose identity he knew pulled a firearm and pointed it at him, stating, “I am going to kill you.”

The complainant advised police he drew his weapon and fired at the subject, but at that time, it was not known whether anyone had been struck by a bullet…

Surveillance video appears to support the complainant’s and witnesses’ statements. Following his release from the hospital, Nicoletti was arrested early Sunday morning in Shiner and transported to the Gonzales County Jail. His bond was set at $250,000. The name of the individual who fired the gun has not yet been released and no charges have been announced against him yet.Lew K. Cohn, “Shiner man arrested after Walmart shooting incident,” The Gonzales Inquirer, November 13, 2022.

Seattle, WA, November 11, 2022 (Local 12)

A young woman made two harrowing attempts to escape a violent pimp — including jumping out a third-story window — before being rescued by a ride-share driver who engaged in a gunfight with the man, prosecutors in Seattle said…

“H.A. felt safer in the middle of a busy highway, practically naked, at night than being within arm’s reach of the defendant,” Gauen wrote. “Surveillance video from a nearby business has corroborated H.A.’s account of what happened.”

The ride-share driver stopped and told H.A. to get in his van. Burt pursued them, shooting at the van, Gauen wrote. The ride-share driver was also armed and fired back over several blocks until he was able to get onto Interstate 5 and meet police at a gas station. No one appears to have been struck by the bullets, but the van’s windshield was riddled with holes.

Police arrested Burt as he was leaving the rental home with the other women, the documents said. He faces charges that include human trafficking, promoting prostitution, assault and drive-by shooting, but given the “expansive reach of the defendant’s egregious behavior,” additional charges are likely, Gauen wrote…Gene Johnson, “Police: Ride-share driver gets into shootout with pimp while saving trafficking victim,” Local 12, November 13, 2022.

Ardmore, AL, November 14, 2022 (WAAY 31 ABC)

A man suspected in two Monday night robberies was shot and killed by a witness, according to the Limestone County Sheriff’s Office.

James Lee Henry, 53, of Collegeville, Pennsylvania, is accused of robbing a Circle K in Athens before heading to a service station in Ardmore and ordering the clerk to give him money at gunpoint.

According to the sheriff’s office, “a Good Samaritan (former U.S. Marine), legally armed with his personal protection weapon, observed the robbery outside the front door. Upon Henry exiting the store, the Good Samaritan gave several verbal commands for Henry to drop his gun; however, Henry did not comply. Instead, Henry pointed his weapon at the Good Samaritan and, upon doing so, was immediately shot.”…

Citizens in Ardmore are thankful for the veteran’s quick actions. One worker at a nearby restaurant told WAAY 31 that he feels safe knowing people can use their right to bear arms to protect others…Josh Rayburn and Nicole Zedeck, “Former Marine shoots, kills man suspected of two Limestone County robberies,” WAAY 31 ABC, November 15, 2022.

Tucker, GA, November 15, 2022 (WSB-TV)

Police say two people were shot inside a moving company warehouse in DeKalb County Tuesday afternoon…

Investigators say a 38-year-old man and his 22-year-old employee, Cameron Randle, were arguing about money.

During the argument, Randle pulled out a gun and shot his boss. The older man then pulled out a gun and returned fire, striking Randle…

Detectives say once released from the hospital, Randle will be charged with aggravated assault. They determined the 38-year-old man’s actions in returning fire was justified and will not be charging him…Sophia Choi, “Shootout over money leaves 2 injured at DeKalb furniture moving warehouse, police say,” WSB-TV, November 15, 2022.

Dayton, OH, November 18, 2022 (Dayton 247 Now)

Crews were called to the scene of 3100 block of Valerie Arms Drive at 12:46 p.m. on Friday afternoon.

Montgomery County Sheriff Rob Streck told Dayton 24/7 Now that the victim was inside his residence, when he heard what he believed to be a saw on metal outside of his home.

“He had been a victim before of catalytic converter crime, he exited his residence, came out and confronted someone who had sawed off his catalytic converter. When he confronted that individual he told them to stop, and that he was going to call the police,” said Sheriff Streck.

At that point, the victim was approached and attacked by the suspect.

“During the fight, there was a gunshot where the suspect was shot in the leg with non-life threatening injuries, he was removed to a local hospital. Our victim is still on the scene cooperating with authorities 100% and obviously we’re still at the beginning of this investigation,” said Sheriff Streck.

