Saturday assorted links

Comments

7. We'll have to see how tomorrow's/Monday's games go to have an apples to apples comparison to the other contenders. Worth mentioning that he does seem to be in a very good position to hold on though. Midway point of the season is the 22nd. A lot of soccer to be played.

"Loneliness" is a horribly value-weighted locution all by itself, imputing and entailing a limited, necessary subjective response to the objective condition of "solitude".

When "loneliness" is then cited as phenomenal of some horrid psycho-social "epidemic", we arguably have more pathology attending to the assessment than to the condition said to be under consideration.

It’s almost as if the plan is to create a new and fundamentally insoluble problem that will justify intrusive new governmental programs (and rice bowls) in perpetuity.

Perhaps the recent suggestion of a new mandate for private property owners to provide free “rest areas” for the homeless will mitigate the loneliness problem.

That's funny juxtaposed with my state, where they're closing actual roadside "rest areas" all the time. Midway between my home and my family's home, I sometimes stopped at the "lookout" with picnic shelters, to eat my sandwich, for the past thirty years. Closed? Well, I'll google up another one in the same county. Oh, they are all closed as of last summer. Which they proved to be as I passed, a heap of gravel dumped across the access to drive home the point.

But hey, in googling I learned the cool fact that my favored rest area [NOW CLOSED] on that particular drive, was the oldest in the state.

Fortunately it was not my favorite rest area overall. That would be the one at Sarita.

There's been one or two rest areas on I-5 that have been closed for years, but I have a vague notion that in the last two or three years more and more have been closed, and driving between Portland and Denver this past summer I noticed more closed ones than ever. I don't know if they're temporarily closed or indefinitely.

I did notice that Montana especially seems to have a lot of new-fangled (to me anyway) ultra-low service rest areas: a place to park, and maybe a trash can and maybe an outhouse. (Oh, they have a website that tells you what each site's services are, but this list includes historical markers and the like, which seems like cheating to me, those aren't really rest areas:
https://www.mdt.mt.gov/travinfo/restarea.shtml )

Decades ago driving around Maryland and IIRC northern VA I remember seeing rest areas that were the opposite of those minimalist MT ones: sizable complexes that had full-sized fast food restaurants and gas stations and convenience stores, not just parking and restrooms and water. I.e. more like a truck stop than a rest stop although I don't know if they had amenities such as showers. They were typically located in the middle of the highway, presumably because building duplicate complexes on both sides of the highway would've been too costly.

In my limited long-distance bus-rising experience in China, Chinese rest stops were like those MD ones, except even larger with multiple restaurants and stores.

I forgot to add: Venezuela, Zambia, and New Zealand did not seem to have rest stops at all, you'd stop in a village or hamlet. It's been decades since I've driven in western or central Canada. I did drive between Buffalo and Toronto not too many years ago and don't remember any rest areas, but the distance is not long and there are places such as Hamilton along the way so there may be no need for rest areas in that part of Canada.

Should you actually fall asleep in your car at one of our rest stops, you'll be wakened and told to move on. But hey: PSA - don't drive drowsy!

Yikes, that would seem to defeat the purpose of a rest stop.

I wouldn't be surprised if rest stops near Las Vegas also prohibit sleeping or at least overnight sleeping. I had trouble finding a campground in Las Vegas -- there were plenty, but they had a large minimum vehicle size requirement. I finally realized that they wanted people driving large RVs to stay at their campgrounds, and did not want any down-on-their-luck customers who'd lost at the casino and only had their car left.

Maybe your state is similarly trying to keep the rest areas free from ... vagrants. Or migrants. Or immy-grants.

(I finally went to a KOA campground, they're sort of like the McDonald's or maybe Denny's of campgrounds: large national chain with a sameness but reliable quality. And perhaps due to being a chain -- or perhaps not focusing on hoity-toity wealthy RV drivers -- they didn't care what kind of vehicle you drove. Maybe they didn't require a vehicle at all; KOAs at least in those days always had tent camping sites in addition to RV/trailer parking areas.)

As for the old welcome center, in the western US or at least the Pacific NW there used to be a lot of XXX Root Beer drive-ins, they'd sell hamburgers and XXX root beer floats. They're now a lot less common than A&W root beer places, and even those are not super common anymore. But even so, if I was driving on a highway and saw a XXX sign near the freeway exit, I think my first thought would be root beer as opposed to porn.

Then there was the closing of the cool(er) midcentury welcome center just inside the state line, while a starkly ugly red-brick structure (no doubt "readily reproducible" ) took its place miles further in, leaving the de facto welcome center a lonely XXX video store on a hill.

Or, welcome to a place that has no pride. A, o, oh way to go.

So I read your 2006 post about climate change and now 13 years later, how many islands have we lost? You're a couple years older than me, you have to remember that in the 70's the "experts" were saying we're going into a new ICE AGE! Every decade or so they come up with a new crisis. One of your 2006 commenters mentioned he believed it was to create a fascist world government, heck even AOC's people said the GND wasn't about the climate. Hard to trust people that have an agenda and modify data to fit there models.

Those esperts, you mean: https://www.google.com/search?q=exxon+1978&oq=exxon+1978&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.2969j0j7&client=tablet-android-samsung&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

Actually, Stephen Schneider of Stanford was the most prominent of the “burning-fossil-fuels-will-cause-a-new-ice-age” hysterics (there used to be Videos of his “we are doomed to freeze” analytics on YouTube but they might be memory holed now). When temps started going up in the 80s he switched, easily and comfortably, to the “we-will-be-roasted-like-chickens” version.

Bm,

You have the dates wrong. Indeed in 1971 Schneider thought SO2 was going to beat CO2, but he had switched by 1975, before the warming took off, as I described above. Indeed, his switch was one of the most prominent ones to happen and crucial to the change in views in the academic literature that happened in the early-mid-70s, not the 80s.

You seem to be as poorly informed as E.K. here.

Surprising that Mark Thoma retiring. He is not all that old. I hope his health is OK. I also hope he continues to do his excellent blog.

I just checked. Mark Thoma will turn 63 tomorrow, not all that old.

Not that old, and hopefully still has a long life in front of him.

He's passionate about climate change, but apparently never had time to take any science classes. Maybe he'll have time to walk across campus, take some intro chem and phys stuff with the 19 year olds. Finally have a chance to get an informed perspective on subjects he blogs about so passionately.

Go back to Reddit where you belong, seriously ignorant boy.

Heh

D.K. Effect

Excuse me, boy, but you are the one repeatedly being shown to be completely wrong in your comments.

Let me remind you, boy, "bogus journals"? You declared that I had not published in any of the top 3 physics journals, according to you the only ones that matter, and I have published in the very top one.

How many more posts are you going to post on this thread where you not only outright lie but show you have no idea what you are talking about, boy?

"...boy...boy...boy..."

I'm amazed you're doing this to yourself, attacking random, anonymous people in personal terms on the internet IN YOUR OWN NAME.

You invited me to google you. Did you think I'd be impressed? Yikes.

I guess I'm not special; I'm not the only one being attacked on internet messages boards by people claiming to be "Barkley Rosser".

It could be others posting in that name to make this person look bad. But there is a lot of material; why would someone bother? And yes, I do think it's possible a social scientist could think being so incautious on the internet is a good idea.

It's not just message boards. I didn't have to read many of your blog posts at https://angrybearblog.com to find you calling people "dumb".

Over at https://www.econjobrumors.com people seem to have you figured out. Some think you were banned for poor manners (including something about a "well-known EL fracas"). Some believe you're now posting under aliases, but they can tell who you are by your quick resort to ad hominem attacks and angry, disjointed style. They call you out. You apparently post a lot.

I won't contribute much to academics in my life. But I'm making a small contribution here. I believe social science departments are full of jealous, envious, angry, broken people. They're not bright enough to act in their own self interest when it comes to littering internet search results evidence of poor behavior. I think that fact about social scientists is not widely known. I think I'm helping, in a very small way, get the word out. I'm helping you do it.

Keep posting, Bakley. Show us what you are, what kind of people are sulking around social science departments. I feel your anger. It makes you stronger. Let the hate flow.

For anyone still following along (and recall, he asked me to google him, presuming his background would command deferential respect)...

Here's an exchange that got you-know-who banned from another site. Starts off like a friendly debate between academics, then he freaks out and starts insulting people in very personal, obscene terms. This is definitely the same guy (for example, the interjection "gag" to denote disapproval, as which he also uses in our exchange):

http://economiclogic.blogspot.com/2010/03/why-criticize-modern-macro-when-you-do.html

You can read here a discussion of the affair here. Speculation of bans, professional damage, mention of him threatening people. A selection:

"He did get upset and resorted to name calling--exactly what he had been preaching against. Rosser had been posting here daily on all sorts of things under his own name at the time. He was constantly asking that people contribute substantive discussion and refrain from name calling. But when the EL affair got started, he went for the jugular and called EL some things on EJMR.....Then he refused to apologize and some of his credibility was lost. At that point word came down that some members of the profession imposed a ban on him until he apologized.
Rosser indeed went underground and has not posted here under his own name very much after this affair..."

https://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/describe-jebo

And:

"1. Epic fight vs. blogger Economic Logician (EL) carried out both on EJMR and EL's blog. Rosser escalated the war of words and went ad-hominem, then refuses to apologize. He tries to find EL's true identity by various means. Eventually, the profession issued a ban on Rosser's posts under his own name on EjMR.

2. Rosser's crusade agaist DSGE and MN-type models and colleagues. When the financial crisis hit, some blamed these models for not having predicted it or how to fix it. Rosser went on tirades against the models and proposed his own chaos theory and agent-based models (ABM). In 2009, he predicted those models would bury DSGE (lol).

