Author Archives: petervburrows

“This diagram puts to rest the idea that CO2 is a threat to mankind.”

“This diagram puts to rest the idea that CO2 is a threat to mankind.” by Peter Burrows, 1/13/20 –


The Heartland Institute is a well-known free-market think tank based in Arlington Heights, Illinois, covering everything from school reform to public spending. Since 2008, Heartland has hosted 12 International conferences on climate change, the latest in Madrid, Spain, as counterpoint to the UN’s annual COP conference which was held in Madrid this year.  


The Heartland shadow conference didn’t get much, if any, press.  Not surprising given that they are there to take the punch bowl away from the 27,000 attendees who travel the world to attend COP conferences every year, where they pass unenforceable laws curbing carbon dioxide, CO2, emissions.  (See my blog of 12/20/19: Cop25: Another reason to get out of the UN.)


I know some of you are thinking, “Serves ‘em right, Burro. Anybody who says CO2 is not a problem SHOULD be ignored by the press, right up to the point where they swing from the gallows. Besides, even if the world doesn’t need saving from CO2, it sure as Hell needs saving from evil-dirty-bastard capitalists and if curbing CO2 can destroy capitalism, then by all means demonize CO2. The end justifies the means, Comrade!!”


Right. And Greta Thunberg is a warrior princess, not a sad little child.  


One of the presenters at the at the Heartland conference was William Happer, professor  emeritus of physics at Princeton University. Best known for his pioneering work on laser-guide star adaptive optics, Happer recently resigned as technology adviser to President Trumps’ National Security Council when it became apparent the Trump administration was not going to challenge the climate change hysteria with the scientific rigor Dr. Happer wanted. 


Here’s a 19-minute video of Happer’s presentation.  At about minute 9:25 he states that the science can’t be disputed; at 13:50 he states that the CO2 effect is “saturated” and that adding more CO2 is analogous to putting a second coat of red paint on a house: doesn’t change the color much. 


For those of you who would like a hard copy of Dr. Happer’s graphs, blogger Donn Dears, a retired GE engineer, covers Happer’s presentation in two articles, “Good news for Humanity, Part 1” and “Part 2. 


This is from Dears’ “Part 1” article: 

“Every newspaper and TV News Broadcast should have heralded the most important news story from Madrid in December. This diagram puts to rest the idea that CO2 is a threat to mankind.

image.jpegGraph from Dr. W. Happer’s press briefing, Madrid, Spain, December 2019 (Note)

‘The top curve is the theoretical heat loss from the Earth into the vacuum of space for the range of frequencies, assuming no atmosphere. This is Planck’s curve for heat loss from the Earth’s blackbody. (Notations above the curves are of various chemical compounds at their spectral frequencies.)

“The sawtooth curve shows the actual heat loss through the Earth’s atmosphere for each frequency, where the percentages of CO2 are 0 ppm, (in green), 400 ppm (in black) and 800 ppm (in red). The sawtooth curve is known as the Schwarzschild curve. (The heat loss for all other compounds are for conditions as they exist today.) 

“Of particular importance are the circled, red and black, CO2 curves. These two curves, highlighted by the circle, are virtually the same, indicating that heat loss is nearly unchanged after doubling CO2 from 400 to 800 ppm.

“In other words, adding CO2 to the atmosphere so that atmospheric levels of CO2 doubles (from 400 ppm to 800 ppm) has virtually no effect on temperatures. CO2 is saturated, and adding more CO2 to the atmosphere has a minimal effect.”

Attachments area
Preview YouTube video William Happer Talks Climate Alarmism During COP25 in Madrid

Would Martin Luther King be a Republican today?

Would Martin Luther King be a Republican today? By Peter Burrows – 1/8/20

Over 56 years ago, Martin Luther King stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., and famously said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

If his children have grown up to be Democrats, I’m afraid they’re still dreaming.  If anything, racism is stronger today than when MLK made that speech, but it’s not anti-black racism anymore, it’s anti-white racism.

Just look at the consternation building in the Democratic presidential primary race.  Kamala Harris and Jullian Castro have dropped out, leaving Cory Booker and Deval Patrick as the only other ‘candidates of color’ and neither of them are polling well enough to qualify for the debates, leaving all the frontrunners white.