Sheriff Streck says that his office is investigating the shooting as a self-defense incident…Lydia Bice, “Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office investigating shooting on Valerie Arms Drive,” Dayton 247 Now, November 18, 2022.

Chicago, IL, November 23, 2022 (WGN-TV)

A woman shot a man in the head, who was attempting to get in her car, early Wednesday morning on the South Side — according to Chicago police.

Just before 2:10 a.m., police said four male suspects exited a black sedan in the 1300 block of East 89th Street and one of them attempted to open another vehicle armed with a handgun.

The driver, a 23-year-old woman and valid concealed carry holder, fired a shot striking the man in the head. Police said she then fled from her vehicle on foot and was shot in the left arm…Andy Koval, “CPD: Woman shoots man attempting to get in her car on South Side,” WGN-TV, November 23, 2022.

Atlanta, GA, November 23, 2022 (WSB-TV)

Atlanta police said the shooting occurred at 588 Trabert Avenue NW outside of Super Sound Studios, which is owned by Atlanta rapper and actor T.I.

Police said one of the property owners saw two men with guns trespassing on the studio’s property. The property owner confronted them and the confrontation escalated.

The property owner and two men began firing at each other. One of the suspect was shot in the leg. Police said the man was alive, conscious and breathing and he was taken to the hospital…WSBTV.com News Staff, “Man shot outside recording studio owned by T.I., police say,” WSB-TV, November 23, 2022.

Jackson, TN, November 23, 2022 (WBBJ TV)

On Monday, the department stated that 29-year-old John Eric Henderson, Jr. was shot by another person on November 23 near Old Humboldt Road near Jeremiah Drive.

Police say through video “that captured elements” of the incident, it was found that the shooting was self-defense…

Last week, Jackson police reported that the shooting originally started as a road rage incident on Passmore Lane near the Highway 45 Bypass.

Those involved continued northbound on Old Humboldt Road, leading to a verbal altercation and to shots being fired.Tristyn Stoop, “JPD: Northwest Jackson shooting was self-defense,” WBBJ TV, November 28, 2022.

Theodore, AL, November 25, 2022 (Fox News)

A pair of Alabama shoplifting suspects were booked into jail after they allegedly tried to steal merchandise from a Tractor Supply Co. store but were subdued when customers intervened, including one who opened fire on the getaway car…

The scene unfolded before 9 a.m. on Black Friday in the town of Theodore, a few miles south of Mobile, when suspects Troy Brown and Toby Priest allegedly attempted to steal expensive merchandise from the agriculture and hardware store, according to the outlet…

The car wasn’t able to go far, however, due to a different customer pulling out a firearm and shooting out one of the getaway car’s tires…

The car was later found abandoned with at least one flat tire on U.S. Highway 90, according to WPMI…Emma Colton, “Alabama Tractor Supply customers thwart alleged shoplifters, open fire on getaway car’s tires,” Fox News, November 29, 2022.

Midland, TX, November 26, 2022 (News West 9)

At about 8:30 p.m. Saturday, November 26, 2022, officers with the Midland Police Department were dispatched to the DK Convenience Store in the 5800 block of W. Interstate 20 in reference to shots fired…

During the investigation, it was discovered that Galindo fired his gun at two males, one of which returned fire in self-defense, striking Galindo…Marcus Risen, “MPD responds to shooting Saturday night,” News West 9, November 27, 2022.

Raleigh, NC, November 27, 2022 (Fox 8)

An adult male was shot on Sunday night shortly after 7:20 near the Regal movie theater at North Hills.

Officers said the victim, who was the shooter’s son, was transported to the hospital with non-life-threatening injuries. Police also said the shooting was an isolated incident, as the suspect and victim knew each other…

The suspect also said he did not want to shoot the victim but “he started assaulting me and my wife.”

As of Wednesday, the suspect has not been identified and no one has been arrested.

The caller added to police that he believed his son was having a mental health episode.Chloe Rafferty, Kathryn Hubbard, Kayla Morton, and Rodney Overton, “‘I just shot him’: 911 call details weekend shooting at North Carolina mall,” Fox 8, December 1, 2022.

