Yes, Considering Race in Covid Treatment Rationing is Racist

An Associated Press article by Todd Richmond takes aim at opposition to new health guidelines that allow doctors to consider race in treating Covid patients. The reason given is that Covid treatments are in short supply. In New conservative target: Race as factor in COVID treatment

Richmond writes:

Medical experts say the opposition is misleading. Health officials have long said there is a strong case for considering race as one of many risk factors in treatment decisions.

It’s true that race can be a legitimate factor. After all, a person's race -- i.e., genetic makeup -- can affect how or if a particular disease can affect people. So it makes sense in the medical context to consider race when diagnosing and treating certain illnesses. But is that how race is being used to determine covid treatment options?

JP Leider, a senior fellow in the Division of Health Policy and Management at the University of Minnesota who helped develop that state’s allocation criteria, noted that prioritization has been going on for some time because there aren’t enough treatments to go around.

“You have to pick who comes first,” Leider said. “The problem is we have extremely conclusive evidence that (minorities) across the United States are having worse COVID outcomes compared to white folks. ... Sometimes it’s acceptable to consider things like race and ethnicity when making decisions about when resources get allocated at a societal level.”

Leaving aside the issue of why treatments are in short supply and whether governments should be involved in allocating treatments, Leider seems to be saying that minorities’ covid effects are more severe. Severity, of course, can and should be a factor in deciding which people get the treatment. If a doctor has two patients and only enough medicine to treat one, she has to decide. It makes sense, on the individual level, to give it to the sickest patient, other things being equal. But it should make no difference, statistically, whether one group has more severe covid outcomes than another, on average. That would be racist. Groups don’t get covid. But is this what Leider is actually saying?

Since the pandemic began, health care systems and states have been grappling with how to best distribute treatments. The problem has only grown worse as the omicron variant has packed hospitals with COVID-19 patients.

Considerable evidence suggests that COVID-19 has hit certain racial and ethnic groups harder than whites. Research shows that people of color are at a higher risk of severe illness, are more likely to be hospitalized and are dying from COVID-19 at younger ages.

There you have it. Group statistics, rather than individual evaluation, is what is meant by allowing doctors to consider race one of the factors in allocating scarce covid treatments. “Medical experts,” Richmond reports, “say the opposition [to race factoring] is misleading.” No, it’s not. Conservatives are right. It is discriminatory. It is racist. Only real live individual human beings get sick. It makes no difference to a sick individual whether, statistically, his racial group is statistically more or less likely to be severely infected. He is infected, not some group abstraction. 

If a black person, a white person, and an hispanic person are sitting in a doctor’s office, and the doctor cannot administer, say, antibody treatments to them all, it would be grossly unethical for the doctors to consult statistical disparities of each racial group. Individuals are not groups. They are not “disparities.” They are real people, created morally equal. Only medically relevant information, such as how severe the symptoms are or how other personal risk factors, such as age or asthma, come into play, should be considered. Racism has no place in the doctors’ evaluation.

This debate exposes the evil of collectivism -- judging the group over the individual as the real unit and standard of moral relevance and evaluation. Racism is collectivism, writ large. The fact that race as a factor in COVID treatment is even debatable shows that, with all of the progress humankind has made from savagery to civilization, the progress still has a way to go. Let me state this clearly: Collectivism is a philosophy of savages, not civilized people. The rise up from savagery to civilization is progress up from collectivism to individualism. *

I am not claiming that statistical analysis of groups has no place. Group disparities can point to legitimate problems—including, but not necessarily, racial discrimination or prejudice—that should be addressed. But you can’t address wrongs with other wrongs. You don’t correct wrongs, if it is found that statistical disparities are rooted in wrongs, by engaging in racism and injustice. Many people still haven’t learned that the individual is the only real human entity—the only relevant human entity that actually exists. The fact that such highly educated people, such as medical experts, don’t get it -- or, won’t acknowledge it -- shows just how far humankind has to go to achieve, and to save, the highest levels of a civilized co-existence.

* [Do not confuse collectivism with voluntary associations of a number of self-interested individuals cooperating toward the pursuit of some common goal or value, such as a business corporation, labor union, political party, bowling league, or trade or professional organization. Such associations are based on individualism, not collectivism.] 

