## How to Calculate Planetary Temperatures

In the second graph we have the Ratio of Planet Measured Temperature to the Corrected Blackbody Temperature (Tsat /Te.correct). Link [30] In this graph we use in (Tsat /Te.correct) the planet corrected blackbody temperatures – which are the planet effective temperatures Te.correct corrected by the use of the Φ -factor. The Φ = 0,47 for smooth surface planets and moons, and the Φ = 1 for the rough surface planets and moons. As we can see, in the second graph, the red dot planets and the green dot planets have stretched in a linear functional relation according to their Warming Factor = (β*N*cp)^1/16 values. The bigger is the planet’s or moon’s Warming Factor, the higher is the (Tsat /Te.correct) ratio. It is obviously a linearly related function.

On a recent comment thread at Climate Etc. Christos Vournas provided a link to his blog. After spending time reading his articles I made this post to introduce aspects of his studies and thinking that I find persuasive. His home page sets the theme The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon. Below are just a few excerpts from Vournas’ blog in italics with my bolds.

[Note:  I have added two additional posts on Vournas findings Earthshine and Moonshine: Big Difference  and Beware Energy Balance Cartoons]

Introduction

My name is Christos J. Vournas, M.Sc. mechanical engineer, living in Athens Greece. I launched this site to have an opportunity to publish my scientific discoveries on the Climate Change.  I have been studying the Planet Earth’s Climate Change since November 2015;

First I discovered the Reversed Milankovitch Cycle.

Then I found the faster a planet rotates (n2>n1) the higher is the planet’s average (mean) temperature T↑mean.

Φ – the next discovery – is the dimensionless Solar Irradiation accepting factor – very important

The further studies led me to discover the Rotating Planet Spherical Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law and the Planet’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation.

##### The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon

It is well known that when a planet rotates faster its daytime maximum temperature lessens and the night time minimum temperature rises.

But there is something else very interesting happens. When a planet rotates faster it is a warmer planet. (It happens because Tmin↑↑ grows higher than T↓max goes down)

The faster a planet rotates (n2>n1) the higher is the planet’s average (mean) temperature T↑mean:

Tmin↑↑→ T↑mean ← T↓max

The understanding of this phenomenon comes from a deeper knowledge of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. It happens so because when rotating faster a planet’s surface has a new radiative equilibrium temperatures to achieve.

##### A Planet Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation

A Planet Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation derives from the incomplete Te equation which is based on the radiative equilibrium and on the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

Using the new equation, the new estimate Tmean closely matches the estimate surface temperatures from satellite observations:

 Planet Te.incomp Tmean Tsat.mean Mercury 437,30K 323,11K 340K Earth 255K 287,74K 288K Moon 271K 221,74K 220K Mars 209,91K 213,59K 210K

We have moved further from the incomplete effective temperature equation

Te = [ (1-a) S / 4 σ ]¹∕ ⁴

(which is in common use right now, but actually it is an incomplete planet Te equation and that is why it gives us very confusing results)

a – is the planet’s surface average albedo

S – is the solar flux, W/m²

σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant

We have discovered the Planet Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation

Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (1)

The Planet Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation is also based on the radiative equilibrium and on the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

The Equation is being completed by adding to the incomplete Te equation the new parameters Φ, N, cp and the constant β.

Φ – is the dimensionless Solar Irradiation accepting factor

Φ – is the dimensionless Solar Irradiation accepting factor.  It is a realizing that a sphere’s surface absorbs the incident solar irradiation not as a disk of the same diameter, but accordingly to its spherical shape.  For a smooth spherical surface Φ = 0,47

N – rotations /day, is the planet’s axial spin

cp – cal /gr*oC, is the planet’s surface specific heat capacity

β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant.

The Planet Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation is also based on the radiative equilibrium and on the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

But the New Equation doesn’t consider planet behaving as a blackbody, and the New Equation doesn’t state planet having a uniform surface temperature.

Interesting, very interesting what we see here:

 Planet Tsat mean Rotations Tmin Tmax Mercury 340 K 1/176 100K 700K Earth 288 K 1 Moon 220 Κ 1/29,5 100K 390K Mars 210 K 0,9747 130K 308K

Earth and Moon are at the same distance from the Sun R = 1 AU.

Earth and Mars have almost the same axial spin N = 1rotation /day.

Moon and Mars have almost the same satellite measured average temperatures 220 K and 210 K.

Mercury and Moon have the same minimum temperature 100 K.

Mars’ minimum temperature is 130 K, which is much higher than for the closer to the Sun Mercury’s and Moon’s minimum temperature 100 K.

The planet’s effective temperature old Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ incomplete equation gives very confusing results.

And the faster rotating Earth and Mars appear to be relatively warmer planets.

We ended up to the following remarkable results

To be honest with you, at the beginning, I was surprised myself with these results.

You see, I was searching for a mathematical approach…

##### We use more major parameters for the planet’s surface temperature equation.

Planet is a celestial body with more major features when calculating planet effective temperature to consider. The planet without-atmosphere effective temperature calculating formula has to include all the planet’s basic properties and all the characteristic parameters.

3. The planet’s axial spin N rotations/day.

4. The thermal property of the surface (the specific heat capacity cp).

5. The planet’s surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φ ( the spherical surface’s primer solar irradiation absorbing property ).

Altogether these parameters are combined in the Planet’s Without-Atmosphere Surface Mean Temperature Equation:

Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R²) (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (1)

Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation
Tmean.earth

So = 1.361 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)

Earth’s albedo: aearth = 0,306

Earth is a rocky planet, Earth’s surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47 (Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r²(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)

β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant

N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earth’s sidereal rotation spin

cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean.

Generally speaking almost the whole Earth’s surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.

σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant

Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:

Tmean.earth = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴

Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =

Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150*1*1)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =

Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.897.370,96 )¹∕ ⁴ = 287,74 K

Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ

And we compare it with the

Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.

These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.

##### Conclusions:

The equation produces remarkable results.

A Planet Without-Atmosphere Surface Mean Temperature Equation gives us a planet surface mean temperature values very close to the satellite measured planet mean temperatures.

It is a Stefan-Boltzmann Law Triumph! And it is a Milankovitch Cycle coming back! And as for NASA, all these new discoveries were possible only due to NASA satellites planet temperatures precise measurements!

The calculated planets’ temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.

The 288 K – 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.

The air density is some 1,23 kg/m³, and it is a very thin atmosphere of 1 bar at sea level.… In Earth’s very thin atmosphere  there are on average 1% H₂O and 0,04% CO₂.  Those two are trace gases in Earth’s very thin atmosphere. H₂O and CO₂ very tiny contents in earth’s atmosphere are not capable to absorb the alleged huge “absorbed by atmosphere 70%-85% outgoing IR radiation” portion.