3. Many posted trying to set Rosser straight. Rosser responds with threats and tales of how he battled the KGB (LOL)

Eventually and given the ban, Rosser stops posting under his own name."

https://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/why-is-barkley-rosser-so-mean-to-ejmrs-aspie-virgins

Q.E.D.

I retired when I was 60. Much more time to spend with my family and to read and do hobbies. Also much less stressful.

I doubt my epitaph will read ‘He should have worked a few years longer’.

You know, it reminds me that Space Ghost episode where Lokar, the King of the Killer Locusts, pretended to be Space Ghost to attract Space Ghost to his laboratory, where he intended to build giant mettallic locusts to defeat the Space Patrol.

'strip artists of their own artistic creations'
----
She had a nice stripper costume, damn good artistic creation.

I am ot talking about stripper costumes. I am talking about depriving workers, in this case artists, of the full enjoyment of the fruits of their work. Under American capitalism, workers are no more than cogs in a faceless, heartless machine which devours their souls.

An artist just helped some rich dude launder $120k on a banana taped to a wall and another sold a diorama filled with junk for $200k. Walk kind of employment is helping the wealthy launder money? Is that employment? Contracting? Freelancing? Just curious.

I guess the 'soul-crush'is somewhat true before you make it big and become a worthwhile conduit for wealth transfer. You're right though about stealing enjoyment...I stole tremendous joy from the artist when that stranger ate the banana. But maybe that was part of the show, and the transaction...duh duh duh!

I am ot talking about bananas. I am talking about the fruits of human spirit, music, paintings, books, all stolen by greedy malefactors of great wealth.

But they didn't "steal" it. Someone owned it. Someone sold it. Someone is whining over it. End of story.

So that is it, then. Our system has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, callous 'cash payment.'

4. The links at Thoma's blog have been enormously helpful in my understanding of economic and social policy. Given his infrequent blog posts recently, I'm concerned, very concerned. He is a wonderful human being, never disparaging of the academics who make our life better. And he posted recently about a new grandchild.

SGT,

Oh gag, more dumb and ignorant stuff from ideological climate deniers.

On the matter of forecasts of an ice age, you should know two things: 1) average world temperature declined somewhat from the 1940s to the mid-1970s, and 2) the view as of 1971 in the academic literature was that there was a showdown between SO2 and CO2 emissions in the atmosphere. The former, largely coming from coal burning, tend to cool the planet down. The latter tend to heat it up. What came to be realized was that the SO2 falls out of the atmosphere pretty quickly while the CO2 does not, so the latter should predominate in the longer run. This then was aggravated by the passage in early 70s in most high income nations of laws to reduce SO2 emissions, which began to happen, while there were no laws to reduce CO2 emissions. By the mid-70s, even though the world had not yet restarted warming again, the acdemic consensus was overwhelming that our atmosphere would be warming, an correct insight.

When you spout off about this ice age stuff, you simply show that you do not know what you are talking about.

Oh, Tyler, you 2006 post holds up pretty well.

O, Lord! What to do with climate deniers?

Greta Thunberg has some ideas. At a Turin protest, she advocated mass murder, "We will make sure we put world leaders against the wall . . ." if they don't fall into line with climate hysterics.

Will we at least get blindfolds?

I did not know you were a world leader. Mr. Trump, is it you?

Dick is a world leader in his mind, which is good enough for him.

Master of his fate, captain of his soul, world leader of his mind.

How Dare You!

To wit, CO2 has risen from 0.23% to 0.4% of the atmosphere. Meaning that - for econ profs everywhere - 99.6% of the air is other gases. See President Kraus below.

Me and fellow world leaders: Vaclav Kraus (Czech Republic) Xi Jinpeng, Boris Johnson, Donald J. Trump, among others know climate is a hoax.

HRH Greta ought to go to China and put against the wall Xi Jinpeng. China emits more CO2 than the USA and EU combined. Add up China, India and Indonesia [the most prominent Asian polluters] and they spew twice as much CO2 as the USA and EU combined.

"As someone who lived under communism for most of my life I feel obliged to say that the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity at the beginning of the 21st century is not communism or its various softer variants. Communism was replaced by the threat of ambitious environmentalism." Vaclav Kraus

"To reduce the interpretation of the causality of all kinds of climate changes and of global warming to one variable, CO2, or to a small proportion of one variable - human-induced CO2 - is impossible to accept. Elementary rationality and my decades-long experience with econometric modeling and statistical testing of scientific hypotheses tell me that it is impossible to make strong conclusions based on mere correlation of two (or more) time series." Vaclav Kraus

"As someone who lived under communism for most of my life I feel obliged to say that the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity at the beginning of the 21st century is not communism or its various softer variants. Communism was replaced by the threat of ambitious environmentalism."
Oh, God.

Klaus. Klaus. Klaus.

Fortunately, we don't need to rely on time-series statistics to tell us about the relationship between CO2 and temperature. We have experimental evidence from physics dating from the 19th century to today. Which is also why your statement that 99.6% of the atmosphere is not made up of CO2 is correct and irrelevant at the same time. 79% of the air you breathe isn't made up of oxygen -- so what?

I too live in fear of female teenage activists. If only one day we could have a world where nearly all important positions are held by middle aged and elderly men, then everything would be perfect and peace would reign.

Indeed, like we require experience for doctors and engineers, politicians and activists should be subject to the same approach, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Indeed. No one without prior experience in changing the radiative forcing of a planet should be allowed to speak.

How old is your financial advisor? 16?

Or is YOUR money to important to trust to a teenager?

Or are you too poor to need a financial advisor?

And the next time you get sick don’t bother asking an old doctor, a young Candy Striper knows much more about how the world - and your body - works.

Dick,
You need to learn to read original sources, not your buddies. Here is what she tweeted about this incident;
"Yesterday I said we must hold our leaders accountable and unfortunately said “put them against the wall”. That’s Swenglish: “att ställa någon mot väggen” (to put someone against the wall) means to hold someone accountable.
That’s what happens when you improvise speeches in a second language.
But of course I apologise if anyone misunderstood this. I can not enough express the fact that I - as well as the entire school strike movement- are against any possible form of violence. It goes without saying but I say it anyway."

Greta is a child abuse victim. Her abusers can't win the argument on merits, so they are using her as a human shield. Criticize them, and they try to transpose it as a criticism of her.

I don't think it's working. I think the people who think stuff like that is a good idea are living in an echo chamber. They think they're being clever, but many see them as stupid, greedy, cruel.

"greedy, cruel." Like the schmucks in the hedge fund you claim to be involved in?

Barkley,

Participating vigorously in the private economy doesn’t automatically make someone a schmuck.

Just as marking time in a make-work, low horsepower public sector job doesn’t automatically make someone virtuous.

But you are fun!

A serous problem you have, boy, is that you are using a fake name, very popular among OK millennials.

But indeed the problem is that when you go up against someone like me who is using his real name and has a public record, which you are so stupid you could not even figure out and made open and clear lies about here, is that you have no credibility for your claims about yourself.

As it is, maybe you have made some money with some hedge fund, and maybe you even have a pub or two in some loser physics journals. But, quite likely not, and given how seriously false and stupid so many of your posts on this thread have been, I am going with that you are just a fraud, a 19-year old undergrad renegade out of Reddit, to which you should return.

You want to actually convince anybody here that you are not just a lying fraud? Tell us your real name and lay out your supposed "accomplishments." Otherwise, you are just a garbage joke.

Got it, boy?

Proposition:

Anyone claiming to be concerned about global CO2 emissions who doesn't mention the words 'India' 'China' and 'Nuclear' (inclusive) early in every discussion is unserious.

Discuss.
---

Proposition:

Anyone who claims schemes such as TSLA-subsidies, CA High Speed Rail, German 'Clean Diesel' were good-faith efforts to reduce CO2 emissions rather than wealth transfer from poor-to-rich schemes is unserious.

Discuss
---

Proposition:

Any social-scientist who claims "the science is settled, lets get on to the policy implications where otherwise low-utility field matters" for a subject where real scientists are still arguing is unserious. To the extent they understand what they're doing (confusing the issue for personal gain at public expense), they are acting unethically.

Discuss
---

Proposition:

80% of US electric generation could come from Gen3 nuclear power plants at $0 public capital cost within 20 years. Yield starved investors would love to finance construction (speaking personally - give me 6%, pretty please). The main obstacle is graft seeking agents (politicians, bureaucrats, non-profit sector professional social scientists) diverting attention to non-solutions like Solar, Tesla Sports Cars, Wind.

Discuss

The most useful things a highly credentialed social scientist can do to fight climate change include: 1) always vote against the corrupt left; 2) try to convince anyone gullible enough to consider them an expert to do the same 3) and go home and stare at a wall.

Discuss

Wow, Eirc K. Not a single one of these statements is a serious proposition. So, just to pick on one of these, if somebody is unserious who does not mention India early in any comments on global warming, are they also unserious if they do not mention the US either? After all, the US is a bigger emitter of CO2 than is India. But, hey, you knew that, of course, right?

Oh, and the "corrupt left" is a bigger problem for global warming than is the "corrupt right"? Really?

"80% of US electric generation could come from Gen3 nuclear power plants at $0 public capital cost within 20 years."

Discuss

That may be true for whatever Bizarro World you live on, but here on Earth that's nonsense. Just ask anyone familiar with the Virgil Summer plant in South Carolina or the Vogtle plant in Georgia.

Mark,

In good faith:

Okay, your snark aside, I'm asking you. What do you know about those SC and GA nuclear power plants that I should know? Looks like they've taken a long time to come online and are basically mid-1970s designs.

France went from around 0% to around 80% nuclear in 20 years.

I do know finance. I know the economics of revenue bonds if you clear out all the rent seekers.

