Wednesday assorted links

Comments

Must watch on climate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=8455KEDitpU

"Carbon prices" will drop to zero over time as the scam gets more and more exposed, to the point where it's no longer defensible and everyone pretends it never existed.

For reference, see the Coming Ice Age Scare of the 1970s. Did you all buy glacier insurance? Didn't think so.

'Did you all buy glacier insurance?'

Probably a lot of people in Switzerland wish they had.

For melting glaciers, that is. 'According to initial findings from the Swiss Glacier Monitoring Network (GLAMOS), Swiss glaciers experienced unusually high melt rates during the last heat wave, which occurred in late July, and an earlier heat wave that struck the continent in late June. ... Matthias Huss, a glaciologist with Swiss University ETH Zurich and head of GLAMOS, tweeted last week that the nation's glaciers lost about 800 million metric tons of ice during the two heat waves alone.

"Absolutely exceptional for a period of only 14 days in total!" he commented in the tweet. ... During the winter, the region received an above-average amount of snowfall, Huss pointed out. So the glaciers actually started the summer with a high level of snow cover and were doing "extraordinarily well" compared to the last few seasons, which have logged particularly strong losses, he noted. Scientists were hopeful that they'd end the season on a better note than the last few years.

But once the first heat wave struck, the snow began to rapidly melt away.

"Now, because of these two heat waves, we have tracked very fast downward," Huss told E&E News. "And we are now at the average of the last 10 years, or even already a bit below." https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/08/europes-record-heat-melted-swiss-glaciers

Fine. You got this one guy saying it's a fraud.

On the other hand there are literally hundreds saying it's for real.

Has your guy received death threats? Michael Mann has.

There are very few glaciers left in Glacier National Park.

My quick listen suggested to me that his argument is that climate warming is nothing but a political front for other issues. Yet, if so, how has it snagged so many thousands of people and governments around the world? Are they all that stupid?

You need to present a lot more evidence and convince a lot more scientists that human caused climate warming is a fraud.

I hope you can do it! That would be great!

Now, now. We know that if anyone makes it YouTube on anything it must be true.

If it was false, the body has ways to try to shut that down.

Red China isnusing the hoax to destroy America's economy. Let them fight global warming!

Re: shrinking glaciers: 7 June 2019: National Park Service Removing Signs On Glaciers Reading, "Gone By 2020" Because They Are Not Going Away.

Michael Mann received death threats [GASP]. Ergo the Climate Hoax is True????

Not so fast!

25 Aug 2019: Something To Hide? Ordered to pay defendant Dr. Ball's legal expenses. Michael Mann refused to provide info, lost lawsuit. Dr. Tim Ball wrote that climate scientist Michael Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State.” He was sued by Mann. Dr. Ball asserted a truth defense. He argued that the hockey stick was a deliberate fraud, something that could be proved if one had access to the data and calculations, in particular the R2 regression analysis, underlying it. Mann refused to produce these documents. He was ordered to produce them by the court and given a deadline. He still refused to produce them, so the court dismissed his case against Dr. Ball.

Here 500 for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpVBH-HY5Ow

No Climate Emergency say 500 Scientists to UN

lol, I'm glad they got the radiologists on the list!

I want to “win” on climate change because the planet really is warming up, not because goofs at the University of East Anglia massaged their data.

As for Michael Mann, hasn’t his multiple law suits revealed him to be a veritable Donald Trump? Hasty, intemperate, a blowhard.

Oh, and just for the record, we are busy recording record heat here in East TN this week. 95 today, Oct 2. And just for the record we are also experiencing a late summer early fall drought. I've lived here for years, never seen anything like it before. And friends who have farms in the midwest have been flooded out this year. First time for that.

But human caused climate warming, of course, has nothing to do with any of this.

Ha, ha.

"And just for the record we are also experiencing a late summer early fall drought. I've lived here for years, never seen anything like it before. "

Say what? Fall is traditionally the period of lowest rainfall for TN. We are certainly in a drought but not as bad as the drought in 2016 and nothing like the drought in 2007-2008.

https://www.drought.gov/drought/states/tennessee

And of course last year was one of the top 10 wettest years on record.

https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2019/jan/02/2018-sets-record-most-ratennessee-valley/485935/

People have an absolutely awful memory for weather. In California, there is a ten year drought cycle: complain about the drought for nine years, then complain about rain for one year.

"On the other hand there are literally hundreds saying it's for real."

Classic Bandwagon Fallacy.