Former presidential candidate and ex-DNC chairman Howard Dean said, “If we have two old white guys at the top of this ticket, we will lose.”  He was referring to Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden.  Nothing about Bernie’s brain-dead socialism or Biden’s many senior moments.  Oh, no. Their biggest negative is that they are a couple of WHITE guys.  Old, too, although I doubt if ‘old’ would have been mentioned if Maxine Waters and Charlie Rangel were leading in the polls.

Howard Dean is hardly alone with his concerns. LaTosha Brown, co-founder of Black Lives Matter, recently took a look at the Democrat primary and said, “I’m over with white men running the country.”  She seems to have forgotten Barrack Obama.

Rep. Barbara Lee, D-CA, past chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, said of the nominating process, “Systemic racism permeates everything in this country. —I don’t know if white Democrats are really stepping up and looking at how the system is biased and prevents others from coming through.”  David Axelrod, former Obama adviser, said that the frontrunners being all white was “a bad look.”

White skin is a “bad look.” Oh, my.   And “the content of their character?” Predetermined by the color of their skin, dummy!

This war on white people used to be directed only at Republicans.  Obama’s remarks about whites “clinging to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them” was about Republicans, as was Hillary’s comment about ‘deplorable’ Trump supporters who were “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it.”

Republicans should not take too much comfort from the spread of this new racism to include white Democrats, because white Democrats, while they are imbued with racism just like all white people, recognize their racism, feel guilty about it, and will do anything to atone for it.  Reparations? Yes! Yes!

White Democrats can be forgiven, but not white Republicans, who are simply bad people.  You don’t believe me? Maybe you’ll believe Michael Moore, who said, “Two-thirds of all white guys voted for Trump. That means anytime you see three white guys walking down the street toward you, two of them voted for Trump. You need to move over to the other sidewalk because these are not good people —. You should be afraid of them.”

Hmmmmm. It wasn’t too long ago that three BLACK guys walking down the street were people to be afraid of, something even Jesse Jackson admitted to. Here’s a little thought experiment. Imagine you’re walking down the street at night and three white guys are walking toward you, two wearing MAGA hats.  Are you really going to be afraid of them?

How about three black guys wearing hoodies? Since you reject racial profiling -– unless the guys are white— you won’t be crossing the street, will you? Ha! Now, what if the three black guys were all wearing Black Lives Matter hats?  Still on the other side of the street, aren’t you? Finally, what if the three black guys were all wearing MAGA hats?

Blacks who voted for Trump must be REALLY bad people, but would you be afraid of them? Of course not.  People who wear MAGA hats almost never initiate conflict. In fact, both a Black Lives Matter hat and a MAGA hat give us a strong indication of the content of the character of those wearing the hats.  One is probably a racist and one is probably not.

I bet Martin Luther King would vote for the MAGA hat guy.

Christmas, music and Muhammad

Christmas, music and Muhammad by Peter Burrows 12/24/19 –

One of the things I enjoy most about this time of year is the music.  The religion of Christianity has inspired some of the most beautiful music ever written.  Of course, that’s a subjective opinion but one shared by many people of all religions, with one exception: Islam.  Muhammad disapproved of music.

Muhammad disapproved of a lot of things: infidels, hypocrites, apostates, alcohol, pictures of living things and even dogs, to name a few.  Since the Holy Koran tells us in verse 4:80 that to obey Muhammad is to obey Allah, what Muhammad said about music is therefore Allah’s eternal law.

Let’s look at a few things Muhammad said about music, musicians and those who enjoy music.  My favorite is, “On the Day of Resurrection, Allah will pour molten lead into the ears of whoever sits listening to a songstress.”

When I first read that, I thought to myself, “You’re going to need a BIG bucket of lead for me, Allah.”  In my life I have spent countless hours listening to one songstress after another, from Roberta Peters to Lady Gaga.

It was Muhammad’s opinion that, “Song makes hypocrisy grow in the heart as water does herbage.”  In Islam, hypocrisy is defined as claiming to be a Muslim but failing to pay attention to the required rituals, such as daily prayers.  Music was considered something that would distract from those religious requirements, as would alcohol.