The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface.

##### Postscript:  Reversed Milankovitch Cycle

Of course climate changes.  And of course the planet’s rotational spin is almost constant.  Also Earth has a very thin atmosphere; Earth has a very small greenhouse phenomenon in its atmosphere and it doesn’t warm the planet.

The cause of climate change is not the Earth’s atmosphere. The cause of climate change is orbital.  Milutin Milankovitch has explained everything 100 years ago.

The ( Ṃ ↓ ) represents the Original Milankovitch Cycle grapheme.  And the ( Ẇ ↑ ) represents the Reversed Milankovitch Cycle grapheme.

( Ṃ ↓ ) – supposedly this is the Original Milankovitch Cycle. Please take notice of the dot under ( Ṃ ↓ ).  The dot’s position represents the present time, when Planet Earth is in Original Milankovitch Cycle Minima:  The Original Milankovitch Cycle shows a cooling trend.

( Ẇ ↑ ) The Reversed Milankovitch Cycle shows a warming trend.

Milankovitch had to reverse his cycle to match the instrumental data. But he didn’t have time.  It was a critical mistake in Milankovitch’s assumptions.  Now it is time for us to make the necessary correction. 100 years have passed, Milankovitch agrees, if it is necessary, for us to make a correction.

When comparing with the Perihelion point, which is at January 2, the solar irradiance Earth receives now is 7% less. As a result we have at the North Hemisphere much cooler summers and much warmer winters.  In 10.000 (ten thousand) years from now, Earth’s axis will be pointing at star Vega, instead of Polaris at which it points now. So in 10.000 years the Winter Solstice will occur when Earth is in Aphelion (it happens now with Earth in Perihelion).

As a result in 10.000 years we would have at the North Hemisphere much warmer summers and much cooler winters. A shift of 7% in the Hemispheres’ insolation intensity will happen.  Instead of the Southern Hemisphere (as it happens now) with its vast oceans accumulative capacity… there would be a +7% stronger insolation on the North Hemisphere’s plethora of continental areas.

We know continents do not accumulate heat so much effectively as oceans do, thus Earth will gradually cool down, until a New Ice Age commences!

As for the current warming phase – we still receive the +7% solar energy onto Southern Hemisphere’s oceans… and oceans willingly accumulate the excess solar energy…It happens so during the current Winter Solstices, when Earth is still tilted towards sun with its Southern Hemisphere’s vast oceanic waters.

The warming trend we observe now started some 6.500 years ago. It is a very slow process. The MWP ( the Medieval Warm Period ) is a confirmation of the existence of a long warming trend.  The LIA ( the Little Ice Age ) was observed as a colder atmosphere and more snowy winters. Also the glaciers were increasing.

On the other hand oceans continued accumulating heat.  It is a very long cycle. We are observing the Reversed Milankovitch Cycle culmination period. It will last about a millennia and a half and then there will be a cooling trend.

Right now Planet Earth is in an orbital forced warming trend. And these are culmination times.  The very slow warming trend will continue for about a 1,5 millennia on. Then slowly and gradually the Global Temperatures will become cooler.

## Four Blunders in EU Climate Plan

Pieter Cleppe writes at Real Clear Energy Four Flaws With the EU’s New Climate Plans Excerpts in italics wtih my bolds and images.

Last week, the European Commission presented its so-called Fit for 55 proposals, a raft of legislative initiatives intended to adapt EU law to the 2030 target of reducing CO2 emissions by 55 percent from 1990 levels. The idea is to adapt legislation originally intended to achieve a 40% reduction.

This undertaking, however, is marked by serious shortcomings. Herewith, I summarize what’s wrong with it, listing four main flaws.

1. ##### The European Commission is employing a top-down approach, riddled with taxes and spending

The European Commission seems to take former U.S. president Ronald Reagan’s characterization of “government’s view of the economy” as a manual, rather than as a warning. As Reagan summarized government’s approach: “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

Most remarkable here is the Commission’s intention to impose a de facto ban on gasoline and diesel cars by 2035, even if France seems keen to extend this until 2040. When even France is less restrictive, you’re not in a good place. Feeling the need to resort to outright prohibition, the Commission is clearly not putting great trust in innovation to come up with economically efficient, CO2-neutral cars.

A notable change is the expansion of the EU’s cap and trade scheme, which puts a price on emitting CO2 but allows companies to buy and sell their right to do so. The Commission wants to expand this so-called Emissions Trading System (ETS) – set up 16 years ago and covering power plants, intra-EU aviation, and energy-intensive industries – to include buildings, road transport, and shipping. The expansion would start gradually in 2023 and be phased in over three years, as the emission-rights regime for aviation is being tightened up and sectors not covered by ETS are made subject to emission-reduction targets, with binding targets per member state. EU minimum excise-duty rates on various energy sources, like motor or heating fuel, would also need to be increased, and a jet-fuel tax would need to be introduced on intra-EU flights, on top of a tax on maritime fuel.

Opponents of the proposals, which still need to be approved by both EU member states and the European Parliament, include the shipping industry, which hasn’t exactly welcomed its inclusion into the ETS system. The International Chamber of Shipping described the proposal as “an ideological revenue raising exercise, which will greatly upset the EU’s trading partners,” as it would involve “non-EU shipping companies to be forced to pay billions of euros to support EU economic recovery plans.”

This doesn’t even account for another part of Fit for 55, whereby the Commission intends to create the world’s first carbon border tariff, to be levied on imports of goods including steel, cement, and aluminum, to be phased in from 2026. This step is deemed necessary because two-thirds of CO₂-emissions are likely to continue, only now outside of the EU, causing “carbon leakage” – a phenomenon notably hard to estimate, although we know that China has long outpaced the U.S. and the EU in terms of carbon emission.

In response, Belgian employer federation VBO-FEB issued a warning about this “carbon border adjustment mechanism,” stating that “policy makers must be careful that (…) this will not cause other countries to impose countermeasures or cause supply chain distortions, leading us to import more finished products than raw resources.” The question remains as to whether this is not a protectionist measure in violation of the WTO agreement – especially when certain European producers would be exempt. In any case, it will unleash lots of extra bureaucracy, especially for small companies.

Also in line with Reagan’s description of government thinking is the European Commission’s plan to spend billions of euros to compensate for the damage done by its own measures – such as its proposal for a new “social climate fund” “to prevent fuel poverty,” using one-fifth of ETS revenue, on top of another fund, the €100 billion Just Transition Mechanism to help coal-dependent countries like Poland make the transition away from coal. Combined with the Commission’s demand to get at least 50% of the income derived from the new ETS transport and buildings revenue, this would mean that the ETS system would morph into an outright EU tax – a dream eurocrats have been pursuing for years.