"Has your guy received death threats? Michael Mann has."

There's got to be a name for this fallacy, but I can't think of it. The reasoning is flawed, however. We literally shot and killed people who wanted to maintain slavery; does that make slavery correct?

"There are very few glaciers left in Glacier National Park."

This is why I try to avoid participating in climate change debates. If you understand how glaciers work, the issue becomes far more complex than "The world is on fire!!!"

"Yet, if so, how has it snagged so many thousands of people and governments around the world? Are they all that stupid?"

Again, Bandwagon Fallacy. It's trivially easy to point to areas where most of the scientific community was wrong for a long, long time. The whole "debate" about whether birds are dinosaurs is an example of this. Many scientists didn't think rockets could work in a vacuum. Many scientists believed--up until the 1900s--that Creationism was true. I'm not talking fringe lunatics here; back then these were respected scientists, doing great work in geology, paleontology, and biology. Many of them wrote texts that are still considered classics today. They interpreted the data wrong. There's also the idea of combustion--at one point they thought that combustion removed something from the material (I forget the name of the thing). There's even a protocol in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature to deal with species that are widely thought to exist, but which are proven to not exist--not cryptozoology, but legitimate scientific investigations that come to the wrong conclusion.

There is only one datum in your post: that glaciers are retreating (and that is subject to multiple potential explanations). The rest is fallacious. I'm not saying you're wrong, nor am I saying you're right; my point is merely, it's pretty clear why someone would disagree with you. If I presented an argument against AGW of the same caliber as you presented here, you'd consider me a moron.

(Before you claim me to be a Denier: I am a professional paleontologist who has studied the Rancholabrean and Pleistocene/Holocene transition, as well as mass extinctions in general. I've seen the data; I've COLLECTED some of the data. I can confidently say that AOC and Bill Nye are out of their freaking minds. So are those who say it's a hoax. The reality is that global climate is a tremendously more complex system than the current discussion allows for.)

So if I understand you correctly, your position is that since we can never know if scientists are at their final conclusion, we should never take any action based on scientific opinion?

Ever. For. Anything?

Or in fact are you just picking and choosing like less scientifically informed readers? Are you okay with say less lead in gasoline, but no you can't accept changes to CO2 emissions?

"Many scientists believed--up until the 1900s--that Creationism was true. I'm not talking fringe lunatics here; back then these were respected scientists, doing great work in geology, paleontology, and biology. Many of them wrote texts that are still considered classics today."

I think the evidence on Evolutionism is weak at best. The evidence is compatible with special creation.

"I think the evidence on Evolutionism is weak at best. The evidence is compatible with special creation."

I have studied the theory of evolution my entire adult life, looking at both the Creationist literature and the pro-evolution literature. You are wrong. As an aside, I did not use the term "Creationism" as a pejorative. That's what that group of scientists called themselves. There is no such term for those of us who accept evolution, just as there's no term for those of us who accept the nebular theory of planetary formation. If you want a pejorative, you can go with Neocatastraphist. ;)

"So if I understand you correctly..."

If your car stops working and you don't know why, do you 1) go with the first thing someone says could be wrong, and ignore anything that says anything to the contrary? or 2) gather more evidence, find the actual problem, and work to resolve it?

What I'm saying is that there are specific data gaps in our understanding of climate and ecology. The nature of these gaps is such that we cannot know how to "fix" the ecosystem (which is what global warming really is about when you look at the specific actions suggested). We should fill in those data gaps before engaging in any large-scale geoengineering plan.

"Are you okay with say less lead in gasoline, but no you can't accept changes to CO2 emissions?"

Tell me, when exactly did you stop beating your wife?

I think, if we understand the basics of science, we can break it down more simply than that.

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases produce warming. More greenhouse gases mean more warming.

So, the precautionary principal is straightforward. If we think we might want a little bit less warming, produce a little bit less greenhouse gas, eh?

"I think, if we understand the basics of science, we can break it down more simply than that."

You aren't entirely incorrect, but WHICH science. Your entire post is nothing but atmospheric physics, yet you're talking about ecology. That's like trying to fix a car by studying metallurgy--yeah, it's related, but it won't help you fix a broken transmission.

There's simple, then there's simplistic. What you've presented ignores critical data (in fact MOST of the data), and therefore falls under the latter heading.