Related Reading:

Individualism vs. Collectivism and the Neglected False Moral Dichotomy

The Racism of the ‘Anti-Racists’

Discrimination and Disparities by Thomas Sowell

AMERICA: A RACIST NATION? BY ANDREW BERNSTEIN

Individualism vs. Collectivism: Our Future, Our Choice—Craig Biddle

Related Viewing:

 

John McWhorter: America Has Never Been Less Racist -- Reason interview

 

Individualism vs Collectivism - Dr. Yaron Brook

Did the RNC Just Endorse the Violent Jan. 6th, 2021 Capitol Riot as ‘Legitimate’?

Recently, the Republican National Committee (RNC) released a Resolution that is raising eyebrows around the press. So it was with interest that I read the New Jersey Star-Ledger Editorial Board’s (SLEB) release of 2/8/22, The GOP is a legitimate political disgrace (cont.). 

According to the SLEB, the Resolution "rebranded" the 1/6/21 Capitol riot as "citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse.” If this is true, it is horrible. Since the SLEB is a partisan Leftist political mouthpiece, I decided to fact-check the SLEB's claims. So, I read the Resolution for myself.

Aside from the usual hollow rhetoric you’d expect from today’s political Republican Party, the only direct mention of Jan. 6th in the Resolution is to censor Republican Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for having "engaged in actions in their positions as members of the January 6th Select Committee not befitting Republican members of Congress." The citation quoted by the SLEB is contained in the second-to-last paragraph of the resolution, which reads;

WHEREAS , Representatives Cheney and Kinzinger are participating in a Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse, and they are both utilizing their past professed political affiliation to mask Democrat abuse of prosecutorial power for partisan purposes . . .

To its credit, the SLEB mentions that "neither the committee nor federal prosecutors are targeting non-violent marchers." I don't know if that is completely true. Some innocents may be getting caught up in the prosecutions. But at least the SLEB acknowledges that not all of the Jan 6th participants took part in the violence. 

Not so with the RNC Resolution. By failing to explicitly condemn the demonstrators who did turn violent, the RNC is implicitly condoning the violence. By failing to separate the violent mob from the non-violent demonstrators, the RNC is lumping the violent minority in with the innocent majority, effectively calling everything about the Jan. 6th events legitimate. Intellectual debate over the process of certifying the Electoral College outcome is legitimate political discourse. Violence is certainly not. But the Resolution fails to distinguish the two. Is it any wonder that the press is all over the narrative that the RNC is endorsing the violent attack as "legitimate political discourse?"

Again to it's credit, and again with due acknowledgement of the it’s partisan bias, the SLEB quotes RNC chair Ronna McDaniel’s "claim that the censure language referred to 'discourse that had nothing to do with violence at the Capitol'." But as the SLEB also points out, "she did not change one word in the carefully negotiated resolution." And, to be honest, I believe it likely that at least some of the RNC members do see the violence as legitimate.

And that's the outrage. This is an official document; an historical document of one of the two major political parties. This cannot be brushed off as a slip-of-the-lip, as if it was an oversight uttered in the heat of an election campaign. Without explicitly and officially calling out the violent offenders as not in any way legitimate political discourse, the RNC is officially condoning it, just as the SLEB claims.

This Resolution, if not immediately corrected, will go down in infamy. No one will remember Ronna McDaniel’s clarification. The history books will only remember the Resolution. It will tarnish the Republican Party forever, just as the Democratic Party is forever tarnished by its historical support of slavery, lynching, and Jim Crow segregation. This Resolution also officially rebrands the Republican Party as the Party of Donald Trump, rather than the Party of Liberal Constitutional Republican Government.

Shame on the Republican National Committee.

Related Reading:

Jesse Jackson’s Big Lie: ‘American Democracy is Under Siege’

QUORA: ‘Why does the Electoral College of the United States of America exist?’

America; Democracy or Republic or Both--Why it Matters

Donald Trump Just Showed Why Reforming the Electoral Count Act Is Essential by Eric Boehm for Reason

Woke Redistricting Madness in NJ

The decadal redistricting ritual was just completed in New Jersey. Since the legislature is controlled by Democrats, the new district lines favor Democrats. This is common partisanship. The Republicans, not surprisingly, have sued to overturn or alter the results. 

What I want to focus on is the standards used to draw the district maps. In a New Jersey Star-Ledger article N.J. Democrats are big winners as commission draws congressional districts for 2022, Jonathan D. Salant, writing for NJ Advance Media for NJ.com, reports,

A coalition of progressive, minority and good-government groups had urged the commission to draw districts that better reflected the state’s diversity. Five of the 12 districts are majority-minority, but said there should have been six.