##### 2.  The proposed measures disproportionately hurt the poor

The European Commission itself has admitted that measures like putting a carbon price on heating fuels “will not affect households equally, but would likely have a regressive impact on disposable income, as low-income households tend to spend a greater proportion of their income on heating.” It is testimony to how divided opinion is even within the Commission, where many are questioning the rather extreme approach of EU Climate Commissioner Frans Timmermans.

The predicted hardship for the poor then serves as yet another excuse to spend money – now to alleviate the damage done by the measures. The Commission is seemingly unaware that to finance spending, taxes are needed, and even corporate taxes are ultimately disproportionately borne by low-skilled workers. There is no free lunch, even when paying tribute to the Climate Gods.

Over the last few years, as exemptions for the CO2 emission-trading system have been reduced, this scheme has put upward pressure on energy prices, so it can be feared that this will cause more damage to the economy, particularly hurting the poor. The Commission thinks that CO2 prices in Europe will increase by 50 percent by 2030 if its plans are implemented – but some hedge funds already project an increase of almost 100% by the end of this year, with the more modest current arrangement in place.

Pascal Canfin, chair of the European parliament’s environment committee, who started his career with the greens but is now a key ally of French president Emmanuel Macron, has called the plan to create an emissions trading system (ETS) for transport and buildings “politically suicidal” and “a huge political mistake.” He stated: “It’s a very bad idea,” adding that the Commission was “going to trap” lower middle-class families, noting that those hit the hardest would be people in regions with poor public transport and residents who could not pay for energy-efficiency upgrades to their homes. This follows the French government’s experience with the “gilets jaunes” (yellow vest) protesters, who managed to get Macron to abandon a fuel-tax hike in 2018.

France will take over the EU’s rotating presidency in 2022; let’s see how much then remains of the European Commission’s grand plans.

Germany’s automobile industry has also warned that the proposed measures may have a “substantial” impact on jobs at auto suppliers – so even if the greens form part of the new German government, this may not all sail through so smoothly.

##### 3.  The European Commission is not respecting the idea of “tech neutrality”

It’s one thing to impose a target to reduce CO2 emissions. It is quite another to try to micromanage how this can be achieved. Nevertheless, that is what the European Commission is doing with its so-called “EU taxonomy for sustainable activities,” a classification system meant to clarify which investments are environmentally sustainable, in the context of the “European Green Deal,” of which Fit for 55 forms a part.

Several MEPs (mainly Greens) hold up anti-nuclear posters at the debate.

Despite all the evidence that nuclear power is CO2 neutral, the Commission refuses to acknowledge this reality. This denialism is the result of pressure by Germany, which decided to shut down all its nuclear plants, a policy that has driven energy prices in that country to record levels while also supporting the coal-energy sector. Germany thereby goes against the in-house scientific body of the European Commission, the Joint Research Centre, which declared earlier this year that nuclear power is a safe and climate-friendly energy source and should be considered as “green” under the EU’s classification system.

To add insult to injury, the Commission considers biomass a renewable energy – despite the fact that burning wood for energy, which is what biomass is ultimately all about, typically emits 1.5 times more CO2 than coal and three times more than natural gas. The EU is the world’s largest net importer of wood pellets; the main net exporters are the United States, Canada, and Russia.

Green campaigners have been complaining about EU member states like Estonia that allow intensive clear-cutting of trees in forests protected under EU Natura 2000 rules. One NGO, the Estonian Fund for Nature, has also pointed out there is a direct connection between the subsidized growth in the biomass industry and EU renewable-energy policies.

More than 500 scientists have urged the EU to stop treating biomass as carbon-neutral. Even if one disagrees, and believes that biomass can be sustainable and renewable, it still doesn’t make sense to privilege biomass over nuclear power.

Biomass represents almost 60% of renewable-energy consumption in the EU, so the implications of no longer considering it as renewable energy would be grave: wind and solar power contribute only marginally to the EU’s energy provision, irrespective of their environmental downsides. Changing biomass’s renewable status would make it almost unavoidable to recognize nuclear power, which would be embarrassing for the likes of German chancellor Angela Merkel, who has been putting so much political capital into defending Germany’s nuclear exit.

##### 4.  The EU’s grand plans may not do that much for climate change

At the end of the day, the goal of all this is to counter CO2 emissions in a bid to halt climate change.

Here, an interesting contrarian view comes from Danish economist Bjørn Lomborg, author of the bestseller “The Skeptical Environmentalist.”

Lomborg has highlighted UN Climate Panel estimates that the negative impact of climate change in the 2070s would be equivalent to reducing the average income between 0.2% and 2% – meaning that global incomes would increase only by 356% by then, and not by 362%. He then contrasts this with the enormous cost of EU climate policies, which would “quadruple electricity wholesale prices in just a decade,” and he cites academic studies showing the real costs of EU climate policies to be four times higher than optimistic EU estimates, ultimately amounting to a whopping €4 trillion to €5 trillion.

Lomborg estimates that the new EU target of 55% carbon-emission reduction will reduce the global temperature by the end of the century by an immeasurable 0.004°C – “equivalent to postponing global warming by six weeks in 2100.”

Surely we can agree that it is hard for both proponents and skeptics of expensive climate policies to provide hard proof that they are right in their arguments. But these estimates should make even the most committed EU Commission climate fanatic pause for reflection.

Global warming is in our mental models.

## Covid Masks Make CO2 Toxic

It turns out CO2 is not a climate threat, but masking up for COVID makes it dangerous.  At the Federalist Maggie Hroncich explains in an article AMA Journal: Masks Are Bad For Your Kids. Quit Forcing Them To Wear Them  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

A new report published by an American Medical Association journal revealed forcing children to wear face masks leads to adverse health effects. JAMA Pediatrics, a top-rated monthly journal published by the AMA, found wearing face masks increases the amount of carbon dioxide in inhaled air to unhealthy levels.

The study measured carbon dioxide levels in 45 children ages 6-17 while wearing masks. The normal content of carbon dioxide in the air is 400 parts per million (ppm), with anything above 2000 ppm considered unacceptable by the German Federal Environmental Office.

The JAMA report measured averages of 13,120 to 13,910 ppm of carbon dioxide in the inhaled air of children wearing masks, which is over six times higher than the unsafe threshold. The study further pointed out this measurement was after only three minutes of wearing a mask. Children forced to wear masks at school find themselves wearing masks for hours, five days a week.

The JAMA report follows a larger German survey of over 25,000 children, which found 68 percent of them reportedly had problems while wearing facial coverings.

“Most of the complaints reported by children can be understood as consequences of elevated carbon dioxide levels in inhaled air,” the JAMA study concluded. “This is because of the dead-space volume of the masks, which collects exhaled carbon dioxide quickly after a short time.”