If you play any instrument, including the drum, on the Day of Judgement there will be “seventy thousand angels” with maces of fire pummeling you on the head. Singers and adulterers get the pummeling, too. We know that’s true because Muhammad said so.

However, sharia law says, “It is permissible to play the tambourine at weddings, circumcisions, and other times, even if it has bells on its sides.” Bells!?! Oh, thank you, Allah!!

The bottom line for Muslims, from “Let us seek refuge from the temptations of Shaitaan so that he may never lead us into the disgraceful vice of listening to music.”

Unfortunately, Muslims also think Shaitaan shouldn’t tempt us non-Muslims, either, and in Muslim ruled nations strict adherence to sharia law means no Christian can recite aloud, let alone sing, the Evangel.  While I can find no specific rule, if music is haram, forbidden, Christian music must be double haram.

I’m afraid it’s only a matter of time before Christian concerts are targeted by devout Muslims, much like the 2017 attack in Manchester, England, that killed 22 at an Ariana Grande concert.  I pray this will never happen, but as you listen to Renee Fleming sing Schubert’s Ave Maria, be thankful you live in a nation where Islam does not rule.


Renee Fleming, Ave Maria, 5:15


COP25: Another reason to get out of the UN

COP25: Another reason to get out of the UN by Peter Burrows – 12/20/19 

What would you think if Congress sent everybody in Grant County to Madrid for two weeks to solve the world’s climate “crisis,” and the most significant thing we agreed upon was that we’d do it all over again next year in Glasco, Scotland?  A waste of money, ya think? 

I’m alluding to a United Nations climate conference that just concluded, called COP25, officially known as “the 25th Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP25) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),” which took place in Madrid, Spain, December 2-15.  

OK, I cheated a little, because the conference had “only” 27,000 attendees and Grant County has about 29,000 people. If I had said, “able-bodied adult Grant Countians,” it would have been closer. Regardless, you get the idea.  

Some of you really smart folks are thinking, “OMG, Burro, does COP ‘25’ mean they have been doing this for TWENTY-FIVE years!?!?”   

Actually, a little longer. The first UN climate conference was in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, 27 years ago. The Conference of the Parties (COP) nomenclature began in 1995, and refers to the 165 nations -– the parties — that signed on to the UNFCCC. That leaves 28 UN member nations that didn’t sign, probably because they couldn’t afford to send delegations off to party-down someplace new every year. 

That’s being a little unfair to those attendees who sincerely believe the UN can do something to curb global greenhouse gas emissions, but, after 27 years of failing to do that, a cynic could be forgiven for thinking the word “exhausted” in the following BBC summary of COP25 is just a euphemism for “hung over.” The following is slightly edited, my caps:  

“COP25: Longest climate talks end with compromise deal By Matt McGrath, BBC Environment correspondent, Madrid, 15 December 2019: Difficult issues proved impossible to resolve in Madrid. The longest UN climate talks on record ended in Madrid with a compromise dealExhausted delegates reached agreement on the key question of increasing the global response to curbing carbon. All countries will need to put new climate PLEDGES on the table by the time of the NEXT major conference in Glasgow NEXT YEAR. Divisions over other questions – including carbon markets – were delayed until the NEXT gathering. —After two extra days and nights of negotiations, delegates finally agreed a deal that will see new, improved carbon cutting plans on the table by the time of the Glasgow conference NEXT YEAR.”  

I can confidently predict next year’s COP will have similar results.  This is because, even if the climate alarmists are correct, it will still be in the developing nations’ best interest to expand electricity production as fast as possible by the cheapest means possible, which means burning more and more coal.  If you are an Indian without electricity, you really don’t give a damn about Greta Thunberg’s feelings, do you? Or, for that matter, do you care if Manhattan is under water?  

To put the matter into perspective, India is the world’s fourth largest CO2 emitter, at about 7% of global emissions.  (China is about 30%, the U.S. 15%, and the EU 9%.)  India emits about half of what the U.S. emits, but India has four times the population.  To get to only one-half the per capita level of the U.S. would be an increase equal to 150% of today’s total U.S emissions.  We couldn’t offset India’s growth even if we wanted to.  Add China, Africa, and Southeast Asia and you get the picture. 