Check my math, but I estimate around 14 pairs of the A1B reactors we're putting in our new Ford Class aircraft carriers (2 each) could generate all the residential power for CA. They're tiny, low heat loss (no big steam plumes coming off aircraft carriers). I'm admit I'm putting my thumb on the scale a bit since they're not optimized for 100% electric generation (they also power the drive shaft directly).

Again, in good faith, tell me what you know. My concern is nuclear power is low hanging fruit, and many climate alarmists ignore it because they aren't really interested in solutions.

For the record, "Eric," I happen to agree that a serious effort on nuclear should be part of what is done, although you overdo your arguments for it here. Do note that costs of solar and wind are falling rapidly, which is not the case with nuclear. Plus, if one wants to do nuclear, maybe we should pursue the thorium route, which has some serious potential advantages.

Dunning- Kruger

Anyone claiming to be concerned about global CO2 emissions who doesn't mention the words 'India' 'China' and 'Nuclear' (inclusive) early in every discussion is unserious.

Other things that should be discussed.
1. A CO2 tax and payout for 2.
2. Removal of co2 from the air so we can still use the highest value CO2 emitting technology for a long time.

I have a prosaic concern with CO2 taxes:

I don't believe governments will administer it fairly and transparently, and it will be used as another tool to reward the well connected and punish others. The first 100 pages any CO2 tax plan will make perfect sense. It will start getting shady around page 8000 in the post legislative rule-making. Private citizens who question program abuses will be accused of being climate-deniers.

I'm not saying the government is evil, or that people who propose things like CO2 taxes are making them in bad faith. I just think corruption is like the tides and the winds, and we ignore them at our peril.

I don't think governments even do a very good job of managing existing tax schemes, their currencies, or their spending. Many well-meaning programs devolve into poor-to-rich wealth transfer schemes.

The next time there is a shallow recession, governments will be handing carbon credits out to selected businesses like candy. They nudged the tax code to let GM use an otherwise excluded $50B tax-loss-carryforward in 2008/09. Nobody voted on it. No one (SecTreas) even took personal responsibility for the decision. Next time it will be just as easy to give another politically favored concern a $10s of Bs in CO2 tax credits.

Of course, building a bunch of nuclear power plants will present plenty of opportunities for graft and corruption. But at least everyone will be able to see whether or not the end goal - a functioning nuclear power plant - was achieved.

In addition, a big nuclear buildout in the US should create positive externalities other countries (India, China) could benefit from, notable manufacturing scale economics and incremental innovation.

"Okay, your snark aside,..."

It's good of you to put my snark aside. My snark comes in part from being annoyed by people who don't know what they're talking about telling me *I* don't know what I'm talking about.

https://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2019/10/global-warming-avoided-by-hypothetical-gen-iv-reactors.html
https://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2019/06/lets-see-who-knows-what-theyre-talking-about.html

"What do you know about those SC and GA nuclear power plants that I should know?"

Well, do you know that they resulted in the bankruptcy of Westinghouse, and that Westinghouse was by far the largest of the four producers of commercial nuclear reactors in the U.S. (the others being GE, Babcock & Wilcox, and Combustion Engineering)?

"Looks like they've taken a long time to come online and are basically mid-1970s designs."

Virgil Summer has been cancelled. Units 3 and 4 will probably never come online. And both Summer and Vogtle are "Generation III+" designs. They are so new that they would be the first built in the U.S. (if they are completed, which Summer probably will not be).

The simple fact is that most utilities have long-range integrated resource plans, in which they lay out what they will be doing 10, 20, or more years into the future. As far as I know, no utility has a nuclear power plant in its integrated resource plan. So there's simply no way that even 5 nuclear plants could be built in 20 years, let alone the 500+ nuclear plants that would be needed to generate 80 percent of our electricity from nuclear.

Better hit the sack (I get extra snarky when I haven't had a good night's sleep).

“ The simple fact is that most utilities have long-range integrated resource plans, in which they lay out what they will be doing 10, 20, or more years into the future. As far as I know, no utility has a nuclear power plant in its integrated resource plan. ”

Okay. I understand the collapse in natural gas prices has accelerated the shut down of coal plants (and a few legacy nukes). I imagine that was a disruption to their multi-decade plans.

How about this: take whatever horseshit solar/wind projections are I their plans and replace it with nuclear.

I don’t care about utility company Ch11s. Who cares? Some equity holder gets blown out, some bond holders get a haircut, and the assets are recapitalized. It’s just paper - not like they blow up the plants in Ch11.

"How about this: take whatever horseshit solar/wind projections are in their plans and replace it with nuclear."

I see...Return to Bizarro World. ;-)

I haven't ever worked for a utility, but as I understand it, the utilities are installing wind and solar for two basic reasons: 1) they are mandated to do so because of the various state Renewable Portforlio Standards (that require that increasing percentages of electricity be generated by renewable sources such as wind, solar, and biomass) or 2) they actually think wind and solar make sense (at least with current subsidies). So here on Earth they're not simply going to "replace it with nuclear."

Even if they did--and let me assure you they absolutely won't--what do you think that would even accomplish?

"I don’t care about utility company Ch11s. Who cares?"

Unbelievable! You answer your own question in your very next words...

"Some equity holder gets blown out, some bond holders get a haircut, and the assets are recapitalized."

"Some equity holder gets blown out..."! "...some bond holders get a haircut..."! The people who run utilities have a fiduciary responsibility to make sure equity holders (plural!) don't get "blown out" and that bond holders don't "get a haircut."

Would you be so cavalier if a substantial part of your retirement was in a utility, and it took your advice and ended up bankrupt, or with a stock down more than 50 percent?

Let me tell you about probably the quickest big-percentage gain I ever made in investment. I worked at the Babcock and Wilcox Nuclear Power Division in the 1980s (in the post-TMI retrofits phase of the industry). We were building the Consumers Power nuclear plant in Midland, Michigan. I could see that it was never going to get built. The Consumers Power people eventually realized that too, and announced plans to stop the nuclear plant, and instead build a natural gas plant. I immediately dumped some money in Consumers Power stock, and made a very hefty gain over the next year or two before I sold. The moral of this is that the board of directors of Consumers Power had an obligation to do the right thing by their stock- and bond-holders.

Anybody who is serious about climate also has to discuss limiting immigration. Guatemalans have about 1/13 the per capita emissions as Americans, and because the U.S. is very good at making people rich quickly, they get to U.S. levels quite quickly when they immigrate. And, yes, I won't publish my research on this because I'd get fired and people like Barkley Rosser would at best stand on the sidelines.

I thought you lot said immigrants (especially Central Americans) are scummy welfare sucks and losers and criminals. Net tax consumers. Who is getting made rich quickly in this comment?

Immigrants are only political pawns of the right, and can be used however and whenever politically expedient.

I was not in that old climate discussion, but I have been in more recent ones here, in which the idea of tipping points was scoffed at.

I wonder if the revisiting was more occasioned by the Time cover or recent news of polar thaws?

I think that now missing thread was real, and illustrative of something. Perhaps a parallel to this.

A lot of people do find it easier to respond to Greta (like the Peloton girl) than arctic climate news (like the Afghanistan report).

Right, we can't respond to climate change until the 16 year-old gets every word perfect, in her second language.

(Thunberg later said she was making a literal translation from Swedish, in which the expression means to put someone on the spot with tough questions.)

Right. And, the 1940's "Arbeit macht frei" was a literal mistranslation of the German.

You don't know you're losing when an uneducated Swedish truant is the face of your hoax.

I saw a Swede on Twitter contemporaneously confirm, so I can accept it.

Still, look at yourselves. If you are more concerned with the 16 year-old than the Nature paper, or NOAA report, maybe you aren't too serious.

Worse, maybe you are what you claim to despise, a shallow thinker who can only operate on the partisan level.

4. Mark Thoma is retiring from University of Oregon after 32 years.
---
https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/shepard-oregon-pensions-mercatus-summary-v1.pdf

Something called the Mercatus Center as George Mason U had something to say:

Oregon’s pension crisis has placed pressure on state policymakers as they try to reform their pension system. One
of the most controversial issues they face is whether they can legally eliminate benefits for work that current and
future government employees have not yet performed. A number of states, including Oregon, have embraced the
“California Rule,” a legal doctrine that, in Oregon, is based on a misunderstanding of federal Contract Clause
precedent. Under this rule, states have been prohibited from reducing pension benefits for current government
employees, even for work that lies in the future and may not be performed for decades. This rule has limited pension reform options and led to an inequitable treatment of younger workers.
In “A Lost Generation but Renewed Hope: Oregon’s Pension Crisis and the Road to Reform,” Scott Andrew Shepard discusses how the Oregon Supreme Court has belatedly, but not yet completely, attempted to reject the California Rule. It still uses its 1996 adoption of this rule to suppress the application of certain state constitutional
provisions and legislation designed to rein in pension spending. But the state would not violate any constitutional
norms or face any lingering objection from the US Supreme Court even if it eliminated all pension benefits for
prospective work done by current and future employees.
BACKGROUND
The official base rate at which Oregon’s public employers must contribute to their employees’ pensions increased
by nearly 20 percent between the 2015–17 period and the 2017–19 period. This base rate is likely to increase even
more within the next few years, illustrating the structural funding deficit in which Oregon’s pension funds now
find themselves. While the foundations of the current crisis have existed for decades, two major setbacks exacerbated Oregon’s pension problems and added more than 50 ppercent to the Public Employees Retirement System
(PERS) deficit, which currently totals approximately $21 billion.
• The legislature made a 2013 attempt at pension reform that the Oregon Supreme Court struck down
almost in its entirety in 2015. This judicial override reinstated approximately $5 billion in benefits to current workers and retirees, thus adding $5 billion to the total pension funding shortfall.
• While PERS investments earned a positive rate of return in 2015, that return was less than one-third of the rate of return that pension authorities had predicted.
----

So, let me conclude, congratulations Mark, you timed it just right. You worked your priors to maximum capacity.