Billings, MT, November 30, 2022 (KTVQ)

Brusard is charged for a Nov. 30 incident outside the Montana Club restaurant that ended in gunfire.

Prosecutors allege Brusard was a customer at the restaurant when he began yelling and threatening others near the restaurant entrance. A witness said Brusard retrieved a handgun from a vehicle and threatened to shoot when another customer shot Brusard in the chest.

The person who shot Brusard has only been identified in court records by the initials R.P. That person has not been charged.Q2 News Staff, “Bond set at 20K for man shot outside Billings restaurant,” KTVQ, December 8, 2022.

An Anti-Defamation League gets it wrong about left wing vs. right wing murderers

John Lott at the Crime Prevention Research Center has a new research piece "The Anti-Defamation League’s Absurd Claim that 100% of Domestic Extremist Murders were Committed by “Right-wing Extremists,” most murders were actually committed by people who should be classified as “Left-wing Extremists”

Here is the link.

Here is an excerpt.
------------------------------------------------
The Anti-Defamation League has a new report titled: “Murder and Extremism in the United States in 2022.” They claim that all the murderers of the 25 people murdered by extremists in 2022 were “right-wingers,” which they describe as white supremacists, anti-government extremists, QAnon extremists, and other right-wing extremists. Their report has been getting extensive uncritical news coverage. In fact, most of these murders were committed by either an environmentalist or a nonbinary “socialist.” Are those the views of “right-wingers”? Our data is available here.

For Lexophiles

No matter how much you push the envelope, it'll still be stationery.

If you don't pay your exorcist you can get repossessed.

I'm reading a book about anti-gravity. I just can't put it down.

I didn't like my beard at first. Then it grew on me.

Did you hear about the crossed-eyed teacher who lost her job because she couldn't control her pupils?

When you get a bladder infection, urine trouble.

When chemists die, they barium.

I stayed up all night to see where the sun went, and then it dawned on me.

I changed my iPod's name to Titanic. It's syncing now.

England has no kidney bank, but it does have a Liverpool .

Haunted French pancakes give me the crepes.

This girl today said she recognized me from the Vegetarians Club, but I'd swear I've never met herbivore

I know a guy who's addicted to drinking brake fluid, but he says he can stop any time.

A thief who stole a calendar got twelve months.

When the smog lifts in Los Angeles U.C.L.A.

I got some batteries that were given out free of charge.

A dentist and a manicurist married. They fought tooth and nail.

A will is a dead giveaway.

With her marriage, she got a new name and a dress.

Police were summoned to a daycare center where a three-year-old was resisting a rest.

Did you hear about the fellow whose entire left side was cut off? He's all right now.

A bicycle can't stand alone; it's just two tired.

The guy who fell onto an upholstery machine last week is now fully recovered.

He had a photographic memory but it was never fully developed.

When she saw her first strands of gray hair she thought she'd dye.

Acupuncture is a jab well done. That's the point of it.

Those who get too big for their pants will be totally exposed in the end.

Statistics gone wrong in a climate change paper

 Frank Bosse and Nic Lewis point out that the paper "European tree-ring isotopes indicate unusual recent hydroclimate" by Freund, et al is fatally flawed. An apparent indication of significant recent climate change is due to misuse of statistical filtering.

Here are some excerpts from Bosse and Lewis.

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

A recent paper (M. B. Freund et al 2023, MBF23 thereafter) in “Nature communication earth and environment” investigates the variability of the summer drought events since 1600. It uses the method of “stable isotope analyses C13/O18” to extend the “Standardised Precipitation-Evapotranspiration Index (SPEI) from 1950 to now back to 1600.

The paper describes and uses a multi proxy network over large parts of Europe (see Fig. 1 of MBF23) to reconstruct the history of summer droughts for a longer historic period. It finds interesting results about the dependency of those events on volcanos and solar forcing. It’s a worthwhile read and we were interested in whether the headline title is justified and likewise this claim in the Abstract:

“We show that the recent European summer drought (2015–2018) is highly unusual in a multi-century context…”

Conclusion

MBF23 is a very valuable paper when it comes to the description of the variability of European summer droughts since 1600. However, neither its title “European tree-ring isotopes indicate unusual recent hydroclimate” nor the claim in its Abstract that “recent European summer drought (2015–2018) is highly unusual in a multi-century context” are justified by the data used in the paper.