As for the precautionary principle, it's nonsense in this case. We're in a mass extinction, and have been for 12,000 years. It is idiotic to assume that ANY portion of this mass extinction presents a viable solution, much less a good one. In fact, paleontological evidence suggests that it could go catastrophically wrong. A "return to previous conditions" is a change, and a stress on the ecosystem. One that's already under tremendous stress, and possibly breaking (I differentiate between mass die-offs and mass turn-overs; it's still uncertain which we're in in my opinion).

As for any attempts at stasis, it's impossible. Can't be done. You may as well propose solving climate change by wishing on a star; both are equally logical. I should not need to explain why, not to anyone who knows enough to have an informed opinion on this topic.

To distill your answer, we should not do anything based on basics, we should demand an arbitrary accuracy first.

But why?

It's not like anyone is really going to turn this thing on its head and say more greenhouse gases instead cool the planet.

Directionality is clearly understood.

"To distill your answer, we should not do anything based on basics, we should demand an arbitrary accuracy first."

This is a lie, pure and simple. I said there are specific data gaps in our understanding of ecology that prevent us from succeeding in geoengineering; to interpret this as a demand for "arbitrary accuracy" is flagrant dishonesty. There's no point to continued discussion with someone like you.

#2: you were smarter before Twitter turned your brain into mush. I mean that sincerely.

Surprised people aren't being more cynical about the facebook "leak". Perhaps insiders in the Verge know it is a genuine leak, but if not, this seems like a great way for Zuckerberg to get his message out there uncritically. If they published this on facebook, nobody would pay much attention. But as soon as its a "leak", everyone's poring over the transcript and noting how reasonable and smart it sounds.

"Leak" or "planted", you cannot deny that Zuckerberg is smart. And now he is trying to perfect his image. Maybe a presidential run is in the future. 2024?

Should have said "leak" or "plant". Duh!

2. We relied on rising asset prices to recover from the financial crisis and great recession (using among things historically low interest rates and low taxes on capital), which worked (or is believed to have worked) but has brought us back to (and above) the level of wealth inequality on the eve of the financial crisis. It's back to the future. Trump engages in daily attacks on the Fed for not adding more fuel to rising asset prices - and the Fed has responded by cutting interest rates. My view is that this is just setting us up for another fall. Our Austrian friends wouldn't mind teaching apostates a few lessons, but this time allowing asset prices to collapse, taking wealth inequality (and the economy) down with prices. Cowen prefers a consumption tax over a wealth tax. Surprise! I will go along if he goes along with his Austrian friends at Mercatus. Of course, adding a consumption tax while asset prices and the economy are collapsing might not be the best idea.

When you're right, you're right.

Lord Liverpool on loose money policy: "The tendency of an inconvertible paper money is to create fictitious wealth, bubbles, which by their bursting, produce inconvenience"

Of course, that all was ok for the eight years of the Obama regime.

Then, beginning in 2017, the Fed raised rates seven times (0.25% each), during the President's first two years in office. Recently, they cut twice by 0.50%, which tells us not-math-challenged that rates still are 1.25% higher than when Trump was inaugurated. Meanwhile, the rest of the planet feverishly pushed out negative (nominal and real) rate debt - $17 trillion with in negative interest bonds now in the world-wide mix.

"Stand by for the inconvenience." James Grant

Oh. Yes, the world was in economic Nirvana when all money was gold or silver. There was never any inflation and no serious recessions/depressions.

#5: Not sure I get it. I read the text of the few items they had included there and it all seemed pretty banal. I decline to adjust my Zuckerberg rating.

#6: That's nice, but the Chesapeake in general still remains a bit of a mess. Having a decrepit, dirty city like Baltimore right on the shore isn't helping things, and sadly our Pennsylvanian neighbors do not treat the mighty Susquehanna with the respect it deserves.

Didn't Peter Thiel say something about Elizabeth Warren being an existential threat to our society?

Maybe that is the common "genius" in the two billionaire perspectives.

Related, there was a very strange Thiel puff-piece in Vanity Fair. It makes the claim that since Thiel never thought Trump was smart, his endorsement of Trump2020 was fine.

It seems to me that it makes it worse. Thiel just thought the useful idiot could be useful to him. And not in any democratic or civic minded way.

What was the book? "Billionaires, a love story?"

And in case anyone missed the news, Bernie is hospitalized with a heart attack. Warren now at 51% odds.

She has a plan for that!

If a Sanders' run really becomes inviable and the Democratic Party coup d'état succeeds, then all will be lost.

If I use a different name are you going to stop following me? Or do we have to wait until Tyler learns to code ..