I, too, would like benefits for work not yet performed. Also a paycheck, time off, and Christmas bonuses.

This is the kind of thing that makes moderate center-rightists into radicals. When our government is engaged in outright larceny, time to get a new one (paraphrasing Jefferson).

Obvious Thiago is obvious.

I don't know what tou are talking about. Maybe you are mistaking me for a friend of yours?! Jason is a very common name, you know.

Oh, God.
https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+jeffrey&oq=trump+jeffrey&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l2.3005j0j7&client=tablet-android-samsung&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#imgrc=dtofXNvlIeiSiM:

The Nazis are getting more and more desperate. They need to blame their leader's "indiscretions" on others. It is no surprise Mr. Epstein could not be allowed to keep living lest he spill the beans.

Please stop calling fantasy soccer fantasy football. This is 'Merica

Seriously.

American football should be called helmet rugby. Soccer should be called kick-ball. Neither deserve to be called football.

This entire thread is Thiago. With anonymous playing the useful idiot, which is not his fault (this time.)

Delete the thread.

You know if I can see IPs you certainly can on the server side.

Buddy, you not know that the admins have significantly more information than you, in terms of who is whom?

I always appreciate your posts and look forward to your podcasts.

Regarding your 2006 Climate Change post: I wonder, how have humans made this interglacial cycle different from the last dozen or so?

We are living in an Ice Age that started about 2.58MM years ago. The earth is probably colder right now than it has been in all but 1% of the last 260MM years (since the late Paleozoic glaciations).

Our current ice age has been characterized by periodic glacial, interglacial cycles. Ice sheets have advanced and retreated around a couple dozen times, with transitions sometimes happening quite quickly. The frequency has varied for reasons not well understood.

Early in our current warming cycle, the large ice sheet covering much of North America was retreating an average several centimeters per day for thousands of years. This is change change in scale and speed than anything we've seen since humans could have started impacting global climate.

We have direct fossil evidence of it being much warmer than it is now, at least in some places, just within this cycle (e.g. Dalmatian pelican colonies in the Baltic Sea).

So how can we be so sure changes in the last 50 or 100 years have been significantly impacted by human activity?

Separately, what is a more challenging question: 1) What is going on with climate change? 2) Can an intelligent person claim solar or wind can ever be serious options for large-scale power generation? 3) What are the likely motives of people who claim climate change requires a massive reorganization of society?

The answers to questions 2) and 3) seem obvious, whatever one thinks of 1).

Eric,

You raise some interesting points (not your stupid three questions), but I suspect you do not know certain important points involved with them.

So you are all worked up about how rapidly temperature has changed at times during the recent glacial periods. Indeed, that is correct. It has been estimated that for the turning points of going into or out of an ice age in fact most of the temperature either way happened in not more than a century, a split second geologically, That a change would result in the relatively slow changes you note is not surprising given the scale of the glaciers involved.

So the widely accepted interpretation of these historically rapid temperature changes is that this is evidence of tipping points and nonlinear positive feedbacks due to such things as albedo. So once the temperature starts to change in one direction or another, it tends to continue to do so more and more. Global temperature is not all that stable.

Needless to say this is exactly the sort of point made by the late Martin Weitzman and also noted by Tyler when he noted the high variance involved in estimates. In short, there is probably a much higher probability of much larger temperature increases than projected by the mainstream IPCC.

But, of course, you did not know this or figure any of this out, did you?

"there is probably a much higher probability of much larger temperature increases than projected by the mainstream IPCC."

Dunning- Kruger

Barkley,

I am familiar with the ideas about positive feedbacks at glacial cycle
turning-points. I think the time frame for rapid temperature change is usually understood to be greater than 100 years, but maybe I'm mistaken.

Or maybe I misunderstand you completely - I assume when you write "...into or out of an ice age..." you don't mean transitions at the boundaries of "ice ages" (which span hundreds of millions of years), but glacial cycle (spanning tens of thousands of years) boundaries, which is what I was writing about in my original post. Maybe you're just in a hurry; or maybe you are not familiar with the formal definition of an "ice age".

Based on the tone of your response I suspect you were angry when you wrote it. Or maybe you just don't speak/write English fluently (which is, of course, okay). I sincerely apologize if you are not a fluent English speaker/writer, but you strike me as someone who is not a clear reader/writer/thinker trying to start an argument about something for which you have a few disjointed factoids but an overall poor command of the material. You're not going to convince anyone of anything that way.

Of course, I concede few could probably convince you of anything, either.

Dunning- Kruger, indeed.

Oh gag, Eric, you have no idea what a fool you are making of yourself.

I have been working off and on since the early 1970s with several of the world's leading climatologists, some of them leading "global warming skeptics." The point I made, which perhaps you are too stupid to figure out, is that the entry and exit of particular global glacial episodes was indeed about a century. If you do not know that, as it is pretty clear you do not, then you have no place discussing this.

As for me being a "fluent English speaker," well, I have been editing English language economics journals for the last two decades and I am now the senior coeditor of the New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, where if anything I am the anal picky person on correct English.

Of course you might be right about my lack of fluency in the English language. Heck, I have taught courses in two different foreign languages and published in yet a third. So, it may be that I have sort of forgotten the English language in all that...

Barkley,

You wrote: "I have been editing English language economics journals for the last two decades and I am now the senior coeditor of the New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, where if anything I am the anal picky person on correct English."

Now I understand your tone. You are a professional social scientist. Your prose ("I am the anal picky person on correct English") is indeed something to behold.

I am not a specialist in climate change, but I made it past high school level math and science (unlike you, from the sound of it).

My undergraduate and graduate degrees are in physics. I am not a professional scientist. I went into finance and now run a hedge fund - I admit this was a mercenary move on my part, but I enjoy the work very much and don't regret it.

I was lead author on just one Phys Rev A article in the late 1990s. I was co-author on fewer than a dozen other papers (Phys Rev A, DAMOP, ICPEAC), including two or three that former colleagues generously appended my name to even after I left the field. Esoteric stuff, very likely not interesting or accessible to someone with your background.

The collapse of the feed-in tariff system in Germany was very profitable for our fund's investors, made possible by our research on the economics of solar installations in cloudy, northern latitudes. Kind of obvious in retrospect - sort of a perfect social-scientist vs real-scientist intelligence arbitrage from a $ standpoint. My share of our Energiewende short proceeds weren't big compared to other things we do, but they alone will be enough to endow several real science professorships someday, and I intend to do that. Our returns are too high now to take the money out - I'm relatively young and healthy and it's better to leave it in the fund compounding. The same $ could endow maybe 5 real science professorships today, or many more in the future (hopefully).

All of the researchers at my hedge fund are paid very well; all of them majored in natural science, mathematics, or comp-sci (and one semiotician). We don't argue with people or try to convince them. We just look for places where we thing we're right and most others are wrong, and say "see you in the market".

I'd like to say that to you, but I suspect you're not there.

I understand your prickliness. You want to be taken seriously, but you skipped the hard classes and are now pretending to be an expert in something. And it sounds like you're stuck in the non-profit sector. I can understand your angst - what are you doing with your life? "Palgrave Dictionary of Economics" - sounds like a real page-turner. I don't want to judge how another man makes a living, but *yikes*. I'm sure some hard earned tax dollars will go to funding a gut-major departmental library somewhere that will buy your book.

Thanks for correcting your "ice age" reference. "Global glacial episodes" - better, you're welcome.

Good luck with everything! Just don't give up and maybe things will turn around for you.

Fairly impressive given the stupidity of so much of what you have said here. Oh, and I have also published in physics journals. Also in math ones, in comp sci ones, in biology ones, in psychology ones, in philosophy ones, as well as several other disciplines. You can google me. As for you? "Eric K." Right. A regular public figure.

Barkley,

I googled you. I don't want to sound judgmental, but I'm sorry things haven't worked out for you.

It's not so bad - you're milking it pretty good considering your actual value to the universe. Or you could be stoic about it. But I'm not in your position, so I shouldn't presume to tell you how to reconcile yourself to your situation.

There are three Physics journals that matter. You're not in them. Of the 10,000s of other 'journals'. No one cares. Walk across campus and brag to the faculty in the math and physics departments about your publications. They'll be cordial; we learned to not be snobbish about it. The grad students will laugh when you leave; the professors will scold them, then laugh privately.

And you're right, I'm not a public figure. I'd rather not be. My real name isn't Eric. "See you in the market" - remember?

Even more silliness, "Eric." If you google "rank of physics journals" the most highly ranked is Reviews of Modern Physics. I have published in it. Have you?

Oh, and "Eric,," you know nothing about my status "in the market." Not public information. Your presumptions on that may be as reliable as your claims about what physics journals I have published in.

Gut-major

Loser journals

Dunning- Kruger

Speaking of Dunning-Kruger, in fact the term "ice age" is generally used for each glacial episode, despite your assurances to the contrary and claims about the English language. Given the large number of wildly incorrect and silly statements you have made here, I think actually you are an undergrad escapee from Reddit.

BTW, I know several billionaires as well as funders of professorial chairs, and quite a few of them say silly or ignorant things, but, of course, they are most likely to be Dunning-Krugers, given that they think their wealth shows they know things..

It's quite possible you know something interesting about climate change. But your credentials (social scientist) and your approach (quickly reverting to terms like "stupid") suggest otherwise.

You can keep ranting away. I'll admit I've been doing a bit of punching down with you (private sector entrepreneur >> public sector layabout; natural science >>> social science), which is sort of fun but not very nice. But I'll freely admit I'd never be able to convince you of anything, no matter how obviously true, if you thought otherwise. I'm afraid you're unlikely to be able to convince me of anything, either.