“This carbon dioxide mixes with fresh air and elevates the carbon dioxide content of inhaled air under the mask, and this was more pronounced in this study for younger children.” The authors of the study urged those who are forcing children to wear masks to consider the scientific evidence when making that decision.

“Many governments have made nose and mouth covering or face masks compulsory for schoolchildren. The evidence base for this is weak,” the study found. “We suggest that decision-makers weigh the hard evidence produced by these experimental measurements accordingly, which suggest that children should not be forced to wear face masks.”

##### Meanwhile Fauci Gets It Wrong Again

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 7:00 PM PT – Monday, July 19, 2021
Dr. Anthony Fauci has pushed for young children to wear face masks as school look to reopen nationwide. Earlier on Monday, the nation’s chief medical advisor stood beside the American Academy of Pediatrics who recommended schools could require young children as young as three-years-old to mask up indoors, regardless of their vaccination states.

## Gruesome Climate Crisis Talk at Davos

Michelle Stirling explains what is terribly wrong about their train of thinking in the video below.  For those who prefer reading a transcript, I have provided one below, in italics with my bolds along with some images.

##### Davos climate crisis talk is disturbing and inaccurate

Hi, I’m Michelle Stirling for Friends of Science Society. I love life, I enjoy this beautiful world and I think being alive is a wonderful gift. That’s why it’s so disturbing to read some of the comments from the recent World Economic Forum in Davos. The conference concluded leaving some commentators concerned about depopulation talk from high profile individuals like Jane Goodall and misinterpreted IPCC SR 1.5 findings by Greta Thunberg, and talk of doomsday battles by Al Gore.

Goodell’s statement shocked many people when she said all these environmental things we talk about wouldn’t be a problem if there was the size of population that there was 500 years ago. The world’s population is estimated to have been about 500 million people then, or 6.7 billion less than today. Depopulation notions stem from apocalyptic climate visions but Roger Pielke jr. explains in a January 2nd, 2020, article in forbes that climate science has been corrupted by the influential risky business report of 2014. This report was funded by green billionaires and proliferated into the media and scientific domains by powerful environmental groups. Pielke jr. says the report misattributes the proposed pathways, focusing on the most extreme scenario called the representative concentrated Pathway 8.5, something that is far from a business-as-usual case relevant to the Davos set of bankers and billionaires.

Mark Carney’s infamous speech to Lloyd’s of London of 2015 breaking the tragedy of the horizon that Also invoked the risky business report that Pielke jr. says has corrupted climate Science. RCP 8.5 is used in an influential graph on page 105 in the IPCC SR 1.5 report that Greta Thunberg refers to in her speeches at Davos. Greta referred to a table on page 108 of theIPCC SR 1.5 report for her crisis comments, but most of the scientific papers referred to in that table were published in or before 2013. And in 2013 the IPCC AR 5 report in box 9.2 chapter 9 stated there had been a hiatus in warming since before Kyoto. That’s like 15 years despite a dramatic rise in carbon dioxide concentration from human industry and activity.

Dr Judith Curry testified to the US Senate on January 16, 2014, that based on that IPCC AR-5 evidence, carbon dioxide is not the control knob that can fine-tune climate. Curry noted that the science of climate change is not settled and evidence reported by the IPCC AR-5 weakens the case for human factors dominating climate change.

Nevertheless well-known climate scientists like professor Katherine Hayhoe continue to present proposed mitigation pathways as she did at the University of Calgary wherein she stated that she considered China to be a leader in climate mitigation.

We are just starting now to curve off the higher scenario if you notice here we’re almost here we’re just starting to curve off the higher scenario. When I say we I actually mean it’s mostly, get this, it’s mostly good in China. China has more wind and solar energy than any other country in the world. And you know I’m not a hundred percent confident in their emission estimates, so keep this with a bit of a grain of salt. But at least what we’re working with in the global level suggests that we’re starting to peel off the higher scenario, but not fast enough to get down to a lower scenario or meet the pair of targets. That’s absurd: a month of China’s emissions equal a whole year of emissions by Canada.

World Primary Energy consumed in 2020 was 567 Exajoules (BP Statistics)

Hayhoe advocated for rapid decarbonization referring to the RCP 8.5 versus a lower RCP. But a chart from the original report from Van Viren et al shows that no RCP scenario is fossil fuel free, debunking the notion that net zero 2050 should even be part of public policy or that rapid decarbonization is necessary. Roger Pielke jr. says these RCP models cannot be compared to each other, and even the RCP authors state they’re not meant to be used in this way. For instance all the RCP pathways other than 8.5 represent a world with billions fewer people.

Another highlight at Davos was Al Gore’s fear-infested closing as noted by Hans Rosling and family in their book Factfulness. In 2009 Rosling met Al Gore who told him then we have to create fear, an approach that that medical doctor and international public health policy expert Rosling rejected. Rosling wrote that fear plus urgency makes for stupid drastic decisions with unpredictable side effects. And contrary to the doom and gloom of Davos, Factfulness shows how the world is improving for all people despite certain inequities, contrary to the doom and gloom of Davos. A decade later Al Gore continues with his apocalyptic approach, and at Davos he claimed the climate crisis was equivalent to historic wars even invoking 9 /11 again.

As Roger Pielke jr. notes in an earlier Forbes article, this is nothing but climate porn and is not supported by the scientific evidence in IPCC reports But fortunately there is a global pushback on this damaging depopulation and doom and gloom fear-mongering. CLINTEL, the climate intelligence organization based in the Netherlands, representing more than 800 global scientists, sent a letter to the World Economic Forum stating there’s no climate emergency and insisting that we do have time.

And pointing out the uncertainties of climate models that Greta and Al Gore use for their apocalyptic statements. A commentary has been posted on CFACT that summarizes the CLINTEL manifesto and Friends of Science Society. We’ve published the CLINTEL document and videos on our blog.

It is deeply disturbing that depopulation talk has become part of mainstream climate policy discussions with even a Quebec politician suggesting that medically assisted suicide could be available to those who want to die to save the planet. We were given this gift of life in a beautiful world, one that has problems, but I believe we are up to the challenge. There’s no climate emergency so let us live with hope and joy.

For Friends of Science Society, I’m Michelle Stirling

##### My Summary

Clearly, the 1% are fearful of losing their planetary playground because the other 99% of us consume too much.  So they want there to be fewer of us and to constrain our personal mobility and choices.  Not so long ago, Romanians has strict quotas for their daily calorie intake.  Several countries plan to scrap gasoline autos and affordable air travel. This is the driving force behind the Great Reset.  Who knows how this mindset translates into actions on the ground?