Get that? Majority-minority!! This is the depth of absurdity to which racial identity politics—so-called “diversity”—has descended. It’s bad enough that racism dominated, or was a major factor in, the NJ redistricting commission. Now they are Orwellianizing the language. What the hell is “majority-minority.” What is this ridiculous phrase supposed to mean? How does any rational person make sense of it? If no ethnic group has a majority in a district, then there are no majorities, right? Wrong, according to the race-obsessed.

The fact is, you can’t make sense of it. Of course, that’s the point—to obfuscate. 

The Progressive mob is so invested in protecting their Woke racist/oppression collectivist narrative that they cannot bring themselves to acknowledge when "white" people are in the minority. What would happen to their vaunted crusade to protect "minority rights" (of groups, that is, not individuals, the smallest of minorities)? Their whole narrative holds that only majorities—read “white” people—can be racist. All of their efforts to protect minority groups would now have to cover "white" minorities. Can't have that! So they come up with indiotic Orwellian phrases to avoid the obvious implications of their true racist orientation. Colored groups can't be majorities—even when they are. That would make "people of color" the oppressors, according to Woke ideology, rather than the oppressed. So, they concoct majority-minority.

But it gets worse than mere absurdity:

“This [new redistricting] map sets us on a path to victory in 2022 and our New Jersey Democratic State Committee will now shift our focus to working closely with each of our congressional campaigns to build capacity, connect with voters and bring out the support needed to win these seats and help Democrats hold the majority in the House of Representatives,” state Democratic chair LeRoy Jones Jr. said. [My emphasis]

The Democrats view "minority" people—darker-skinned people—not as having their own minds capable of independent thought but as dolts whose views and thus voting preferences are determined by skin pigmentation. They are not capable of listening to all arguments, logically weighing the alternatives, and of possibly being persuaded to vote for a Republican or some independent candidate. They are conditioned, on this view, to automatically vote Democrat. They are mere tools of the Democratic Party machine. (Are you listening, Jesse Jackson, oh great champion of “American Democracy?”) What kind of person would not be offended and enraged by such a characterization?

“All — 100% — of the population]growth [sic] in the state came from communities of color,” said Henal Patel, director of democracy and justice for the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice.

“We appreciate the ones they did keep together but there are some issues that keep it from getting to real racial equity,” Patel said.

This is what "racial equity" looks like. To draw electoral districts designed to corral people according to skin pigmentation is pure racism. Let’s be blunt. This is racial segregation designed specifically for the gain of a political faction. “Real racial equity” means real racial segregation. The Democratic Party, at it’s founding the party of plantation slavery, has not changed its stripes: It simply substitutes the cotton plantation with the electoral plantation.

But the real definition of equity is “fair, just, and impartial.” A truly equitable approach to redistricting would never include skin color as a relevant factor. An equitable formula would treat every individual as a sovereign independent-thinking voter. True, people congregated into communities may collectively lean in one political direction or the other. So redistricting will probably always have an element of partisan bias, based on prior voting patterns. But redistricting need not—indeed, should never, on principle—be racially oriented.

“Equity” has been hijacked by the racist Woke “Antiracist” terror squad, which has aparently captured the Democratic Party. This is an opening for the Republican Party, if they are willing—they probably aren’t—to seize it. The 1964 Civil Rights Act forbids racial discrimination by any governmental entity or law. This could be an avenue for legal challenge, as well as an opportunity to fight back against the Woke re-mainstreaming of racism in America. Racism is being reintroduced into American law. That must stop.

Related Reading:

Jesse Jackson’s Big Lie: ‘American Democracy is Under Siege’

Racism— by Ayn Rand

The Racism of the ‘Anti-Racists’

The Racism of the Anti-Racists: Dr. Jill Biden, Wanda Blanchett, and Dr. Bob Harris

The Racism of the ‘Anti-Racists’: Oakland Reprises the Confederacy.

Heather McGhee Shamefully Links Racism to ‘Whites’, Anti-Racism to Socialism, and Capitalism to Racists

The Racism of the Anti-Racists: Dr. Jill Biden, Wanda Blanchett, and Dr. Bob Harris

The Racism of the ‘Anti-Racists’: San Diego’s ‘Educators’

The Racism of the 'Anti-Racists': 'This New America' - Apartheid?