The lower resolution in time and spatially of the reconstruction before 1950 in relation to the determined SPEI after 1950 casts some doubts if the comparison of some years after 1950 to the historical reconstructed values is appropriate.

MBF23 should be corrected and retitled because some key conclusions, including the headline claim in its title, are not supported by proper statistical analysis of the SPEI values that their reconstruction method produces. The recent European drought to 2018 remained within the range of natural variability.

The fight against free speech continues

 Here is Jonathan Turley exposing the Washington Post for what it is - a propaganda machine.

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

The War on Musk: Washington Post Slammed Over Twitter Hit Piece

Last week, there was another bombshell story by the Washington Post on the purported evil that is Elon Musk. Quickly amplified by MSNBC and other media, it was another hit job on Musk and could be viewed as what many in the media love to call “disinformation.” Musk himself noted that the premise of the piece (that his tweets were artificially boosted during a recent period) was demonstrably false. Yet, the countervailing facts found little space in the long Post piece. None of that is particularly surprising. Musk became a hunted man when he sought to restore free speech protections to social media. The media regularly offers him little quarter or consideration. However, what was most striking was that the underlying controversy may have been Musk’s targeting of “bots” in his restructuring of Twitter.

The Post story was written with the usual telltale signs of a hit piece. First, there was the breathless headline (notably amplified on its own Twitter account) expressing a combination of shock and scorn: “Elon Musk reinvents Twitter for the benefit of a power user: Himself.” Then came the lead line of how Musk had transformed the company into the “billionaire’s personal sandbox.” It reported how Musk ran amok at Twitter headquarters firing people in a rage over the failure to artificially boost his own tweets in the system. It portrays employees cowering from his wrath and rushing to change algorithms to increase his tweet visibility.

Musk immediately responded with a simple but seemingly major point: there was no such spike or adjustment. He tweeted “Several major media sources incorrectly reported that my Tweets were boosted above normal levels earlier this week. A review of my Tweet likes & views over the past 6 months, especially as a ratio of followers, shows this to be false. We did have a bug that briefly caused replies to have the same prominence as primary Tweets, but that has now been fixed.”

The Musk tweets do not necessarily end the controversy but it raises core factual questions that seemed to be largely omitted in the Post coverage. Indeed, it was simply ignored by media who continued to push the narrative regardless of the serious questions over the premise of the article. Sound familiar? The Russian collusion scandal, the Hunter Biden “Russian Disinformation,” the Lafayette Park “Photo Op” conspiracy, the Nick Sandmann controversy, the Jussie Smollett case, the Migrant Whipping scandal. This list seems endless of false stories where the “facts were too good to check.” However, that is not “disinformation.” Not at all.

If you read the Post piece, it becomes clear what the real fight at Twitter may have been over. Buried in the piece is this observation: “Even before he bought Twitter, Musk emphasized the site’s need to crack down on spam and bots, particularly those shilling cryptocurrency.” The Post noted that Musk declared before buying the company that “If our Twitter bid succeeds, we will defeat the spam bots or die trying!”

Musk has been riding roughshod over engineers to remove certain algorithms and combat bots to restore the company’s transparency and integrity.

Bots and AI systems, however, have a growing alliance in Washington.

Democratic leaders have called for a type of “enlightened algorithms” to frame what citizens access on the internet. In 2021, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) called for algorithms to be created to protect people from their own bad choices. She was upset that people were not listening to the informed views of herself and leading experts. Instead, they were reading views of skeptics by searching Amazon and finding books by “prominent spreaders of misinformation.” She denounced Amazon and declared that “this pattern and practice of misbehavior suggests that Amazon is either unwilling or unable to modify its business practices to prevent the spread of falsehoods or the sale of inappropriate products.” She gave the company 14 days to change its algorithms to throttle and obstruct efforts to read opposing views.

More recently, Bill Gates seemed to go “full Borg” in calling for AI to stop certain views from being “magnified by digital channels.” The problem is that we allow “various conspiracy theories like QAnon or whatever to be blasted out by people who wanted to believe those things.” Gates added that AI can combat “political polarization” by checking “confirmation bias.”

So AI overlords will bring unity through forced content assimilation where, to paraphrase the Borg, “free speech is futile.”