## Systemic Election Malpractice in Maricopa County

On the technical operations of election processing, the audit in Maricopa County, AZ, has provided this overview published at Gateway Pundit Cyber Ninjas Found So Many Issues with the Voting Machines and Processes in Maricopa County It’s a Wonder the Previous Auditors Didn’t Find These Issues Too.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Ben Cotton’s team is auditing the IT-related practices and policies in the 2020 Election in Maricopa County. He shared some important items during his presentation last week that any good IT auditor would find.  We pointed out previously that the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors hired two election firms because they knew these firms would give them a clean bill of health.

But Ben Cotton and his team were selected by the Cyber Ninjas to address the IT work related to Maricopa County’s results in the 2020 Election.  Investigator Cotton from CyFIR performed work that the previous auditors should have covered.

It’s a difficult task for these auditors because Maricopa County has been completely uncooperative, even with basic questions, referring auditors to lawyers.  This all provides more support that the subjects under audit, the auditees, are guilty and doing everything they can to postpone the evaluation.

Dominion has two full-time staff onsite servicing the Maricopa County election system. The current Dominion software was installed in August 2019. Since that date, there have been no antivirus updates, no operating system updates, or any security patches. Administrator accounts were also created on that date, each having the exact same password. These are actions of a ‘worst in class’ IT Department and it is a deliberate subterfuge of an election system.  Common practice is to update patches on a much more regular basis.

Below is a list of items addressed by Cotton during his presentation to the Arizona Senate last Thursday.

1. Auditors have collected over 2,000 Terabytes of data, the vast majority is video footage.
2. What Maricopa County has told the public is often drastically different than their response to the legal subpoena.
3. Maricopa didn’t use a forensically secure process to clone drives. Dates and times were altered by their cloning process.
4. On March 11th, 2021 someone with Admin access to the (EMS) election management system ran a script that produced 37,646 queries looking for blank passwords. The system has only 8 user accounts. (see below)
5. Windows Security Event Logs before February 5th, 2021 are missing.
6. Every election Administrator account, no matter the user, all have the same password.
7. When the Dominion software was installed in August 2019, Administrative passwords were created, and haven’t been changed since.
8. The vulnerabilities that exist on the Maricopa election systems would take an average script kiddie less than 10 minutes to gain access to these systems.
9. Maricopa’s election system uses ibutton key fobs as the 2nd step in logins. Maricopa and Dominion have refused to provide these fobs to auditors. (see below).
10. It’s become readily apparent there are severe cybersecurity problems with the way the election management system and network was maintained.
11. We are seeing anonymous logins at the system level that do not follow that pattern of normal Windows behavior.
12. After both sides agreed on a solution, Maricopa County then refused to release that router data.
13. Maricopa can’t check the configuration of its own election system without relying on Dominion employees.
14. The two EAC audits hired by Maricopa earlier in the year appear not to have addressed cybersecurity aspects, not even shared passwords.
15. Not a single bit of data was changed on any device in the auditor’s possession. Use of a “write block” device prevented this. Images were made bit by bit, then an MD5 hash value was applied. There is no need to purchase new machines.
16. There have been no antivirus updates, operating system updates, or security patches applied to the election system since August 2019, the date Dominion software was installed.

Maricopa repeatedly told the public the election system did not touch the internet but this was not true. If so the system could not have comingled with other Maricopa County department’s data. To prevent the release of router information, the Board of Supervisors and Sheriff then said election router data DID mingle with critical information from other county departments. By using EAC auditors, Maricopa told the public election machines were safe and secure. They now say those same auditors can’t be hired to test the same machines. This week they approved the purchase of new Dominion machines at \$3 million.

The use of ibuttons is unusual for PC logins, and is very old technology. These ibuttons are typically used to verify a location or for access control. For instance, a security guard touches his ibutton to various doors to verify he walked his patrol. In Maricopa County, after you login as an election Admin, you must also use a preprogrammed ibutton to obtain access to the Dominion election system. Maricopa County stated only Dominion staff have the Admin ibuttons and both organizations have refused to help the auditors obtain them.

Overall, the IT-related observations of control practices to date are horrible. In some cases, the County is using old technology. In other cases, the processes are broken or even non-existent. With such as mess, how did the IT election auditors hired by the county not notice them?

## Climate Kool-Aid

Johnathan DuHamel has another fine article at his blog Wry Heat  The Biden Administration Has Swallowed the Climate Kool-Aid.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and some images.

The Biden administration thinks they can stop global warming (aka climate change) by eliminating carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels and switching electrical generation to wind and solar installations. Biden says “follow the science.” If he did follow the science he would realize that there is no physical evidence that carbon dioxide plays a significant role in controlling global temperature (see posts at the end of this article).

Biden wants 80% hydrocarbon-free electricity generation by 2030, 100% by 2035 and elimination of fossil fuels from all sectors of the U.S. economy by 2050.

According to Paul Driessen (senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow), “ this would send the nation’s annual electricity requirement soaring from about 2.7 billion megawatt-hours (the fossil fuel portion of total U.S. electricity) to almost 7.5 billion MWh per year by 2050. Substantial additional generation would be required to constantly recharge backup batteries for windless, sunless days, to safeguard society against blackouts, cyberattacks and wholesale collapse. Generating all that electricity without new nuclear and hydroelectric plants would require tens of thousands of 850-foot-tall offshore wind turbines, hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of somewhat smaller onshore turbines, and billions of photovoltaic solar panels. All these turbines, panels, batteries and power lines would require tens of billions of tons of non-renewable iron, copper, aluminum, cobalt, lithium, rare earth elements, plastics, limestone and other materials. That would necessitate mining, crushing, processing, refining and transporting tens of billions of tons of ores – from thousands of mines and quarries, using gigantic gasoline and diesel equipment – followed by smelting and manufacturing, all with fossil fuels.

None of this is clean, green or sustainable.”

So, how is “global warming” doing. We can consult with Dr. Roy Spencer who manages the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. This satellite system measures global atmospheric temperature daily. The latest results are seen here:

You should notice that global atmospheric temperatures in April, May, and June, 2021, were below the 1991-2020 average and similar to temperatures in 1983. According to the Global Monitoring Laboratory of NOAA at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, atmospheric carbon dioxide was about 340ppm in 1983 versus about 418ppm now. Although there has been deviation from the average due to things like the El Nino-La Nina cycles, there has not been any overall warming in spite of the increase in carbon dioxide.

Biden and other climate alarmists have swallowed the climate “Kool-Aid” and claim that reducing just one, small, insignificant factor will be the panacea in controlling global temperature, but it’s not that simple:

“The forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change.” — James Hansen, “Climate forcings in the Industrial era”, PNAS, Vol. 95, Issue 22, 12753-12758, October 27, 1998.