The Racism of the ‘Anti-Racists’: The NJ State Budget

The Racism of the ‘Anti-Racists’: NJ Governor Murphy’s Strange and Discriminatory ‘Baby Bonds’ Scheme

An Anti-Racist Education for Middle Schoolers by ROBBY SOAVE for Reason

Happy Birthday, Ayn Rand --America's Last Founding Father

Ayn Rand, a Russian Immigrant who escaped Communism to become an American novelist and philosopher, was born on February 2, 1905, in Saint Petersburg, Russia. 

After she came to America, she established herself as one of history’s foremost champions of reason, freedom, and individualism. Her place in history is that of an heir to a long line of intellectuals of The Enlightenment and of Americanism.

Rand once called Aristotle “America’s first Founding Father” because of his discovery of the laws of logic, which helped form the philosophic foundation for The United States of America. Since Rand established fully and explicitly, through her philosophy of Objectivism, the moral foundation of America’s Declaration of Independence, I believe she deserves the title America’s last Founding Father.

Her written works, interviews, and speeches are all still readily available for anyone interested.

I consider Ayn Rand to be one of the most important champions of individual liberty in world, and American, history. 

So, on this February 2, 2022, in recognition of her great intellectual and philosophic achievements, Happy Birthday, Ayn Rand.

Related Reading:

Ayn Rand’s Philosophic Achievement, Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4

Payday Lending Restrictions Would Punish Responsible Lenders and Borrowers and Violate Rights

Beverly Brown Ruggia is the Financial Justice Program Director for New Jersey Citizen Action, and her New Jersey Star-Ledger op-ed pans a financial bill in the legislature. In Legislators must stop this bill. It perpetuates a cycle of poverty in New Jersey, Ruggia writes

S3611/A3450 will allow New Jerseyans early access to their earned wages. It’s another form of payday lending in disguise, structured to enrich payroll advance companies while potentially trapping low-income workers in a destructive cycle of debt.

I do not have a particular opinion on S3611/A3450. I have not studied the details. But that’s not important to this post. What is relevant is Ruggia’s opposition and reasoning. 

Note first that she immediately pivots to so-called payday lending, a form of ultra-short term credit that involves borrowing against one’s next paycheck within a few days of receiving it. Here is Ruggia’s take on it:

S3611/A3450 sets no fee limits, allowing companies to skirt New Jersey’s lending laws, or usury caps, designed to protect our residents from outrageous interest rates. For example, a $100 advance taken five days before payday with a $5 fee is equivalent to a 365% annual rate, far greater than the 30% annual rate allowed in New Jersey.

Note the package deal being peddled here. A $5 fee on a 5-day loan becomes an annual rate of 365%, even though the loan is not a yearly loan. It’s apples and oranges and it is deceiving. So how does Ruggia arrive at that erroneous assertion?

[These types of loans] can force low-income workers into taking back-to-back advances, trapping them into an endless and destructive debt trap. The National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) estimates that users average between 12 to 120 advances per year, and many take out even more than that.

Nobody forces anyone to take out these loans, any more than anyone is forced to borrow against his credit card.

Any form of borrowing can be abused, including credit cards. But so-called payday loans, like credit cards—a form of ultra-short term borrowing—can be a valuable financial management tool, as well. That’s why they’re popular among many workers. Yes, an irresponsible person can trap himself into a cycle of ever-expanding debt. But it’s he who traps himself, not the company that loaned him the money in good faith. Responsible people don’t let that happen, and should not be shut out from this financial tool to protect the irresponsible. 

The author portrays this type of lending as a corporate boon at the expense of the poor, evading the fact that lending is a mutually agreed-upon trade. Ruggia exclaims:

Lobbyists have portrayed this bill as an innovative solution for cash-strapped employees. But S3611/A3450 would only benefit the fintech and payroll advance companies seeking to enrich themselves at the expense of workers and their families.

I guess “innovative solutions for cash-strapped employees” is not a value. This is typical Leftist snobbery and self-serving delusions of superiority. Ruggia apparently believes that businesses are predators and low income people are too stuped and short-sighted to make intelligent, self-interested financial decisions. And those evil lenders, who make these financial management tools available, are only out “to enrich themselves at the expense of workers and their families.” No, they “enrich” themselves through their product offerings, just as workers advance their own financial interests by taking advantage of these loan products. Like any Marxist, Ruggia seems never to have discovered the principle of trade, in which each side seeks to advance her own self-interest through mutual agreement.

Ruggia finally gets around to acknowledging the value of these ultra-short term payday loans, albeit with a back-door plug for job-killing minimum wage laws:

Workers without access to ready cash could benefit from a variety of solutions. There is the technology to allow companies to pay workers early, free of charge, and there are rainy day programs and savings plans. The simplest solution would be to pay workers better wages to help ensure they don’t fall into ruinous debt.

Ruggia apparently doesn’t know that high income people also get into self-imposed financial trouble. Irresponsible financial handling is not a monopoly of low income—or “vulnerable” in Ruggia’s distorting terminology—folks. Yes, there are ways to plan for cash emergencies. But that’s no reason to legally take any financial tool away, and the state has no legitimate power to outlaw payday loans. It’s job is to police against fraud in the market, but otherwise leave people free to contract for the purpose of lending and borrowing.

This, from the Financial Justice Program Director for New Jersey Citizen Action, a statewide advocacy and empowerment organization that advances social, racial and economic justice for all. Justice for all--unless you’re the type of person who makes sound financial decisions, I suppose. Where’s the individual justice? What about responsible borrowers? Why should they be denied these loans? Why should a lender be denied the freedom to service responsible people with payday loans, if they have customers who want them? Responsible people and legitimate entrepreneurs are to be denied their freedom to voluntarily contract for the sake of irresponsible people. Of course, that’s “social” justice; that’s economic “justice”. And it is morally perverse. It is the opposite of the only genuine justice -- individual justice.

Beware the champions of “vulnerable” people. It’s your freedom and rights that they are really after.

Related Reading:

A Lesson in the Crucial Distinction Between Economic and Political Power

Limiting Access to Payday Loans May Do More Harm than Good—Paige Marta Skiba

One of the few lending options available to the poor may soon evaporate.

Where Does Valid Law End and Regulation Begin? -- my article for The Objective Standard

The Morality of Moneylending: A Short History by Yaron Brook for The Objective Standard

Listen to Children? They Should Be Doing the Listening

A 2018 New Jersey Star-Ledger guest column calls for An emerging voice we should listen to: Our young people. The authors, Healthy Schools Now activist Jerell Blakeley and high school junior Justis Brown, speak out against unhealthy physical deterioration in the schools and end with a pivot into the gun control contraversy. *

Before we delve into these issues, let’s back up and address more fundamental issues.

Before you can learn to be “advocates for causes,” you need to know what you believe, which presupposes learning to think independently. You need to realize that feeling isn't thinking; that reality doesn't bend to your arbitrary demands (“Healthy Schools NOW”); that full context is crucial, and mental integration of facts and experience is crucial to grasping context; that there are other perspectives based on experience, not a teacher’s training; that almost all of what you learn in your lifetime does not come from school: It is still in your post-school future, if you are really willing to learn.

Education is about learning to think and self-govern in pursuit of self-flourishing; about transforming the whim-worshipping two year old into the free-thinking, reality-oriented, rational adult. Your not going to get there by being a mouthpiece for a school establishment dominated by a monopolistic, ideologically oriented political institution--the teachers union. When I listen to the young, I’m really mostly hearing their teachers. 

School children, by definition, lack the wherewithal to form permanent uncompromising positions on crucial issues. That’s why they are called school children. They are in the process of acquiring the mental tools of rational, objective thinking. Take the gun issue. You want control NOW. What about the crucial starting point of any discussion on “gun control”--the individual right to self-defense, what that right derives from, and the proper role of government regarding this right. Today, the big rage is Greta Thunberg and her Children’s Crusade against Climate Change, which is firmly ensconced in the biased, one-sided climate catastrophist camp. Clearly, these children are tools of the adult-driven, quasi-religious Environmentalist/Political/Industrial/Climate complex.

School kids should understand where they are at. High school is the minor leagues. Students’ (and their teachers’) main focus at this point in time should be to develop their own critical faculty, not go looking for causes to advocate for or against. They should be focussed on how to make convincing arguments, not making arguments. They need to learn to organize their thoughts and the facts of reality, and integrate them into principles. In short, they need to know what they are talking about. That comes from listening, without strings attached—which means, listening to even what they see as the most outrageous ideas, because “outrageous” ideas might actually be the truth.

Teachers should know this. The big leagues come later. I’ve been there. Looking back, I can honestly say that my k-12 years were mostly a waste of time. Almost all of what I know, including how to think about causes and deal with opposing opinions, I had to self-learn. I had to reach the big leagues on my own. 

I want to make clear that I am not saying that “children should be seen and not heard.” That is not education, either. What I am saying is that school children need to do a lot of listening themselves—in fact, a lot more listening than talking. Children lack the life experience of adulthood. That’s reality. 

* [Jerell Blakeley is a campaign organizer for the New Jersey Work Environment Council and coordinates the Healthy Schools Now coalition. Justis Brown is a junior at International High School in Paterson and a graduate of the Healthy Schools Now Student Leadership Academy.]

Related Reading:

The Anti-human Tyrade of an Ungrateful 16-Year-old

Education: It’s the Philosophy, Stupid!

Toward Real "School Reform"

Maria Montessori: Her Life and Work by E. M. Standing 

Media Climate Change Propaganda “News” Rolls On

A recent Associated Press article posted by Martha Bellisle demonstrates how climate change propaganda can distort the facts to present a completely alternate “reality”.

Colorado’s late December 2021 wildfires that destroyed homes and neighborhoods have become the latest fodder for the Left’s quasi-religious climate agenda. In Climate change, new construction mean more ruinous fires, Bellisle “reports”

The winter grassland fire that blew up along Colorado’s Front Range was rare, experts say, but similar events will be more common in the coming years as climate change warms the planet — sucking the moisture out of plants — suburbs grow in fire-prone areas and people continue to spark destructive blazes.

I put “reports” in scare quotes because this article is really an opinion piece masquerading as news—or at the least a combination of news and opinion. First, note that the Colorado event was “rare”. Not unprecedented—none of the weather events suddenly blamed on climate change these days are unprecedented. This is true of the weather conditions that set up the fires. They were not unique. They’ve happened in the past, and will happen in the future. Yet climate change is blamed, implicitly and with no evidence whatsoever, for this fire event. This is a now-common refrain--to mindlessly label every weather event climate change. Note also that human activity—development in wildfire-prone areas and careless people—were the real reasons for the destructiveness of these fires. But the obligatory climate change has to be shoehorned in.

Next we see that “similar events will be more common in the coming years as climate change warms the planet.” “Will”, not may. That’s opinion, not fact. And how much more common? To date, despite decades of dire, hysterical predictions, extreme weather has not become more extreme to any significant extent, if at all. Yet . . . 

“These fires are different from most of the fires we’ve been seeing across the West, in the sense that they’re grass fires and they’re occurring in the winter,” said Jonathan Overpeck, a professor in the School for Environment and Sustainability at the University of Michigan. “Ultimately, things are going to continue to get worse unless we stop climate change.”

The assertion that these fires “are going to continue to get worse” is, as I stated, pure speculation. The assertion that “we [can] stop climate change” is pure fantasy. Climate change is a regular, ongoing feature of Earth’s atmosphere, whether humans are a contributing cause or not. If “stop climate change” means stop human influence on the climate, what Overpeck is really advocating is to stop human progress and flourishing, and make man vastly more vulnerable to climate dangers, as people were before the beginning of the Industrial Revolution—a genocidal “solution.” Where are the Associated Press fact checkers?

As Former Obama Administration science adviser Steven E. Koonan, IPCC independent Expert Reviewer and clean energy advocate Michael Shellenberger, and many other knowledgeable experts have shown, the observed facts simply do not support the view that wildfires, and weather extremes in general, are getting worse or more numerous globally. Or if they are, the change is marginal and in any event impossible to pin on a changing climate with any degree of certainty.

Note also that alternative solutions to the chimera of stopping climate change, such as what Reason science correspondent Ronald Bailey discusses in depth, gets no coverage, despite the fact that the policies being advanced by political climate hacks to stop climate change would cause an unimaginable human catastrophe, which will be documented in energy expert Alex Epstein’s next book, that would dwarf that which would occur from any increase in extreme weather.

Bellisle and the Associated Press should be ashamed of themselves for advancing such sloppy journalism, blatant misinformation, and fake news.

Related Reading:

QUORA: ‘Why is there such strong pushback on climate change at the same time as we are seeing overwhelming proof of weather extremes in the USA?’

The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels— by Alex Epstein 

The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the 21st Century—by Ronald Bailey 

Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us -- by Michael Shellenberger

Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters – by Steven E. Koonin 

The Rightful Place of Science: Disasters & Climate Change—by Roger Pielke Jr. 

Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas--Not Less—by Alex Epstein 

False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet—by Bjorn Lomborg