The Post does not go to bat for bots like Gates in this piece and even acknowledges that ” it wasn’t that crypto bots weren’t a problem,” but then returns to the Musk press mosh pit.

I previously discussed how Washington has gone to war with Twitter with an alliance of political, corporate, and media interests. It has been unrelenting and includes a campaign to get companies to suspend or reduce advertising until censorship is restored. The media has kept a steady stream of hit pieces on Musk that often border on wartime propaganda.

Musk is not perfect. No one is and being a billionaire gives you a billion ways to magnify your own idiosyncrasies. However, Musk has brought a level of transparency to Twitter (and his own controversies) that is unmatched in any social media company.

I will admit to a bias in favor of Musk as a long-standing free speech advocate. I previously wrote that, despite his incredible achievements in space and transportation technology, Musk’s greatest legacy may prove his defense of free speech. His release of the Twitter Files has revealed a comprehensive system of censorship coordinated with the government. He has also restored free speech protection to a major social media platform. The move is transformative and historic.

The campaign against Musk reflects a degree of desperation as the control of social media collapsed with his purchase. If you are to control speech on social media, it must be complete and total. Musk shattered that unified front and, with it, the ability to maintain approved narratives by silencing critics and barring particular views. Elon Musk did not “reinvent” Twitter as much as restore Twitter to what it was. However, there is a reinvention of journalism in a new and more menacing image.

Yes Virginia, open discussion is better than censorship

 Jonathan Turley provides perspective on the damage caused by those who believe that open discourse should be regulated by "those who know".

JT is right that "those who know" often don't know or are lying and that they often cause substantial harm to themselves and others.

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

A new scientific review raises additional questions over the science behind the mask mandates imposed on the population for years. The new scientific review by 12 researchers from leading universities found little support for the claims that masks reduced Covid exposures. My interest in the story, as usual, focuses on free speech. Numerous experts were suspended or banned for challenging these very claims and the media labeled any such critics as dangerous or fringe figures. Regardless of your ultimate conclusions on the efficacy of masks, there was clearly a scientific basis to challenge the mask policies. Yet, many people were routinely censored on Twitter and other platforms for daring to challenge the official position on masks.

The Centers for Disease and Control Prevention (CDC) initially rejected the use of a mask mandate. However, the issue became a political weapon as politicians and the press claimed that questioning masks was anti-science and even unhinged. In April 2020, the CDC reversed its position and called for the masking of the entire population, including children as young as 2 years old. The mask mandate and other pandemic measures like the closing of schools are now cited as fueling emotional and developmental problems in children.

The closing of schools and businesses was also challenged by some critics as unnecessary. Many of those critics were also censored. It now appears that they may have been right. Many countries did not close schools and did not experience increases in Covid. However, we are now facing alarming drops in testing scores and alarming rises in medical illness among the young.

Masks became a major social and political dividing line in politics and the media. Maskless people were chased from stores and denounced in Congress. Then-CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield said during a Senate hearing that “face masks are the most important powerful health tool we have.”

However, the new publication reaffirms earlier studies and states that “a new scientific review suggests that widespread masking may have done little to nothing to curb the transmission of COVID.” It added that “wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu-like illness/COVID-like illness (nine studies; 276,917 people); and probably makes little or no difference in how many people have flu/COVID confirmed by a laboratory test (six studies; 13,919 people).”

It also found little evidence of a difference from wearing better masks and that “wearing N95/P2 respirators probably makes little to no difference in how many people have confirmed flu (five studies; 8407 people); and may make little to no difference in how many people catch a flu-like illness (five studies; 8407 people), or respiratory illness (three studies; 7799 people).”

Again, I expect that these studies will be debated for years. That is a good thing. There are questions raised over the types of studies used and whether randomized studies are sufficient. The point is only that there were countervailing indicators on mask efficacy and a basis to question the mandates. Yet, there was no real debate because of the censorship supported by many Democratic leaders in social media. To question such mandates was declared a public health threat.

The head of the World Health Organization even supported censorship to combat what he called an “infodemic.”

A lawsuit was filed by Missouri and Louisiana and joined by leading experts, including Drs. Jayanta Bhattacharya (Stanford University) and Martin Kulldorff (Harvard University).