“In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the prediction of a specific future climate state is not possible.” — Final chapter,Third Assessment Report, IPCC 2000.

While controlling CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels may have some beneficial effects on air quality, it will have no measurable effect on climate, but great detrimental effects on the economy and our standard of living. The greatest danger of climate change is that politicians think they can stop it. But the climate has always been in a state of flux. In my opinion, the debate over global warming is truly a scam designed to control (and tax) production and use of energy from fossil fuels.

The alleged “climate crisis” is just a scam perpetrated for political gain.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” —H. L. Mencken (1880-1956)

(Note to younger readers: The term “Kool-Aid” used in this context refers to cult leader Jim Jones who, on November 18, 1978, instructed all members living in the Jonestown, Guyana compound to commit an act of “revolutionary suicide,” by drinking poisoned punch. Link )

For the real science, see these articles from my blog

## Green Energy Failures Redux

I was going to end the title of this post with “Deja Vu”, but then changed it to “Redux”, because in this case the return of the past is not an illusion, but an actual imitation of failed policies.  David Blackmon writes in Forbes Biden Seems Determined To Replay Obama Era Green Energy Failures.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and images.

Over the last few weeks, President Joe Biden and members of his administration have mounted a focused effort to sell massive new green energy spending to the American people.

Former Obama-era EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, now the Biden White House climate adviser, is pushing Congress to include a federal clean electricity standard (CES) to drive investment in renewable energy and billions in subsidies to incentivize changeover further. Secretary of Energy Jenifer Granholm is doing the same.

The fact McCarthy, and an official like Granholm who has a track record of failed green energy subsidies — are leading this effort makes this massive push all the more frustrating. These officials, well-meaning though they may be, should know by now that government energy subsidies overwhelmingly end up financing the well-connected rather than the most innovative, a concern I wrote about in a recent piece. The end result is wasted funds and harm to the sector that the government wants to help.

The trial that Elon Musk’s SolarCity has found itself in this week serves as a timely reminder of just how poorly the Obama-Biden green energy agenda went last time around. Beyond the regulatory and quality assurance issues his space company SpaceX and car company Tesla currently face, including recently violating an FAA launch license, Musk is now actively tangled in a legal battle from the solar panel manufacturer’s merger with Tesla. The billionaire stands accused of defrauding investors by not disclosing that the company was on the verge of bankruptcy and that it was highly risky for Tesla — itself a struggling company at the time — to take on SolarCity’s debt.

SolarCity’s struggles were containable partly because it was awarded federal subsidies and nearly \$500 million in Treasury grants. The Obama-Biden administration ended up wasting billions of taxpayer dollars with companies like SolarCity and Solyndra going broke or facing significant trouble soon after receiving the helping hand.

To give you an idea of the program’s effectiveness, the fact that SolarCity still technically exists despite its near-bankruptcy and \$29 million settlement with the Department of Justice over the fraud case makes it one of the success stories.

Even when investments turn into actual infrastructure, consumers will be unlikely to reap the benefits. Many have championed the “progress” green energy has made over the last decade in providing a more competitive product, but the facilities are still failing, and the progress has been de minimis in terms of capturing global energy market share.

Just last year, the Department of Energy watched as Tonopah Solar Energy LLC in Nevada declared bankruptcy after receiving a \$737 million loan from one of their green energy programs. If you can’t make solar panels work in present-day Nevada, how do you expect them to fuel the energy needs of places like Colorado, where Sec. Granholm and Senator John Hickenlooper recently toured a solar garden?

Utility companies that stand to receive billions in subsidies to upgrade their infrastructure support the measure because it will raise rates on consumers while reducing operating costs. Green energy is less efficient and less reliable, so the cost of operations will undoubtedly go up. But with the government covering the costs of setup and repair, it means more revenue with fewer expenses. This will help stockholders far more than working people.

But the calls from the climate change lobby for action are growing louder. Despite not making it into last month’s bipartisan infrastructure deal, many Democrats hope billions of dollars in green subsidies will find their way into a second infrastructure bill that party officials plan to pass through reconciliation. In fact, some Democrats are threatening to withhold their votes for the bipartisan bill unless they receive guarantees of energy provisions.

Democrats have to pass these measures by party-line vote not because Republicans hate the environment (the GOP has a climate change caucus) but due to the fact that their plan is so costly and ill-advised that even moderate Republicans like Susan Collins and Mitt Romney can’t devise a rationale to reasonably offer support. The hard truth is that renewable energy technology isn’t currently capable of handling America’s growing energy demands and remains unlikely to do so in the future.

While the idea of renewable energy remains appealing, the reality is that fossil fuels, natural gas, and nuclear power will all be necessary to power our nation for decades to come.

Everyone should support innovation in the energy sector, but the subsidy-heavy plan that Democrats continue to push will only lead to wasted dollars and public backlash against a policy of failed projects. Congress has been down this road before. When the Green New Deal first came up, the bill was seen as so ridiculous that Speaker Pelosi wouldn’t even bring it up for a vote. Congressional Democrats should stick to that past wisdom and avoid falling back into this green subsidy trap.

As REN21, an advocacy group consisting of actors from science, governments, NGOs and industry, recently reported, this is a strategy that, from 2009 through 2019, produced virtually no real gain in overall green energy market share despite trillions of dollars in global targeted subsidies. A replaying of this same failed Obama-era strategy, managed by some of the very same officials, promises only to produce similarly failed results, albeit on an even grander scale.

##### Footnote Q & A:

Q:  What is the difference between Golf and Government?

A:  In Government you can always improve your lie.

–Anonymous Source

## No, Guardian, Ivermectin Not Discredited by Elgazzar Retraction

The hits against Ivermectin keep on coming.  Dr. Colleen Aldous and Dr. Warren Parker explain this latest smear campaign in their article Ivermectin — front-line doctors vs bureaucrats.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Given the safety profile of Ivermectin, there is nothing to lose and there’s a good possibility of saving many lives and slowing the pandemic

The Ivermectin battle of ideologies on safety and efficacy pits a group of doctors who deal with dying patients every day against bureaucrat academic clinicians. These academic clinicians have dismissed all evidence, favouring a single, large randomised trial that is entirely appropriate for novel drug development but not for pandemics.

This is akin to a person suffering a heart attack and refusing to be taken to hospital in a Toyota, choosing to wait for a Rolls-Royce.

If science is pure, there should not really be a debate, but there is, and it’s purely on the interpretation of science. The Ivermectin meta-analyses have shown that subjectivity in science does happen, something the layperson is made to believe is not possible.