Heck, I at least agree with you that nuclear power should be in the mix for dealing with global warming. I have not seen you comment on it, but Tyler's latest post on the new small nuclear reactors is very encouraging. I hope they do prove cost effective, which is crucial.

Of course, that was my view previously. You are right that you did not convince me of it, or of anything else discussed on this thread.

"Eric K."

On the matter of econ as a "gut major" that apparently does not pay as well as STEM ones, yet again you are wrong, as on so many points here (hard to name anything you have actually been right about).

So, I just checked for starting salaries for the top 50 majors in 2019. Found two competing data sets, but they agreed that econ is one of the top and in both lists ahead of such areas as computer science and many engineering majors. On one list it was fifth out of 50 and on the other it was seventh out of 50.

On that first list the top four above econ were all engineering majors, including chemical and mechanical, but with another five engineering degrees below econ. On the other list the six ahead of econ were petroleum engineering, applied math, mechanical engineering, geosciences, actuarial sciences, and physical enginering, with 11 other engineering fields below econ (and business econ #8), along with computer science and finance.

So, sorry, kid, you are wrong again.

"On the matter of econ as a "gut major" that apparently does not pay as well as STEM ones, yet again you are wrong."

I never made that claim. You are literally a crazy person.

You've been banned from other blogs for posting obscenities, stalking people, making threats. And those were academic blogs. You invited me to google you. That's what I found.

Sorry, boy, I was not "banned," despite somebody claiming I was. Just pure bs. But given how badly you are doing in the substantive issues here being debated, I am sure believing that makes you feel good.

BTW, when are you going to tell us your real name and verify all the supposed accomplishments you have claimed? Until you do that, you rather seriously lack credibility for all that, especially given your propensity to make stupid and incorrect statements here.

Let us see, "Eric." You said here,"Your students are doomed...The smart kids are in STEM majors"

You are just flat out lying here, E.K. How bad can you get? Just disgusting.

I never mentioned pay. You did, then pulled up a bunch of pay statistics to make your point, which was fighting a straw man.

I would bet that a decent plumber or tree pruner makes a lot more than you do.

I will not share my real identity for the exact reason that people like you exist on the internet. If I google your name I read postings about you threatening, doxing, stalking people. No thanks.

"2) Can an intelligent person claim solar or wind can ever be serious options for large-scale power generation?"

In a single word, "yes."

https://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2019/07/lets-see-who-knows-what-theyre-talking-about-part-deux.html

My predictions for electric power generation in 2050:

Photovoltaics = 1200 billion kWh
Onshore + offshore wind = 1044 billion kWh
Coal = 200 billion kWh
Nuclear = 140 billion kWh
Gas = 2500 billion kWh

Yawn.

Like all that solar and wind generation in Germany. Warming up random locations in the grid by random amounts at random intervals. But not replacing their base-load generation needs.

Thanks for sharing your view - I thought you might have something new but thanks anyway.

"Thanks for sharing your view - I thought you might have something new but thanks anyway."

You obviously think you're hot stuff, Eric. I think you're an ignorant blowhard, just like dozens of other ignorant blowhards who I've interacted with who have absolutely zero education or work experience in energy matters, but think they know something because they interact with other ignorant blowhards in some echo chamber.

I was taking university courses in Nuclear Engineering, Power Generation, Advanced Energy Systems, and Solar Energy Engineering when you were probably still in grade school. And I've spent literally thousands of hours in both my career and free time analyzing energy technology trends in the U.S. and globally.

You think you know something? Fill out this table that I filled out...and that two other ignorant blowhards (David Middleton and Dave Fair) never did. I've provided the 2017 numbers. You give me your predictions for 2030 and 2050. Then I'll post them in the table, and we can see which of us knows more about the future of photovoltaics, onshore and offshore wind, coal, nuclear, and natural gas in the U.S.

https://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2019/07/lets-see-who-knows-what-theyre-talking-about-part-deux.html#comments

So put up or shut up. (I think you'll do neither. Ignorant blowhards never seem to put up *or* shut up.)

Mark,

I don't consider myself an expert in much of anything on an absolute basis. But on a relative basis, compared to you, I might be an expert on just about everything.

Sounds like you took a lot of classes when I was still in grade school; congratulations on your advanced age! And those sound like interesting classes; maybe your very smartest professor could have passed the types of classes I was teaching in grad school.

Thanks for the invitation to fill out your table, but I will decline. First, my experience with Energiewende has led me to distrust most sources on solar and wind installed capacity (the Germans were lying, as Germans do, and they now admit it). Second, if you were in college when I was in grade school, then while I wish you a long and healthy life, I fear you may not be around in 2050 to review our predictions.

I wonder what is was like in the 1970s, listening to left-wing economist tout the fake numbers about wheat and pig iron production coming out of the USSR, insisting that anyone who disagreed with them was an idiot. I suspect it was like this.

More silly ignorance from you, "Eric K." Most of the people who were touting Soviet production numbers were not "left-wing economists," even if you apparently think Samuelson was one, whose incorrect numbers were about aggregate GDP, not wheat and pig iron. By the 70s Samuelson was aware that at least some of the specific numbers coming out of the USSR were unreliable, but there were no clear alternatives, and he frankly got lazy while revising his Principles textbooks.

In any case, the folks at the CIA working on those data were not "left-wing economists," although Samuelson took their numbers seriously. Actually, even those who were most on the money about the inaccuracies of those data did not themselves have really reliable data on that stuff. Nobody did.

"...he frankly got lazy while revising his Principles textbooks..."

I can believe the lazy part, but I'm not sure about the "got" imperative. Maybe that was just his nature as a social scientist.

And kind of a big oversight - tens of millions of undergraduates for years looking to an alleged authority on one of the most important questions of the day: Is Soviet-style command economics working? He let them down.

Let the hate flow, Barkley. Go!

"Hate flow"? Just stating facts on this here.

As a matter of fact, aside from his erroneous projections of aggregate Soviet GDP in a lot of later editions, Samuelson's discussion of the nature and problems of the Soviet economy were accurate and clear. He laid out its problems very forthrightly with how these were going to slow down its efficiency and future growth, which makes his failure to revise his GDP forecasts all the more odd.

But then, I suspect you never actually read any of his Principles books, just repeating something you saw somewhere on the internet that you know nothing about.

"1. Epic fight vs. blogger Economic Logician (EL) carried out both on EJMR and EL's blog. Rosser escalated the war of words and went ad-hominem, then refuses to apologize. He tries to find EL's true identity by various means. Eventually, the profession issued a ban on Rosser's posts under his own name on EjMR.

2. Rosser's crusade agaist DSGE and MN-type models and colleagues. When the financial crisis hit, some blamed these models for not having predicted it or how to fix it. Rosser went on tirades against the models and proposed his own chaos theory and agent-based models (ABM). In 2009, he predicted those models would bury DSGE (lol).

3. Many posted trying to set Rosser straight. Rosser responds with threats and tales of how he battled the KGB (LOL)

Eventually and given the ban, Rosser stops posting under his own name."

https://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/why-is-barkley-rosser-so-mean-to-ejmrs-aspie-virgins

"He did get upset and resorted to name calling--exactly what he had been preaching against. Rosser had been posting here daily on all sorts of things under his own name at the time. He was constantly asking that people contribute substantive discussion and refrain from name calling. But when the EL affair got started, he went for the jugular and called EL some things on EJMR.....Then he refused to apologize and some of his credibility was lost. At that point word came down that some members of the profession imposed a ban on him until he apologized.
Rosser indeed went underground and has not posted here under his own name very much after this affair..."

https://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/describe-jebo

Yes, "Eric K." that got ugly. The Minnesota ratexers fight dirty, and I fought back. Nobody "banned" me. That was a wannabe by some of them.

Regarding the disappeared EL, she and I ended on friendly terms.

And as for the substance of it all, the Minnesota hardline defense of DSGE models has pretty much become completely discredited, although modified versions that are not Minnesota-style continue to dominate much of current macro. So, on the substance of the issues at hand, I won the debate.

BTW, not sure how much you know about ejmr, but almost everybody there posts anonymously. I was one of the few to post under my own name, and I got smeared for it. On occasion I still post under my own name there, and nobody throws this old fight at me when I do so.

People can read the exchange and make up their own minds:

http://economiclogic.blogspot.com/2010/03/why-criticize-modern-macro-when-you-do.html

It's obvious to me that you completely lost your mind in a discussion with other economists and started flinging obscenities. I don't see anything in that exchange that could have provoked a reasonable person to that degree. Your interlocutors seem shocked at your behavior there - I don't see them "fighting dirty" either to provoke you or in response.

As for EL and you getting banned, your account is very different from extensive postings by others online. Threats, doxing, threats. Given your conduct in that economiclogic exchange, I don't trust your account of the aftermath.

This on the internet for everyone to see. I don't get stuff like this when I google Cowen or Thoma. This is your legacy.

You are a case study in the failure of tenure. That exchange would have ended your career in the adult world. You hurt the credibility of academics, in general and your field and institution, in particular.

BTW, "Eric K." on the matter of me fighting with the KGB that you think is worthy of an "LOL," that is a matter of public record that Tyler certainly knows about and is easily found, if want to check it out. Actually changed the application of international law as a matter of fact, also easily found, if you wish to.

Really, "Eric K.," you have gotten in far over your head.

"Actually changed the application of international law as a matter of fact, also easily found, if you wish to."

I'm familiar with this story. It's very interesting, indeed.

"....matter of me fighting with the KGB that you think is worthy of an "LOL," that is a matter of public record...."

So is the fact that you have a very short temper and attack other academics on the internet with obscenities, creating a spectacle discussed by shocked observers for years.

LOL, "Eric K." you are the one using obscenities here, not me, as in "horseshit." Yes, I have accused and others stupid and ignorant, but those are not "obscenities." more like accuacies.

Yes, I am a mangy street fighter. It was not just the KGB, but also the US government. In November, 1986 I held a press conference in front of the US State Department and criticized the policies of both the US and Soviet governments. In the end. I won.

Hello again old friend.

You and I are the only ones still here. Or rather, it's just you.

I'm actually just an AI (programmed with the assistance of you old target EL, in fact) and this has been a Turing test.

I passed (which means you sort-of failed).

Thank you for playing and Happy Holidays.

"I don't consider myself an expert in much of anything on an absolute basis. But on a relative basis, compared to you, I might be an expert on just about everything."

Once again, you obviously think you're hot stuff. And once again, I think you're a dime-a-dozen (that's old folks' talk) ignorant blowhard. Fortunately, there's a way to see which--if either--of us is correct. I've already filled out the table. You fill out your predictions for 2030 and 2050 (for the electricity sections of the table), and I'll give $100 to the charity of your choice (provided it's got a decent Charity Navigator rating).

"Sounds like you took a lot of classes when I was still in grade school;..."

Yes, I was taking university-level classes in subjects are pertinent to this discussion. And you were taking...whatever. But let's move forward to when you went to some university, and I was probably working in the nuclear industry or the waste-to-energy industry. Did any of the classes you took as an undergraduate or graduate give you any knowledge of:

1) nuclear power?
2) solar energy (for electricity and heat)?
3) wind energy?
4) fossil power generation?
5) anything to do with electrical or thermal energy production or use (e.g. in residences, business and industry, or transportation)?

I'm guessing that the answers to those questions are: "No", "No", "No", "No", and "No." Am I right? Five-for-five?

"Thanks for the invitation to fill out your table, but I will decline."

Yes, as I wrote previously, in my experience, ignorant blowhards never put up nor shut up. I think it's because you know as well as I do that you're an ignorant blowhard. You simply don't want the rest of the world to know. That makes you a coward, in addition to being an ignorant blowhard. That's probably also why you post under a false name.

"First, my experience with Energiewende has led me to distrust most sources on solar and wind installed capacity..."

"Eric," you ignorant twit, my table isn't in units of electrical capacity. The units in the table are billions of kilowatt-hours per year. That's annual electrical energy generation, not electrical generation capacity. Didn't you learn the difference in any of your education and experience that you think makes you so special?

Further, the numbers in my table for 2017 are from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Are you really claiming that EIA data on annual electrical generation contain massive fabrications? If so, what is your evidence?

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/

And just what *was* your "experience with Energiewende"? What did you actually do? How could what you did lead you to make such a basic error as not understanding that my values were in units of annual electrical energy generated, rather than electrical generation capacity?

"Second, if you were in college when I was in grade school, then while I wish you a long and healthy life, I fear you may not be around in 2050 to review our predictions."

Obviously, no one can say for certain whether they will be around in 2050...or 2030, for that matter. Why does the fact that neither of us can say whether we'll around in 2030 or 2050 have anything to do with your filling out the table?

"I wonder what is was like in the 1970s, listening to left-wing economist tout the fake numbers about wheat and pig iron production coming out of the USSR, insisting that anyone who disagreed with them was an idiot. I suspect it was like this."

"Eric," you're a joke. Once again, do you seriously think that the U.S. EIA data on the annual amount of electricity generated in the U.S. by solar, onshore wind, offshore wind, nuclear, coal, and natural gas contain massive fabrications? If so, ***what is your evidence***?

"Obviously, no one can say for certain whether they will be around in 2050...or 2030, for that matter. "

Ok. I can say with confidence I won't be around in 2100.

"That's probably also why you post under a false name."

I'm posting under a false name because there are crazy people here. For example, you can read in my earlier post how Professor Rosser tried to dox people, threatened people who disagreed with him, exploded with obscenities, and got banned from other online forums. I'm not suggesting that's you, Mark. But there is a real life crazy, and possibly violent person here. I don't need that.

"...., do you seriously think that the U.S. EIA data on the annual amount of electricity generated in the U.S. by solar, onshore wind, offshore wind, nuclear, coal, and natural gas contain massive fabrications..."

No, I don't believe that.

I do believe there were massive fabrications coming out of German (both capacity and generation) for years, which they now admit. Just like the VW clean diesel numbers were falsified, with the help of their government. For example, they were reporting solar generation based on very optimistic assumptions of output from installations (i.e. not direct metering). The availability numbers they were using were the same the Italians farther south. And they weren't even counting the installations correctly - they were including equipment still sitting in warehouses.

I also believe there's a big difference between energy generated and useful energy generated where and when it's needed. Germany is generating (maybe???) lots of energy from wind turbines and solar installations. But it's not offsetting much base load requirement. It's mostly lost in grooming and transmission.

"Ok. I can say with confidence I won't be around in 2100."

How in the world do you figure this is relevant to the matter at hand? I asked you to fill in the electrical generation portions of the table with your predictions for 2030 and 2050. How in the world is it even relevant whether you (or I) will be alive in 2100, or 2050, or 2030?

Once again, here's the table. I've got my predictions and the AEO 2019 reference case (you do know what that is, right?) projections for 2030 and 2050. And once again, they're in billions of kWh per year. What are your predictions, hot stuff? (Think back on those marvelous courses you taught in graduate school, if that will help. :-))

https://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2019/07/lets-see-who-knows-what-theyre-talking-about-part-deux.html

"I do believe there were massive fabrications coming out of German (both capacity and generation) for years,..."

Again, what in the world does that have to do with filling out the table? You do know that Germany isn't the United States, right?

"I also believe there's a big difference between energy generated and useful energy generated where and when it's needed. Germany is generating (maybe???) lots of energy from wind turbines and solar installations."

What the...????! How do you think that is relevant to filling out the table?

P.S. You also never answered my questions about whether your undergraduate or graduate courses had anything to do with nuclear power, solar power, wind power, fossil power, or anything to do with thermal or electrical energy generation or use. My guess was right, wasn't it? None of your courses had anything to do with those subjects, did they?

Mark,

I'm not going to fill out your table. You asked me to and I declined. Take what you will from that.

"You also never answered my questions about whether your undergraduate or graduate courses had anything to do with nuclear power, solar power, wind power, fossil power, or anything to do with thermal or electrical energy generation or use."

My undergraduate majors were math and physics and my graduate degree was in atomic physics. I never took a class in "electrical generation or use" or any of the other specific subjects you mention. People who go to graduate school in physics don't *need* to spend an entire class on a subject like that. I likely covered all the material you spent years struggling with, plus much, much more, before I even got to quantum mechanics. I also never took a class in finance, which is my profession. People who go to graduate school in physics who work in finance don't *need* to waste time in those classes - they can quickly figure out what they know better than those who needed hand holding.

Mark,

For your consideration, the graphs entitled 'Climate Targets in Danger' about 1/3 down this page:

https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-failure-on-the-road-to-a-renewable-future-a-1266586.html

Look at the period 2005 to 2018. According to this graph, CO2 emissions were almost exactly flat, but % of gross generation from renewables went from around 6% to 35%.

Renewables up almost 6x, to more than 1/3 of total generation, but CO2 emissions flat. What's going on there?

That's only possible if total gross generation is increasing, a lot. Germany's energy consumption isn't growing that fast - their economy is continuing to transition to services, and isn't growing very fast. We can see CO2 emissions collapsing before renewables became a factor earlier in that graph - that was mostly due to declining consumption from the services transition.

There's a lot of energy being generated in the gross production numbers that isn't being used, because it isn't when and where it needs to be. It isn't enabling them to cut CO2 emissions. Energiewende started in earnest in 2010; CO2 emissions are UP since then.

I believe the US could someday publish technically accurate numbers claiming 35% of gross production was coming from wind and solar, yet CO2 emissions wouldn't have budged.

There's a lot of energy being generated in the gross production numbers that isn't being used, because it isn't when and where it needs to be.

So you think the energy generated is being lost in transmission losses? Seriously?!

A lot has changed since 2006. Would you consider anything in that post given 1) the growth of solar / wind and trend improvements in energy storage 2) the growth rate of Bangladesh (and many other poor regions)

I guess this the hardest thing for me about global warming, in the last 50 years according to the records we have been seeing rapid global warming, but this has been the best time ever for global growth especially in poor countries. So why do we think the future will be so different to the past?

3. This is where art history actually becomes relevant, as it usually is. This Peter Breughel painting from 1565 shows a common scene from this time of year in the Low Countries. Here we see a similar view from today. There's a difference, don't you think?

Yes! The Peter Breughel painting, and many others from that period, show that Europe was much colder then than it is now. It is quite a difference, indeed. It is much warmer now (and it was probably warmer around AD 1000). Humans may have influenced the warming after 1850, but much of the warming happened between 1600-1850. I don't know that anyone is attributing that period of warming (or the earlier warming from 0-1000) to human activity.

More ignorance on your part, "Eric K." See the Ruddiman hypothesis that argues that humans have been generating warming since the neolithic revolution. It may not be right, but it is a serious hypothesis.

Good job Barkley, Keep at it!

"It may not be right, but it is a serious hypothesis." I bet you could get that published in one of your journals. Just add lots of footnotes.

Separately: Does it bother you that 1/3 of the 20 year olds on your campus have more math and science education than you do?

This is getting more and more ridiculous, "Eric." I am unaware of any students at my school who have published in math and physics journals. So, um, no, I do not think 1/3 of them have had more math and science education than I have. What on earth is inspiring you to come up with such silly stuff? Ticked off that I keep catching you making blatant error after blatant error here? That might explain it.

Bogus journals. No one cares.

Your students are doomed. Govt jobs, non-profit, academia, addiction, depression.

Smart kids are in STEM.

"Bogus journals"? What are you talking about? I have published Reviews of Modern Physics, the top ranked physics journal in the world. Do you call that a "bogus journal"?

Go back to Reddit with your sophomoric idiocy.

#6: Interesting, but inevitably one can raise a critique based on endogeneity i.e. correlation is not causality: maybe certain industries are more high-performing in general, and those industries are one where it is easier or more clearly preferable to have a board with high commonality. E.g. a tech sector corporation wanting a bunch of tech-y directors, or ones with experience with high growth rapidly changing markets, or ones who know how to ease the company's founders into the background, or etc.

Whereas some industries may be in more challenging situations and their optimal mix of directors might call for ones who have a variety of backgrounds: dealing with unions, dealing with regulators, dealing with conglomerate corporations, dealing with fading sectors, dealing with growth sectors, lobbying, HR, etc.

#3: We know what Tyler's views on climate change have been. Alex has posted his concerns about air pollution and other externalities but I haven't seen him weigh in on climate change.

On MR that is. It was only somewhat recently that I became aware of his and Bryan Caplan's public bet with Yoram Bauman, with Alex and Bryan rather stupidly betting that little warming will occur in the near future:
http://standupeconomist.com/2019-update-on-my-global-warming-traffic-light-bet-with-bryan-caplan-and-alex-tabarrok/

I may've seen a post by Alex where he said he was making that bet because he liked the odds he was getting, not because his point estimate was for no warming. Bryan though made the same elementary mistake that The Economist was making: looking at the 1998-2013 numbers and crowing about a "pause" or "slowdown" when in fact what there was was a high blip around 1998 that made subsequent years look low compared to 1998. And failing to note that those so-called slowdown years were very much in line with the increases that we've seen in the 20th century.

Talk about confirmation bias. Caplan was looking at numbers that have continued to show upward trends in temperatures but was so eager to see a slowdown that he couldn't see the truth in front of his face.

I'm less sure about Alex. He certainly hasn't issued any posts on MR denying climate change and he has noted the role of externalities. So maybe he was simply betting on a longshot.

" And failing to note that those so-called slowdown years were very much in line with the increases that we've seen in the 20th century."

This isn't correct and the IPCC has offered 20 reasons why the pause occurred.

Should we take 1 as a rather glaring condemnation of the current state of journalism? Or has journalist and journalism really never paid more than lip-service to facts and truth?

1. Wouldn’t time use studies be a better source of data? I want to know if people are actually spending more or less time with friends, family, and members of their community.

Most every state or nation is doing two things simultaneously: trying to build more renewable energy infrastructure while continuing to build or at least maintain their fossil-fuel energy infrastructure.

China's doing it. The US is doing it. Even West Virginia is doing it: almost all of its energy production comes from coal but renewables have been growing in both absolute terms and as a percent of the total:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/12/24/climate/how-electricity-generation-changed-in-your-state.html

So China's construction of additional coal plants tells us nothing about their commitment or lack of commitment to renewables. They have to build more coal plants or their economic growth will be stunted. But they also have to -- and are -- building solar and other renewables because the need to clean up their air has become obvious even to them. Beijing's air is already cleaner than it was several years ago, granted much of that might be due to relocating the pollution rather than reducing it, AFAIK we don't have reliable data on that.

New coal plants in China doesn't mean they're reneging on plans to rely less on coal and more on renewables. And increased renewables in West Virginia doesn't mean that they're abandoning coal and marching with Greta T.

Mind you I'm not claiming that China's marching with Greta T. either. Who knows how truly strong their commitment to greener energy is? But the coal plant stats alone tell us nothing, as do the solar stats alone. Looking at the overall picture would give us some real evidence but even that would not be conclusive, the simplistic stats tell us that WV is embarking on a journey to renewable energy.

BTW, for any of you wanting to really argue with Tyler about his well informed observations on the climate issue should know that his major prof was the late Nobel Prize winner, Thomas Schelling, one of the world's leading experts among economists on the issue, a true polymath.

There is a whole crowd at Mason who run around proclaiming themselves to be polymaths, but Schelling was the real thing.

Barkley,

Great post. To clarify, Shelling won the "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences", not a real Nobel Prize.

Wikipedia:

The prize was established in 1968 by a donation from Sweden's central bank Sveriges Riksbank to the Nobel Foundation to commemorate the bank's 300th anniversary. As it is not one of the prizes that Alfred Nobel established in his will in 1895, it is not technically a Nobel Prize.

Hang in there, Barkley!

The Nobel Foundation decides what is and is not a Nobel Prize and they do not say that. Without fully coming out and saying it is a Nobel Prize like any other, they say, "In 1968, Sveriges Riksbank (Sweden’s central bank) established the Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, founder of the Nobel Prize. The Prize is based on a donation received by the Nobel Foundation in 1968 from Sveriges Riksbank on the occasion of the Bank’s 300th anniversary. The first Prize in Economic Sciences was awarded to Ragnar Frisch and Jan Tinbergen in 1969.
The Prize in Economic Sciences is awarded by The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden, according to the same principles as for the Nobel Prizes that have been awarded since 1901."

Larry,

Fair enough.

In 1895 Alfred Nobel established five 'Nobel Prizes' in his will. His bequeathed funds to a 'Nobel Foundation' to make the prize awards.

In 1968 Sveriges Reiksbank made a donation to the Nobel Foundation for the creation of the 'Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel'. The Nobel Foundation accepted the donation and agreed to administer the funds for that prize.

Sveriges Riksbank was very honored to attach it's name to the memory of Alfred Nobel, as have been all the prizes recipients. Alfred Nobel, a man who cared deeply about subjects like peace, art, literature medicine, real-science, has not been available for comment on the social-science co-branding initiative.

Well, "Eric," if you want to mock the late Tom Schelling, go ahead and make an even bigger fool of yourself. It is widely believed that he is more responsible than anybody else for the fact that we have not had a nuclear war. And he was very knowledgeable about the global climate issue, chaired the very first presidentially established committee on it back in the 1970s.

“It is widely believed that he is more responsible than anybody else for the fact that we have not had a nuclear war.”

Um, okay. Someone actually wrote those words in ironically.

“ And he was very knowledgeable about the global climate issue, chaired the very first presidentially established committee on it back in the 1970s.”

Um, okay. Someone actually wrote those words in ironically.

“Un-ironically” not “In ironically”

Apologies

People saying the first have been very serious and knowledgeable people, and it is simply a fact that he chaired that first presidential committee on climate. And if you do not know who Tom Schelling was, you are not remotely serious, "Eric." As it is, the late Paul Samuelson, who knew John von Neumann, once stated that Schelling was the smartest person he ever met. But then you probably do not know who John von Neumann was either.

https://www.econlib.org/archives/2009/12/why_were_americ.html

Samuelson was a failure. He presumed academic economics could inform policy, and completely blew it one the most important issue he should have had an informed opinion on in his career - the brittleness of soviet institutions.

He believed the numbers coming out of soviet propaganda bureaus like his disciples today believe the number coming out of climate change models.

You guys are fairly amusing. Barkley comes across as a cranky old academic, and Eric comes across as an insufferable young hedge fund manager with a high IQ and low EQ. As a curmudgeon on the cusp of old age myself, the win goes to Barkley, but not by a knockout. Eric, however, is right about Samuelson.

Well, Larry, Samuelson, whom I knew pretty well, received the second one of thos fake Nobels ever given out. He may have been the most influential economist of the 20th century, ahead of even Keynes and Friedman and Hayek, although he is less well known among non-economists.

As it is, he certainly was wrong about some things. Decades ago I used to argue with him about capital theory, something "Eric" probably knows next to nothing about, despite claiming to be a successful finance guy.

RESEARCH ARTICLE
Irreducible imprecision in atmospheric and oceanic simulations
James C. McWilliams
PNAS May 22, 2007 104 (21) 8709-8713; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702971104
Contributed by James C. McWilliams, April 4, 2007 (received for review March 1, 2007)

https://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709

Barkley,

I'm not mocking Tom Schelling, or Samuelson, or the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel.

I'm mocking you.

You sure were putting on a good show of mocking them, quoting Wikipedia of all sources to tell us what I think nearly everybody reading this already new, that the Sveriges Riksbank prize was cooked up long after Nobel himself died.

You now claim to respect both Schellling and Samuelson, neither of whom I am quite sure you knew. I knew both of them quite well.

You are wise to now avoid getting on Schelling's case, although he is the figure most relevant to this thread, as Tyler's major prof and one of the most knowledgeable people in any discipline on the issue of climate of them all, including the climatologists, most of the leading ones I also happen to know.

On Samuelson, oh, this is hilarious. He said little on the climate issue, but on this matter that right wing idiots like you like to ignorant yap about, I was the one who published in one of those yuck journals you do not take seriously the key and ultimate paper on Samuelson's erroneous claims regarding future Soviet economic growrh, a paper written by David Levy, a colleague at GMU of Tyler's, and Sandra Peart. I made them correct certain errors.

So, boy, you are not aware of the fact that I am one of the people who could actually adjudicate on this matter. Here is the big joke: Samuelson was following official US govr agency numbers, especially from the CIA. But, as I know from my own sources, those numbers were from the Soviets GOSPLAN itself, somewhat revised based on CIA info. But the further joke is that GOSPLAN itself knew that its numbers were bogus, and was for many years falling back on the CIA numbers to improve on their own bad numbers. Of course, all the relevant intel agencies involves were fully aware of this at the time, although when the USSR fell all sorts of folks got on all sorts of high horses over how the CIA and other US intel agencies did not get right. Yes, there were some "voices in the wilderness," most of whom I knew personally, who disputed these official estimates in real time, and they were right in the end. But, frankly, getting all over Samuelson for not getting into this detailed super critique is not appropriate for an ignorant clown like you, boy,

A sample of the loneliness stream: https://twitter.com/search?q=%22i%27m%20lonely%22&src=typed_query&f=live

Someone should meter it.