Bhattacharya previously objected to the suspension of Dr. Clare Craig after she raised concerns about Pfizer trial documents. Those doctors were the co-authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, which advocated for a more focused Covid response that targeted the most vulnerable population rather than widespread lockdowns and mandates. Many are now questioning the efficacy and cost of the massive lockdown as well as the real value of masks or the rejection of natural immunities as an alternative to vaccination. Yet, these experts and others were attacked for such views just a year ago. Some found themselves censored on social media for challenging claims of Dr. Fauci and others.

The media has quietly acknowledged the science questioning mask efficacy and school closures without addressing its own role in attacking those who raised these objections. Even raising the lab theory on the origin of Covid 19 (a theory now treated as plausible) was denounced as a conspiracy theory. The science and health reporter for the New York Times, Apoorva Mandavilli, even denounced the theory as “racist.”

In the meantime, California has moved to potentially strip doctors of their licenses for spreading dissenting views on Covid.

The latest review will not conclusively answer the scientific questions around mask efficacy, but it should answer any lingering questions over the harm of censorship. We never had a serious debate because of the government-corporate-media alliance to snuff out dissenting views on pandemic policies. The result may have been avoidable emotional, economic, and social harm to the population as a whole.

Gun Control Laws Backfiring in California

 Here is John Lott at Real Clear Politics.

More truth about gun control laws.

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

After the three public shootings over the last two weekends in California, Democrats are again clamoring for even more gun control laws. To California Gov. Gavin Newsom, the solution is to ban more places where people can carry permitted concealed handguns. Unfortunately, the proposal has nothing to do with stopping these attacks, and more gun-free zones only encourage these attacks. Other heavily Democratic states such as New York, New Jersey, and Maryland are making similar pushes.

Concealed handgun permit holders didn’t commit those or other mass public shootings. Permit holders are also extremely law-abiding, being convicted of firearms-related violations at 1/12th the rate of police officers.

With the country’s strictest gun control laws, California probably shouldn’t hold itself out as a model for the rest of the country to follow. The periods after 2000, 2010, or 2020 show a consistent pattern: The per capita rate of mass public shootings in California is always greater than the rate for the rest of the country. The rate is also much higher than for Texas, which gun control groups give an “F” grade for its gun control laws. Since 2010, California’s mass public shooting rate per capita is 43% higher than for Texas and 29% higher than for the rest of the U.S. From 2020 on, California’s rate was 276% higher than Texas’ and 100% higher than the rest of the country.

But while California is moving to create more gun-free zones, the problem is that it has already been virtually impossible to get concealed handgun permits in the parts of California where the attacks occurred. In Los Angeles Country, where two of the attacks occurred, there is only one permit for every 5,660 adults. In San Mateo County, where the other attack occurred, there is one permit per every 24,630 adults. By comparison, there is one permit holder for every nine people in the 43 right-to-carry states.

Unsurprisingly, concealed handgun permit holders don’t stop mass public shootings in California. But they do make a difference in the 43 states where there are a lot of permit holders. Indeed, people legally carrying guns stopped at least 31 mass public shootings since 2020. And when Americans are allowed to legally carry concealed handguns, they stop about half the active shooting attacks in the US.

It is hard to ignore that these mass public shooters purposefully pick targets where they know their victims cannot protect themselves. Yet, the media refuses to discuss that these mass murderers often discuss in their diaries and manifestos how they pick their targets. For example, the Buffalo mass murderer last year wrote in his manifesto explaining why he chose the target that he did: “Areas where CCW are outlawed or prohibited may be good areas of attack” and “Areas with strict gun laws are also great places of attack.”

That is a common theme among mass murderers. These killers may be crazy, but they aren’t stupid. Their goal is to get media coverage, and they know that the more people they kill, the more media attention they will receive. And if they go to a place where their victims are defenseless, they will be able to kill more people.

Even if an officer is in the right place at the right time, a single uniformed police officer has an almost impossible job in stopping mass public shootings. An officer’s uniform is a neon sign saying, “Shoot me first.” Once the murderer kills the officer, the attacker has free rein to go after others. But where concealed carry is allowed, the attacker will have to worry that someone behind him is also armed.

Take school shootings: Twenty states, with thousands of schools, have armed teachers and staff. There has not been one attack at any of these schools during school hours since at least 2000 where anyone has been killed or wounded. All the attacks where people have been killed or wounded occurred in schools where teachers and staff can’t have guns.

Newsom’s approach contrasts sharply with another country that faces constant terrorist attacks. After a Jan. 27 mass public shooting in Israel left seven people dead, Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared: “Firearm licensing will be expedited and expanded in order to enable thousands of additional citizens to carry weapons.”

Unfortunately, California’s strict gun control laws create fertile ground for successful mass public shootings. But the new push in some states for more gun-free zones is guaranteed to give mass murderers and other criminals even more hunting grounds.

Black Students Need Better Schools, Not Lower Standards

 Here is Jason Riley at The Wall Street Journal.

JR is on target. The woke, cancel culture, and educational elites - among others - have it all wrong.

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

The good news is that the College Board has revised the curriculum for its new Advanced Placement course in African-American studies. Topics such as “black queer studies” and “intersectionality and activism” have been downgraded or expunged. The bad news is that offering the course to begin with remains an exercise in racial pandering.

The College Board’s primary concern is that blacks are underrepresented among high-school students who receive college credit for AP courses. This achievement gap has drawn scrutiny from progressives who automatically attribute racial imbalances to racial discrimination. The College Board could address the problem by providing more tutoring services for students who are struggling. Instead, it has created a black-studies course that no one expects to match the academic rigor of other AP offerings.

Colleges and universities did something similar in the 1960s and ’70s after they began lowering admissions standards to achieve more racial balance on campuses. Once they lowered standards for admission, they had to lower the standards for grading and graduation as well. Hence, the creation of black-studies programs, which were born of political expediency and have long been known to put ideological indoctrination ahead of intellectual inquiry.

It’s been clear for decades that this obsession over a school’s racial mix is misplaced, yet it remains one of the political left’s favorite explanations for the achievement gap. After assessing the huge body of research on school integration dating back to the 1960s, social scientists David Armor and Christine Rossell concluded that “there is not a single example in the published literature of a comprehensive racial balance plan that has improved black achievement or that has reduced the black-white achievement gap significantly.” Whether black students attended schools that were 10% black or 70% black, the racial achievement gap remained roughly the same.

“The racial composition of the school may matter, but the academic culture of the school matters more,” Abigail and Stephan Thernstrom write in their 2003 book, “No Excuses: Closing the Racial Gap in Learning.” “Creating the right academic culture does not depend on the racial backgrounds of the students who attend it.”

Some of the best public schools in the country are charter schools full of low-income black students who regularly outperform wealthier white peers on standardized tests. Yet these charter schools, which purposely locate in poor minority neighborhoods, have been criticized by civil-rights organizations for their racial imbalance. School choice has polled off the charts among black parents for decades, but opponents continue the fight to deny these families better education options.

Similarly, gifted and talented programs have come under attack for their elitism. There have been calls to eliminate them outright or at least broaden the definition of “gifted” to get a more desirable racial mix. Because the programs often enroll more whites and Asians than blacks and Hispanics, they’ve been accused of driving school segregation, but a new study published in Harvard’s Education Next magazine concludes that there is little merit to that claim.

“I find essentially no impact from gifted and talented programs on a Black or Hispanic student’s likelihood of having white or Asian students as classmates,” writes Owen Thompson, a professor of economics at Williams College. Nor does starting or ending a gifted and talented program affect a school’s racial composition, as critics allege. “I do not find any consistent evidence that gifted and talented programs have a causal effect on schools’ race-specific enrollments.” Nevertheless, efforts to oust or water down enrichment programs continue. Racial parity has been deemed more important than maintaining high standards.

You don’t help underperforming groups by pandering to them or by holding them to lower standards. And you don’t help black children by insisting that they must be seated next to white children in order to learn. It’s not only insulting and condescending but contradicted by decades of evidence. Low-income black students need quality schools, not white classmates, and the focus on racial balance at any cost will only ensure that another generation of black youth receives an inferior education.

This war on standards is part of a larger war on meritocracy, with economic and geopolitical consequences that should concern all of us, regardless of race. China and India are not eroding standards in the name of equity and social justice. They are not abandoning enrichment programs for their brightest students. They are selecting people based on talent and promoting them based on performance. What we’re doing to ourselves in moving away from merit-based systems will only make it more difficult for our children to compete with their children.