Unfortunately, scientific fraud has also muddied the picture on both sides of the Ivermectin divide. The Elgazzar Ivermectin study, which showed Ivermectin to be highly effective, has been removed from the preprint website for unethical scientific reporting. If this is found to be true it is unforgivable and the authors need to be dealt with.

I’ve no doubt that this will be used to discredit Ivermectin, but it is one of many trials showing efficacy and will be shown to have little weight in the meta-analyses. Just because one lawyer is guilty of corruption does not mean all lawyers are corrupt. In the same vein, a study published in leading medical journal Lancet, showed that hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for Covid-19 was associated with an increased risk of death in patients hospitalised with the disease. However, it was found to be fraudulent and the Lancet was forced to retract the paper.

Bias can come in selecting studies to include in the analysis and the interpretation of the results. Ivermectin can be shown to work by a careful selection of studies that support it. It can be discredited by selecting studies that show it is ineffective.

The SA National Essential Medicines List Committee (NEMLC), which has published its methods on its website, has produced an in-house rapid-review on Ivermectin, which continues to find that Ivermectin should not be used outside clinical trials. This review is not peer-reviewed. The scientific community emphasises the importance of peer-review publication, but our regulatory authorities seem not to. To illustrate the degree of subjectivity, I was in a meeting with one of the authors from the Bryant paper and a NEMLC member. In the discussion the latter stated that while they are aware of the work done in their preprint paper, they disagree with it. Simple!

The methods used in the Ivermectin meta-analyses by Bryant et al are exact. They have a very low risk of bias in themselves. Meta-analyses pool data from several studies to report for a larger sample size than the studies themselves. The heterogeneity of the studies is addressed with rigorous methods to reduce the effect of bias from the individual studies. Bryant et al have careers in data and research analysis. They have prepared decision-to-treat recommendations for international and country-level health bodies.

Their analysis included 24 randomised controlled trials that showed both positive and negative outcomes. The recommendation, among others, is that with moderate certainty Ivermectin could reduce mortality by an average of 62%. Moderate certainty means there is a good chance it is effective to this level.

From looking at their methods in their peer-reviewed publication I believe the selection and interpretation of results were unbiased and currently provide us with recommendations that are more than sufficient to validate the positive effects of Ivermectin for treating Covid-19.

Simply put, SA’s response is now guided by the recommendations of an in-house team over a peer-reviewed, rigorously prepared meta-analysis. The NEMLC document is the guidance observed by all health department facilities and also some private hospitals.

Concerning the Ivercor-Covid-19 trial, it’s a pity all those who have stated that this study is proof that Ivermectin doesn’t work did not read the paper in its entirety. The authors themselves declare in the limitations of their research that the doses given are were low.

As the pandemic has progressed, experience on the ground has shown that Ivermectin is effective at higher doses. Initial recommended doses were low, having been informed by the dosages for anti-parasite treatment. Unfortunately, many trials that are now being run or are completed are using low doses based on earlier assumptions. Even the upcoming Oxford Principle trial of Ivermectin follows low dose regimes that may be insufficient to show effect.

The Lopez-Medina study in Colombia is also often cited as demonstrating that Ivermectin is ineffective. Yet it was so fraught with protocol violations that I would not have submitted the article for publication if I were the principal investigator.

The NEMLC has put the health of our people at risk by recommending against the use of Ivermectin even though it is legally available in SA for off-label use or in the compassionate use programme. Proper evidence-based medicine involves looking at all current evidence conscientiously, not just at a few trials.

During the latter half of the last century our ways of doing science have developed in times of stability and relative prosperity. However, we are in chaos now. We need new thinking. Those in authority are still pushing for their conventional methods for science, which insists that “reality must obey our models… otherwise reality cannot be correct”.

We need more than just a few clinical experts making decisions for our country now that we are hitting this third wave. I believe it is time to put together a multidisciplinary team to examine the arguments of those saying that the totality of evidence points to the necessity of making a Type 1 decision now, roll out Ivermectin.

Given the safety profile of Ivermectin, with nearly 4bn doses given since the 1980s, there is nothing to lose. At worst, it would be like taking an aspirin to ease pain for a bee sting. It won’t harm, but it may help.

If Ivermectin is used, there is a good possibility of saving many lives and slowing down the pandemic. But suppose we have to wait for that elusive large double-blind, randomised control trial (the Rolls-Royce) that will provide the ultimate certainty of the gold standard. In that case, there may be many thousands of unnecessary deaths still to come.

• Dr Aldous is a professor and healthcare scientist at the University of KwaZulu-Natal Medical School, where she runs the doctoral academy at the College of Health Sciences. She has published over 130 peer-reviewed articles in rated journals. Dr Parker, an international public health specialist, has worked in more than 20 countries on health and development concerns, with a focus on translating research into strategic policy.

Footnote:  The Bryant et al. meta-analysis study is discussed here:  Ivermectin Invictus: The Unsung Covid Victor

Why Can’t They See that HCQ or Ivermectin + nutritional supplements
is the missing public health pillar?

## Climate Change Elevator Speech

On a recent post Judith Curry challenged commenters with this question:

How would you explain the complexity and uncertainty surrounding climate change plus how we should respond (particularly with regards to CO2 emissions) in five minutes?

The video was an impressive offering from John Shewchuk, and I thought it worth sharing here.

## A Brief History of the Diversity Industry

Heather Mac Donald explains the origins and preoccupations of Diversity, Inclusion and Equity (DIE).  Whoops, I mean Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI)  which is now an academic degree you can acquire.  Her Quillette article is Almost Four Decades After Its Birth, The Diversity Industry Thrives on Its Own Failures.

The diversity business originated in 1984, when R. Roosevelt Thomas, a Harvard business school graduate, founded the American Institute for Managing Diversity at Morehouse College. Corporations had been practicing affirmative action for years, but the women and minorities whom employers had hired to meet equal-opportunity obligations weren’t advancing up the career ladder in acceptable numbers. Thomas came up with a novel explanation. The problem wasn’t that preferentially admitted recruits were underqualified; the problem was that their supervisors didn’t know how to “manage diversity.” It was those supervisors who needed remedial training—lots of it—not the affirmative-action beneficiaries themselves.

Managerial expectations about merit and performance often reflected cultural prejudices, Thomas and the consultants who followed him insisted. “‘Qualifications’ is a code word in the business world with very negative connotations,” a consultant with the professional-services firm of Towers Perrin (as it was then called) said in 1993. If minorities don’t meet existing employment criteria, then corporations need to expand their definition of what it means to be employable, said Alan Richter, creator of the 1991 board game, The Diversity Game. Promptness, precision, and a cogent communications style were among the attributes that diversity advisors deemed likely expendable.