Some of you may be thinking, “But Burro, we can institute a world-wide ‘cap-and-trade’ policy that would give developed nations incentives to reduce their per capita CO2 emissions.” In fact, cap-and-trade has been part of the UN effort since COP3 in Kyoto, way back in 1997.  Developed nations were given Assigned Amount Units, AAUs, representing allowed CO2 emissions, and Certified Emission Reductions, CERs, were created as marketable certificates representing CO2 reductions achieved. Real simple, right?                                                                                                                                                                        Here’s a blurb I got from CFACT on COP25: “The big COP breakdown was over something called “Article 6” which deals with international carbon markets.  Australia refused to give up past carbon credits and was joined by Brazil which shut the whole thing down.” The “past carbon credits” referred to Kyoto-era CERs and AAUs. The bottom line is that the UN has been trying to figure out how to make cap-and-trade work since 1997, to no avail.                                                                                                                                                     

Here’s a headline that sums it up: “The Cap and Trade Market Is Going Global—If Politics Are Put Aside By Renae Reints Fortune Magazine December 14, 2019.”  IF politics can be put aside??  That’s kind of like saying you can fly off the top of the Empire State Building if you can get your arms to move up-and-down fast enough. For those of you who want to get into the weeds on the problems with the UN cap-and-trade, here’s another interesting article: 

All this COP nonsense proves that government bureaucracies are, as Ronald Reagan said, “the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.” What’s especially outrageous is that almost everybody knows that COP’s mission is impossible to achieve.  The idea was that nations would agree to cut carbon emissions enough to prevent global temperatures from rising by 1.5 -2 degrees centigrade by 2100.    

That may have seemed feasible in 1992, not so today. In fact, greenhouse gas emissions are actually increasing at an accelerating rate, according to the climate alarmist in the video below, Dr. Peter Carter. (A medical type of doctor.)  He is confident this will lead to a “biosphere collapse,” which will mean the “destruction of the earth” and “the end of humanity.”  

I strongly recommend you watch the 23-minute video. I enjoyed it very much and agree with Dr. Carter that “nothing good is ever going to come out of these COPs,” and that we will never reduce emissions enough to make a difference. Trump had the good sense to pull the U.S. out of the agreements reached at COP21, held in Paris, the “Paris agreement” we hear so much about.  

I think it’s all nonsense, but what if Dr. Carter is right? Then there is nothing we can do. If he is wrong, there is nothing we should do.  What if he is right, but off by 50-100 years? Then there are two things we can do: research CO2 sequestration and develop cheap, safe nuclear power.  That makes a lot more sense than subsidizing wind mills, solar panels and Tesla cars.  

12/18/19 You Tube, 23-min, Dr. Peter Carter at COP25 = we are doomed: 

This article supports the above and also gives a good summary of new coal projects = we are doomed: 

A You Tube minimum wage tutorial

A You Tube minimum wage tutorial 12/3/19 by Peter Burrows – 

Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams have been my favorite economists for many decades. If you watch them on You Tube, you’ll see why.  

Here are three brief You Tubes on the minimum wage by my gurus. If they don’t come through, just go to You Tube and search by name and “minimum wage” and look for those with about the times of those below.  

The first, by Walter Williams, is the longest at almost teminutes.  Well worth the time. The next, featuring Thomas Sowell, is from a 1981 Firing Line show and is less than three minutes. (His latest You Tube appearances show how well he has aged. Still writing, still incisive at 89.) The final is Milton Friedman and is less than three minutes. There are many more by these three on the minimum wage, and on many other topics as well.   

I don’t care if you are a Republican or a Democrat, if after watching these you still believe that minimum wage laws are a good idea, you are either stupid, a union toady or a racist. Strong letter to follow.  


WEW 9:58 Dr. Williams gives a little economics lesson getting to his point.  

TS 2:50 – To say the lib woman is invincibly stupid is perhaps redundant, but it feels good to say it.   

Milt 2:31 Dr. Friedman addresses both lousy schools and minimum wage laws as causes of poverty. He was a treasure.  

Take the “Who’s a racist?” quiz!