Does #3 assume there is zero effect of CO2-related expenditures on economic growth and no opportunity cost? The 'ct' equations do not appear to include any dependency on previous 'ct' as affected by CO2 expenditures, and a line at the end appears to say as much: 'Our base case assumes an economic growth rate c¯=1.5 with the rate itself unaffected by climate change'. Then it is not surprising if they deliver drastically different results from analyses which do not make such an assumption, or, if you assume CO2 taxes are free and costless, that you would prefer to tax as much as possible up front.

Figure don't lie. Liars figure.

There are liars; damned liars; and climate alarmists.

My dear grandmother would say that too, hun. Now why don't you go outside and take a walk.

#3 I do not see why I should pay for it.

If they were serious (they are not) about carbon emissions, they'd be pushing nuclear not green graft boondoggles like sun beams, unicorn farts and zephyrs. Because they can't rake in billions $$$ from nukes.

Environmental Apocalypse Predictions Have Failed For Half A Century.

They're out to make billions by wrecking the economy, and rearranging and controlling every aspect of people's lives. The "THEY" are on-the-take politicians, lobbyists, green entrepreneurs, et al intent to rake in billions $$$ and could care less about the economic and societal destruction they will cause.

“I’m convinced that after years of studying the phenomenon, global warming is not the real issue of temperature,” said Klaus, an economist by training. “That is the issue of a new ideology or a new religion. A religion of climate change or a religion of global warming. This is a religion which tells us that the people are responsible for the current, very small increase in temperatures. And they should be punished.” 2011, Vaclav Klaus former Czech President

The green graft, so-called scientist supporters are trained in statistics and armed with models and theories that bear no relation to reality.

Again, 50 years of hysterics you call "settled science" and Barack Hussein Obama buys a $15 million beach-front house.

I guess your preferred pronouns are they/them.

But if it were you, and you were serious, what would your plan be?

Virtue signalling and unenforceable treaties, duh,

For what it's worth, I'd be open to most anything. I'm even open to lifestyle change. But my preferred method would be a revenue neutral carbon tax. It would encourage carbon efficiency without changing taxpayer's out of pocket.

What is the argument against a revenue neutral carbon tax? Seriously wondering, I can't think of any. Outside of the usual "well it's too hard to figure out how to structure it so let's not ever do anything difficult" objection.

Anon, I would send Greta Thunberg to scream at the leaders in China and India over their refusals to reduce carbon emissions - they spew twice as much as the US and EU combined.

Seriously, my plan would be to NOT destroy the economy and control every aspect of people's lives based on a hoax.

Think solar cycles, not carbon emissions. Think four massive glaciations and warmings eons before mankind came down from the trees.

The only problem is that it ain't a hoax, and that's all motivated thinking.

Seriously? Literally the only problem.

You Have Blind Faith Based On Lies.

Anyhow, if material (meaningful) warming (man-made or otherwise) were less unlikely, the proposed cures are far more destructive than any damage warming would wreak.

Convince me otherwise. Caveat, try finding facts and do not spew any more logical fallacies.

At least you're consistent. You also fell for the Russia collusion hoax.

How can you possibly believe "convince me now, in this comments forum" is a reasonable demand for anyting?

I've got NASA, NOAA, and the National Academies of Science on my side. (Oh, and the DOD!)

I don't need you

She has a plan for that.

Warren has pledged $4 trillion in spending on her climate change plan. $3 trillion for an Apollo Program to phase out all fossil fuel vehicles by 2030 and all fossil fuel electricity generation by 2030. To be paid for by a wealth tax and eliminating previous tax cuts.

Hi, other anonymous.

There was a day when "pledges" like this just meant that a plan would be sent to Congress.

What is your feeling on the current "emergency" being used to build the wall?

She has a plan for that.

By removing the filibuster Warren will be more easily able to push her agenda through Congress. Starting with immediate statehood for Puerto Rico and DC and adding at a minimum 9 new Supreme Court Justices. As she said, it must start with process reform.

The wall? She has a plan for that.

Warren supports the immediate impeachment and removal of President Trump. No Trump, no wall. She also supports the immediate decriminalization of crossing the border, which preempts the need for any physical barriers.

Congratulations, that's a real nonsense combination platter.

Me, simple anonymous that I am, would impeach Trump for infidelity to the Constitution, and then consistently demand Constitutional fidelity of the next president.

#2 We already have substantial wealth taxes that are reverse regressive for most of what is commonly referred to as the "middle class" in the form of property taxes.

I'm so old I remember when (1999 to 2001) the BoE decided to sell most of its gold reserves and tanked gold prices. I still have some of that gold.

Wealth tax may not be too destructive if, say, Amazon repurchases Bezos' stock to fund his wealth tax. Otherwise, each year there may be downward pressure on certain stocks' prices.

I own one house without debt, the other has a loan.

For both, I pay rent to the public schools (government-sponsored child abuse), town, and village.

Taxation is slavery to the government.

So you expect all the appurtances of civilization to be delivered to you free of charge? The word for that is "freeloading". And if that's not the case why are you here enjoying our civilization. Shouldn't you be living as a solitary hermit in some wilderness?

You're probably too old to be using the internet, as you reversed your name and email again. Now all those filthy leftists can spam your inbox.

"1. “Cheap books make authors canonical.” From a new study of Jane Austen by Janine Barchas."

Jane Austen's books were generally excellent. I'm sure cheap books helped sales, but that alone isn't going to make an author canonical. If that were the case "Free" kindle books would dominate current literature.

More to the point -- there were lots of cheap books sold during Austen's day and throughout the 19th and 20th centuries (dime novels, penny dreadfuls) that never became canonical. Northanger Abbey is partly a satire of the trashy Gothic romance novels that were popular during Austen's time.

On 2 -- What is the argument that consumption taxes are better than wealth taxes for growth? What is the most growth-friendly split of state revenue from property taxes and individual income taxes? The answer currently seems to be 32% and 24%.

#6: Nice article. When early on it mentioned that one of the dolphins was named "Patsy Mink" I did a double-take because I recognized the name of the former long-time representative from Hawaii. I didn't recognize "Gwendolyn Mink" but figured she might be the real-life daughter.

Thankfully the article later on fully explored and explained what was going on with those dolphins' names.

How big of a big shot do you have to be to have a dolphin named after you? The bar will be lower for women, presumably about half of the dolphins are female, but fewer than half of famous politicians are female especially historically.

#2...In the USA, if you pass a Wealth Tax, nothing valuable will be found to be "wealth."

3. The paper assumes carbon prices of $100+ are possible when we can remove and sequester CO2 from the atmosphere agriculturally for less than that. Unless the discussion is about drawing down large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere, the upper limit for a carbon price is going to be much less than $100 per tonne.

One thing I have found missing from the debate on wealth and wealth taxes is the value of defined benefit pensions, particularly government pensions.

Couple A, who founded and managed a small business, could sell this business for, say $2 million at retirement would generally be considered wealthy. Couple B, who worked all their lives in the civil service, could retire with pensions of $60k per year and expected retirement of 20 years, but not be considered wealthy. The wealth tax schemes that I have heard about would tax couple A to make sure that the state could meet it's obligation to couple B, although the value of what each couple holds at retirement is very similar.

All the wealth tax schemes anyone is talking about are for people worth over $100 million. So none of what you typed is relevant.

That doesn't make a wealth tax a good idea, but let's be clear it's aimed at the super-rich, not pensioners.

Facebook has been slow to load recently

2. “Wealth taxes: a future battleground” — my 2013 NYT column. Recommended.
---
Wealth is an asset with an estimated return. In equilibrium, assuming complete markets, then wealth and return on wealth should be comparable to other safe assets. Try taxing them and watch their prices adjust a bit more rapidly.

Here is a better tax on wealth, put a tax on Fed liquidity, collected by the Fed, the fee for being stuck with a monopoly.. Tax the Fed flow and you should capture a fair representation of wealth, if pricing works properly.

But pricing does not work properly when assets concentrate, as there is no complete market. Assets concentrate because government monopolizes too much.

John Sutherland:

"in my opinion, literature is a library, not a canon or a curriculum".

Friends are friends, and a town with many good restaurants is a town with many good restaurants, none of us can have enough good friends or enough memories of good restaurants, within reason.

2. I think they already tried this in France. But of course the US liberals think its a new idea. Any thing for greed and envy.

The typical rising trajectory of the tax on net CO2 emissions is, I alway thought, a gradual approach to the optimal rate, not the calculated year 0 optimum trajectory given year 0 taking account of assumptions about market and technological response to that trajectory. Whatever the year 0 trajectory, it should be recalculated as technology, market response, and estimates of CO2 damage changes and might rise or fall.

Comments for this post are closed