From Steve Sailer:
The most glaringly obvious way to improve our schools is to improve their students via smarter immigration policy.
And if one studies the most recent international PISA scores, the obvious recruiting grounds for smarter school-age children are the countries at the top of the chart.
Whether we want a whole bunch of Yellow kids (see the graph before exploding) is a question for another time; but it sure as hell beats bringing in kids from Africa and South America, as we are.
That is, assuming we want our schools to improve.
Here’s a classic case of media slant:
Had They Bet On Nuclear, Not Renewables, Germany & California Would Already Have 100% Clean Power
This is what we non-journalists call “complete bullshit”. In the first place, neither Germany or California “bet” on anything. Germany closed all their nukes in a panicked reaction to the Fukishima disaster in Japan, and California deliberately closed their existing nukes and prevented new ones from being built because Californians are a bunch of fucking Green morons (as, by the way, are the Krauts). There was no “gamble”, because everybody already knew that Green “technology” would be totally incapable of completely filling anybody’s power needs except maybe for the average sub-Saharan African country north of the Limpopo River. For Germany and California? Not even close. And when even Al Gore is calling California foolish…
That said, I’m not taking a potshot at the author of the above piece, because authors seldom write their own headlines — this would probably be the doing of some Forbes editor, who’s either stupid or purposely slanted. In fact, given that Michael Schellenberger is TIME Magazine’s “Hero of the Environment,” a Green Book Award Winner, and President of Environmental Progress, the article is remarkably clear-headed and factual — which was clearly A Bridge Too Far for Forbes magazine, which used to be a go-to business publication but has recently become completely irrelevant — and the above should tell you why.
Over the years, several people have pointed me to Willis Eschenbach’s Skating Under The Ice, and it’s very, very good. Of late, however, this post has (and should have) become a landmark in the seemingly-endless debate on climate change, in that Willis applies an age-old accounting principle to the issue of carbon dioxide levels, thus:
Now, for me, discussing the “social cost of carbon” is a dereliction of scientific duty because it is only half of an analysis.
A real analysis is where you draw a vertical line down the middle of a sheet of paper. At the top of one side of the paper you write “Costs”, and under that heading, you list the costs of whatever you are analyzing … and at the top of the other side of the paper you write “Benefits” and beneath, you list those benefits. This is what is called a “cost/benefit analysis”, and only considering only the “Costs” column and ignoring the “Benefits” column constitutes scientific malfeasance.
…and then, in brilliant detail, he shows the other half. It’s a very long read, but if you don’t do it all, you’re doing yourself a disservice. His conclusion is stunning:
[T]he benefit that we get from emitting that additional tonne of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is an increase in goods and services of $4,380 … which dwarfs the assumed social cost of carbon of $40. When we do an actual cost/benefit analysis, the result is almost all benefit.
I admit that I had only thought in vague terms about this topic, because I always took it for granted that social benefit came from industry, and that the greater the industry, the greater the benefit. What I had never done was quantify the benefit; and now I don’t have to, because now it’s been done, irrefutably.
Here’s an interesting article, which ranks cities by the number of homicides per 100,000 population.
I am amazed by only two exclusions from the list: Chicago and Johannesburg, which I would have thought would be a lead-pipe cinch for top 10 placings, let alone being out of the top 50 altogether.
As for the U.S. cities that did make the list: they’re all run by Democrats, ergo all run according to Third World governance principles. There’s one other common factor, but I’m not going to say it because rayyyyciss.
Oops. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has been caught with its dirty little fingers in the fudge drawer… again.
NOAA has been cooking the books. Yet again – presumably for reasons more to do with ideology than meteorology – NOAA has adjusted past temperatures to look colder than they were and recent temperatures to look warmer than they were.
We’re not talking fractions of a degree, here. The adjustments amount to a whopping 3.1 degrees F. This takes us well beyond the regions of error margins or innocent mistakes and deep into the realm of fiction and political propaganda.
This all started when some smart guy looked at the raw data covering the recent polar vortex storms in the Northeastern United States, and found the disparity as noted above. The data had been “smoothed” (weasel statistician word meaning “altered”) and guess in which direction? Why, to support the Glueball Wormening narrative, of course.
And by the way: you know how the Arctic ice cap is at its lowest level in history? Ummm not so.
And you know how it never snows in Rome? Also not so. And Naples?
And you know how The Independent said that British children will grow up never having seen snow? Not this generation, anyway.
Enjoy the read.
Here’s an interesting math situation, wherein I prove that 2=1:
1.) Suppose you have quantities A and B, and suppose they are equal. That is,
A = B
2.) Multiply both sides by A:
A^2 = AB
3.) Now subtract B^2 from both sides:
A^2-B^2 = AB-B^2
4.) Factor both sides:
(A+B)(A-B) = B(A-B)
5.) Divide both sides by the common factor (A-B):
A+B = B
6.) Now, remembering that A=B, we have
B+B=B, or 2B=B
7.) Divide both sides by B:
And now, children, you will understand how Congress creates the national budget.