Take the “Who’s a racist?” quiz! By Peter Burrows 12/2/19 –

The political left in America worships at the altar of racism. In the Church of Racism, the original sin is to be white, which makes you a racist, whether you know it or not.  Also, in the Church of Racism, Republicans, especially MAGA Republicans, are all racists. This mindless belief could have tragic consequences.

Voltaire, the eighteenth-Century libertarian, had it right when he said, “He who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”

Ironically, the political left is the real home of racism, and what is ALMOST humorous is that THEY are the ones who don’t even know it. You libs out there are thinking, “That’s outrageous, Burro! We are morally superior people who fight against racism in all its forms!”

If that’s so, then you should be able to pass my little quiz: “Who’s a racist?” It’s only three yes-or-no questions.  For the purposes of the quiz, a racist is someone who supports policies that have proven to be very harmful to our black brothers and sisters, whether you know it or not.

1) Do you support minimum wage laws?

I’m betting that 100% of you racist liberals voted “yes.”  Back in 1966, the economist Milton Friedman wrote in a Newsweek op-ed, “I am convinced that the minimum-wage law is the most anti-Negro law on our statute books.” The term “disparate impact” wasn’t used back then, but it fits, then and now.

Before minimum wage laws began to be raised in the early 1950’s, black teenage unemployment was LOWER than white teenage unemployment.  It soon rose to twice white teen unemployment, where it has remained for over 50 years.

There is no excuse for this. At the very least, minimum wage laws should not apply to teenagers.  Democrats won’t fight for that because their union masters won’t allow it. Republicans won’t fight for it because they are either ignorant or cowardly, maybe both.

2) Do you support school vouchers that would allow parents to choose their children’s school?

I bet 90% of you racist liberals voted “no” on that one. This is not 100% because many of you have had experience with lousy public schools, and some of you may have had the ability to send your kids to private schools, which is what Barrack and Michell Obama did when they were in the White House.

Given the horrendous results of ghetto schools today, school choice should be an option overwhelmingly supported by Democrats, but, alas, once again union power trumps racial justice.  And the Republicans? Sigh.

As in the case of minimum wage laws, the issue of inner-city school choice has been around a long time.  If you go to You Tube, you can find a 1981 Firing Line show hosted by William Buckley which featured the economist Thomas Sowell.  Toward the end of the show, Buckley invites a liberal lady “examiner” to ask Dr. Sowell some questions, one of which was about school choice.

Starting at about minute 39, you can see that the white lady just cannot accept the idea that uneducated inner-city mothers can make better school choices for their children than the education bureaucracy. I remember thinking to myself when I first saw this, “You hypocritical liberal elitist racist piece of shit,” or something to that effect. (In my youth, I was occasionally intemperate. Today, in my mellow old age, I would say, “piece of crap.”)

3) Do you support affirmative action?

I’m betting that you racist liberals are back to 100% “yes” on that one. You just can’t see that affirmative action is INHERENTLY racist, can you?  A cynic would say you want affirmative action in education to make sure that any black kid who manages to get a decent SAT score is put into a school where he or she will fail. You can then recruit another “victim” of racial discrimination.

It is tragic, for example, that a black kid in the 90th percentile SAT is recruited by a prestigious college Harvard, Yale, etc. to “token out” the enrollment numbers. They immediately plunge to the 10th percentile or lower of the student body. Then they flunk out, embittered and feeling like a victim, which in fact they ARE!

Those kids would have been perfectly happy and successful if they had joined me at Michigan State, or for that matter, enrolled at Western New Mexico.  After California voters, in a rare instance of common sense, banned affirmative action at California universities in 1998, minority graduation rates, THE important statistic, went UP! (

To summarize: the Democrat Party supports minimum wage laws, affirmative action and denying black mothers school choice for their children. If you vote for a Democrat, just look in the mirror to see “Who’s a Racist?”

New Mexico’s Climate Follies

New Mexico’s Climate Follies by Peter Burrows 11/24/19 –

Ten months ago, Governor Lujan Grisham created a “Climate Change Task Force” to come up with proposals to reduce New Mexico’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.  The initial recommendations were released last week in a 28-page report you can find at

When I read the report, I quickly came to the conclusion that the whole thing was a huge waste of time. The authors simply hadn’t done their homework and their recommendations, if implemented, will be a disaster for New Mexico as well as a huge waste of money.  This is true even if adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is as harmful as the climate alarmists claim.