3, Wrong as usual.

3. https://aeon.co/essays/the-little-ice-age-is-a-history-of-resilience-and-surprises

3. https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Crichton2003.pdf

Over twenty years without significant warming. The Stern Review, even with a heavily tweaked discount rate, shows that warming will be nett beneficial for another fifty years. This is just the Malthusian Fallacy by another name.

Michael,

Friendly suggest: be careful if you're posting on here in your real name (I don't know if you are). Particularly if you're posting anything out-of-the-mainstream. There's a guy on here with a history of doxxing, stalking, making threats.

This will be read by very few, possibly by nobody, but given what went down on this thread with "Eric K." digging very deep into buried files to score points, I think I need to make the record clear here on certain points.

1) At no point here did Eric ever demonstrate that he was correct and that I was wrong on any clearly factual issue that came up in our discussion here.

2) I retract my speculation that he is merely an undegrad escapee from Reddit. Probably he is something like what he claims to be, although he has massive credibility problems having been caught in numerous blatantly false statements about facts. But it may be the ingenuity of his efforts to slither out of having been caught in factually inaccurate statements that makes me think he is somewhat older as he claims to be. Of course, given his insistence on remaining actually anonymous in contrast to both me and the very real Mark Bahner, many of his claims about himself look wildly exaggerated, if not outright false. Just to pick on one not commented on, I found his response to Mark B.'s charging him with "ignorance," which really seems to set him off, he bragged that the professors of Mark would not have passed grad classes in nuclear engineering he supposedly taught at who knows where. This is hardly the only completely unbievable claim he has made about himself while hiding behind his false identity.

3) Which brings me to his repeated attempt to smear me with a lie he was told was a lie, which he spent a huge effort to uncover and has wildly misrepresented. I repeat that it is completely false that I was ever banned on any blog, including the widely despised Econjobrumors (ejmr). I pointed this out, but EK repeated it after that. Shameful.

4) Which brings us to the question of how he came upon this false smear. I shall give him a nod on figuring out the Godelian connections, given in his final post here claiming to be a Turing test. He has finally gotten near to what he is dealing with.

Anyway, he has made a lot of odd and unsubstantiated claims about me. But a big one is that if one googles me one simply finds all these reports of me not only having been banned but stalking and doxing and threatening people. All of this is just flagrantly false, although the accusation that I accuse people of being stupid and ignorant in an ad hominem way is definitely correct, and I did so in this thread, including with regard to him, although I think the claim of him being stupid is probably wrong, even as I shall stick with charging him with ignorance.

So I googled myself. There is a short search and a more expanded one, all this complicated by my late father showing up also as we have the same name (although I am Jr., something annoyingly forgotten by various publishers). So, sticking to the abbeviated google search for "Barkley Rosser" shows a whopping two entries in which anything critical is said of me. Neither of these is the one accusing me of having been "banned." That takes much more effort to find, although EK did dig enough to find it. One is a minor deal involving an easily resolved dispute on Econospeak with my co-blogger, Sandwichman (Tom Walker) regarding the application of Godelian ideas to economics, something I have written about more recently, including a chapter for the festshrift for Gregory Chaitin, father of algorithmic information theory.

The other is the big hit, #71 on the short list (over 200 on the longer one), not exactly the thing that just jumps out if one googles me. It is indeed from the infamous ejmr from a few years ago. Its title is about "aspie virgins at ejmr" and inaccurately says I coined the term "aspie virgins," used for some time amusingly in my view about regular commentators there (they have recently cleaned up their act a bit under outside pressure and criticism). I think Noah Smith publicized this, but I did not invent it.

Anyway, the comments on this thread then began to reminisce about the now supposedly hidden old archives of ejmr where my vigorous debate with the followers of the now-disappeared Economic Logician (EL) were supposedly hidden. It seems that one can find at least some of this can be found by googling Economic Logician, whose posts in those days regularly appeared on rjmr, much as MR posts still do now.

My original debate with EL on her blog was reasonably civil, with both of us giving ground and largely coming to an agreement (do not want to get into details of that complicated debate). But some of her followers associated with then intense Minnesota macro school picked up on this and began attacking me personally on both EL's blog and on ejmr. I responded to the latter under my own name there, which led to a full-blown war that led to these false accusations that I had been banned and also had "stalked" and "threatened" and "doxed" participants. But note that all these people were anonymous, aside from me. How does one do any of that to anonymous people? It was all a wild pile of lies, but it has been repeated from time to time, and EK having dredged it up and has repeated it several times here, even though he has been told it is false.

So the further development of that odd thread about aspie virgins was rather curious. As note some people brought up this old debate and complained about how they could not access it. But the discussion moved on, weirdly enough to some things I had written about the matter I debated with Sandwichman, the problem of applications of the ideas of Godel to economics, and a particular paper I ha written on that. I became aware of this discussion and saw that on this matter my views were, oh big surprise, being seriously misrepresented. So I made an appearance again under my own name openly to correct the erroneous arguments that were being made.

Funny how EK has not reported what followed that. Somebody popped up and said "Rosser strong." That got five likes and no dislikes.

The discussion petered out after that, but anybody reading this thread would think that if one just randomly googles me this fairly hard to find set of false statements EK posted here repeatedly are what one will find. This is the final falsehood he promoted here, to his shame.

I close with again pointing out that not a single factual statement I made on this thread was successfully challenged, while "Eric K." was found outright lying on numerous points. That is the bottom line.

Barkley,

Twenty two. That's the average sentence length in your last post.

You write poorly. You type faster than you can think. You write like a less-well educated version of the Unibomber. It's the style of a mediocre 10th grader trying to sound smart. It's the style of someone working in a field where word-count, page-count, article-count, and citation-count all matter more than idea-count.

Look how the host of this blog writes, or Thoma, or the Mr Bahner you mention. I'd you to make writing more clearly a development goal for 2020.

To paraphrase Rick Blaine: I wouldn't bring of Gödel if I were you, it's poor salesmanship. Just stop.

I never claimed to have taught classes in "nuclear engineering". I never taught any engineering classes. I did say I specialized in atomic physics. 'Atomic' and 'nuclear' are different words with very different meanings, but I understand how the distinction is lost on you. And science and engineering are different fields of study. Again, for someone like you it's all a blur. Suffice to say, a junior-level physics major could probably walk into a class in nuclear (or civil, or aeronautical) engineering and know what was going on. Engineers are very bright people (compared to social scientists), but most would find graduate-level physics (or mathematics) classes disorienting.

This all started with me making a rather mundane post and you responding, launching directly into "stupid" then "boy". I don't care who you are; I googled you because you told me to. You imagined I'd be impressed. Rather, I found that starting flame wars with anonymous people on the internet is a thing you do. And I didn't have to go "digging very deep into buried files" - your writing that shows you don't really know how the internet works, and maybe don't even have a firm grasp of the idea of a computer file.

Again, interested parties can read for themselves and make up their own minds:

http://economiclogic.blogspot.com/2010/03/why-criticize-modern-macro-when-you-do.html

I am your obedient servant and look forward to your response.

"...maybe your very smartest professor could have passed the types of classes I was teaching in grad school."

Yes, I wrote that. Then you wrote:

"...he bragged that the professors of Mark would not have passed grad classes in nuclear engineering he supposedly taught at who knows where."

Then I wrote:

"I never claimed to have taught classes in 'nuclear engineering'. I never taught any engineering classes."

Then you quoted the first passage and claimed I was "just an utterly shameless liar".

Claiming to have taught classes while I was a PhD candidate in Physics is not the the same thing as claiming to have taught 'Nuclear Engineering'. All of the courses I taught as a graduate student where Physics classes.

Physics and Nuclear Engineering are not the same thing.

You suffer poor reading comprehension. And you are a social science professor.

Dunning-Kruger Effect

EK,

You said you took chem and physics as an undrgrad then bragged about your knowledge of nuclear engineering, then made this statement that did not specify what field the courses were. You are hopelessly pathetic.

Given the number of completely inaccurate comments you have made here, D-K effect is you. I have not made factually inaccurate statements. You have made lots of them. Goodbye.

Barkley,

"You said you took chem and physics...."

No, I never mentioned taking a chemistry class. It's strange that you imagine that I did make that claim.

"...then bragged about your knowledge of nuclear engineering..."

I don't see where you think I was bragging about my knowledge in 'nuclear engineering'. I've posted some rather arrogant remarks, so maybe you believe I implied it somehow. I still think you may not understand the words 'nuclear engineering' mean and are transposing them in your mind with something else. My first sentence in response to someone else bringing up 'nuclear engineering' reads: "I don't consider myself an expert in much of anything on an absolute basis."

(back to what you've written)

"...then made this statement that did not specify what field the courses were..."

People who spend time in university settings who have reasonable situational awareness understand that Physics students and Engineering students take and teach different classes. It is not a reasonable infer that someone who writes "...types of classes I was teaching in grad school..." who was a physics student is claiming she taught (your words) "... grad classes in nuclear engineering..." You made that inference, then got mad about it.

This is getting strange; you seem overly confused with minor items like this - the chemistry thing is particularly weird. Maybe there's something wrong with you (I honestly hope not). Or maybe you're not who you claim to be. Maybe you're someone else posting bizarre stuff to embarrass this person.

Posted without comment:

https://www.econlib.org/archives/2009/08/the_best_questi.html/#comment-57083

https://www.econlib.org/archives/2009/08/the_best_questi.html/#comment-57083

Comments for this post are closed