A lucrative new consulting practice was born, its growth driven by a constant churn in terminology. “Valuing diversity” was different from “managing diversity.” Each newly spawned phrase came with a cadre of high-priced tutors. Lewis Griggs currently offers video trainings in such subjects as “Communicating Across Differences,” “Supervising and Managing Differences,” and “Creating, Managing, Valuing, and Leveraging Diversity,” with each video purporting to contain specialized content appropriate for different parts of an organization.

“Diversity” was eventually joined by “inclusion.” “Equity” was then added, thus yielding today’s DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) triumvirate (sometimes also going as “EDI”). The most cutting-edge organizations have lately appended a “B” (for Belonging), as at the Juilliard School in New York City. Distinguishing these terms is a core function of diversity training—and now, at Bentley, of diversity scholarship. The university’s new DEI major, the Chronicle of Higher Education reports, will help graduates understand the “nuances of and differences between diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice.”

Even by 1993, half of Fortune 500 companies had a designated diversity officer, and 40 percent of American companies had instituted diversity training. Diversity conferences were occurring regularly, attracting government and business attendees. And yet many reporters, academics, corporate consultants, and activists still insist that managers not only fail to “value diversity,” but remain complicit in creating a dangerous environment for women and racial minorities.

Example: Levi Strauss & Co., which was recognized on Forbes’s list of “Best Employers for Diversity” in 2019. The company itself boasts: “In the 1960s, we integrated our factories a decade before it was required by law. In the early 1980s, we joined the fight against HIV/AIDS early on. Furthermore, our president and CEO, Chip Bergh, was one of the first company leaders to join the CEO Action for Diversity & Inclusion™ [in 2017], and has been on the front lines of efforts to protect Dreamers knowing that diversity and inclusivity makes our company better and our country stronger (after all, Levi Strauss himself was an immigrant).”

And yet the situation for minority employees at Levi Strauss is still so dire that the company has been hosting racially segregated healing sessions with professional mental health experts. As the Washington Free Beacon recently reported, its chief executive for DEI is trying to provide a “safe space for employees to express themselves” without feeling “triggered.”

Bentley University itself has yet to yield dividends from its longstanding diversity efforts. The school has been “working for decades on issues, challenges, and opportunities” pertaining to diversity, according to its Office of Diversity and Inclusion. Over 900 faculty and administrators have attended two-day diversity retreats; numerous committees, departments, and offices have focused on improving the school’s “diversity climate.” Bentley even has its own diversity consulting outfit, the Center for Women and Business, which advises employees and managers on such diversity pitfalls as being a mere “performative ally” of oppressed colleagues (as opposed to an active ally).

And yet, despite this effort, a Bentley Racial Justice Task Force recently found that the campus still did not understand how “race and racism” operate at the university. So difficult is it to be a diverse member of Bentley that the task force, formed in July 2020, began with a moment of “restoration,” providing to all “those who had been traumatized” at the school a “time to heal” and a time to “process the pain of racial injustice.”

One of Bentley’s biggest failings, according to the task force, has been its “false confidence” in “objectivity and meritocracy.” These are the norms of a “historically and predominantly white institution (HWI/PWI),” per the task force members. Typical of HWIs/PWIs, Bentley does not pay sufficient attention to the “systemic inequality” that such white norms engender. Equally dismaying, many students and professors apparently would rather study subjects other than racism, the task force lamented, thereby betraying their “lack of understanding about why the study of race is critical to the creation of a full academic experience.”

Diversity industry proponents would argue that white supremacy is simply too ingrained in America’s institutions to be rooted out within a mere three to four decades of diversity work.

But another possible reason why diversity training has not met its stated goals is that the field is intellectually bankrupt: Its practitioners peddle empty verbiage to fix a problem that is largely imaginary. I asked Bentley’s press office what the difference is between “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” The answer was a dodge: “Rather than give students one particular view of diversity, equity, inclusion and justice, Bentley’s DEI major encourages students to compare and contrast approaches to diversity, equity, inclusion and justice from across disciplines and perspectives and show how they intersect with one another.” Other questions—how the school defines a “real discipline,” what are the core texts of this new discipline, and why Bentley’s decades of diversity work have not lessened the school’s purported racism—were ignored entirely.

Bentley sociologist Gary David says that “more and more studies have shown” that diversity training and DEI perspectives make “good business sense.” But this oft-asserted claim rests on a few studies of dubious experimental design, lacking control groups. The one thing diversity trainees reliably learn is how to answer post-training survey questions “in the way the training said they ‘should,’” reports sociologist Musa al-Gharbi. As for actually changing behaviors in a diversity-approved direction, the training is not only ineffective, it is often counterproductive, according to al-Gharbi.

Far from being institutionally racist, Bentley University, like virtually every other American college today, is filled with well-meaning adults who want all their students to succeed. Corporations, law firms, Big Tech, and government agencies are bending over backwards to hire and promote as many underrepresented minorities (i.e., blacks and Hispanics) as possible. If the number of those minorities in a college or business organization is not proportional to their population share, that underrepresentation is due first and foremost to the academic skills gap. Mention of the skills gap is taboo in diversity circles, but it is real—repeatedly documented by the National Assessment of Educational Progress exams, the SAT, the LSAT, the GREs, the GMAT, and the MCAT—and it is consequential.

Hiring based on any extraneous selection criterion inevitably lowers the average qualifications of the resulting employee group. Hiring based on race entails a particularly significant deviation from a meritocratic ideal, since the only reason why color-conscious hiring is implemented in the first place is that merit hiring often fails to produce a critical mass of black and Hispanic employees. In essence, the diversity conceit is a perpetual motion machine: If underqualified diversity hires are promoted out of diversity pressure, resentment and obfuscation follow. If they hit a glass ceiling, accusations of bias are inevitable. In either situation, a diversity consultant is waiting in the wings to teach managers that their expectations and standards are racist.

The increasing power of college diversity bureaucrats over academic affairs since the 1990s has been stunning. Diversity vice-chancellors oversee faculty hiring searches, mandate quotas regarding whom search committees may interview, and sometimes even mandate quotas regarding whom they must hire. Chief inclusion officers track departmental race and sex demographics, pressuring department chairs to correct diversity deficits. Associate provosts for diversity coordinate campaigns for required courses on identity and grievance within the curriculum. Deans of inclusion teach students to recognize their place on the great totem pole of victimization. Vice presidents for equity monitor campus speech, on the lookout for punishable microaggressions. Senior advisors on race and community lead crusades against faculty who have allegedly threatened the safety of campus victim groups through non-orthodox statements regarding race and sex.

Now that the fictions underpinning this enterprise are being enshrined as an academic discipline, the possibility that the university will return to its status as an institution dedicated to the unfettered search for knowledge—and even, dare one say it, objectivity and meritocracy—will grow yet more remote.