Some of you are thinking, “Carbon dioxide IS the problem, Burro, you climate denier troglodyte, and New Mexico has a moral obligation to join the climate battle to save humanity!”

That’s just what New Mexico is poised to do, but before manning the ramparts, don’t you think it would be wise to survey the battlefield?  The task force report says that New Mexico produced about 66.7 million metric tons of greenhouse gas in 2018, a little over 1% of total U.S. GHG emissions.  Let’s repeat that: New Mexico produces ONE PERCENT of total U.S. GHG emissions.

On a global scale, 2018 GHG emissions were estimated at 37.1 billion metric tons, which puts New Mexico’s global contribution at about one-fifth of one percent.  Furthermore, the Energy Information Administration estimates that by 2040 global GHG emissions will grow 6 billion tons to about 43 billion tons. This means that even if New Mexico eliminated 100% of its GHG emissions by then, we will have reduced the total amount of ADDITIONAL GHG emissions by only about 1%.

That’ll save the world. Right. And at what cost? Ah, there’s the rub, Hamlet.  The task force doesn’t give any cost estimates! It talks about modernizing the grid, adding electricity storage, creating lots of electric vehicle recharging stations, encouraging public transit in cities (they never learn), monitoring methane emissions, passing cap-and-trade, imposing emission standards for cars and changing building codes, BUT THE REPORT NEVER MENTIONS WHAT ALL THIS IS GOING TO COST! 

I suspect they don’t care. They have a world to save, and if our electricity bills necessarily skyrocket, so be it.  That’s what President Obama said would happen, and now his prescient forecast is coming true, right here in The Land of Enchantment.

Proof that ideology trumps cost is the fact that the report never mentions adding nuclear power to the grid.  Nuclear power is the only way to reduce GHG emissions economically. Wind, solar, and storage can’t do it.  In fact, adding wind and solar to the electric grid has increased electricity costs all over the world, from Germany to California.  Those who claim otherwise haven’t looked at the evidence.

Similarly, the environmentalists who claim wind and/or solar are cheaper than coal or nuclear haven’t done the math.  Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, did the math many years ago and has long been critical of wind and solar, advocating for nuclear power instead.

A recent convert to Gates’ point of view is the environmentalist Michael Shellenberger. He says wind and solar aren’t going to save the environment, and in fact we must save the environment FROM wind and solar. Both Gates and Shellenberger can be found making their case on numerous You Tube videos.

On one, Shellenberger is joined by James Hansen, the NASA scientist who testified before Congress in 1988 on the dangers of adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Hansen is often called “The father of global warming,” and he gives the argument against wind and solar huge credibility.

Can Gates, Shellenberger, Hansen and a growing army of people who actually understand renewable energy save New Mexico from itself? I doubt it. The Climate Crisis agenda is not driven by facts, it’s driven by emotion.  To a certain extent, it is also driven by a desire to tear down an ‘evil’ economic and social system that has created so much earth-destroying prosperity and in the process an unacceptable amount of inequality, too.

That’s why our salvation may come at the unlikely hands of Michael Moore. The old social justice warrior has produced a new documentary, Planet of the Humans, in which he documents Shellenberger’s claim: wind and solar do more harm than good, and  — GASP! — some evil-dirty bastard capitalists are making a PROFIT on those solar panels and wind mills.

I hope Moore’s documentary sparks enough fact-based emotionalism to counter the push for wind and solar. Lord knows, FACTS ALONE won’t do the job.

Unless sanity prevails, New Mexico is about to embark on a feel-good crusade to lower GHG emissions that will wreck our economy, be hugely expensive and have no effect on global temperatures.  This will occur just as the false promise of renewable energy is starting to be recognized around the world.

Unfortunately, if New Mexico’ recent history is any indication, e.g. The Rail Runner and the Spaceport, sanity has no chance to prevail.

FYI You Tube videos:   Note what Gates says 11:20 to 11:45. I think he means the “renewables are the answer crowd” is more of a block to effective CO2 reduction then folks like moi.

Here’s a short one, well worth the time. Shellenberger’s conclusion is noteworthy: