So the Democrats and the Republicans in Washington DC have a deal. The Democrats get to extend unemployment benefits. The Republicans get to keep the tax break for very rich people. All of this is in order to preserve tax breaks for the middle class.
All of this coming a week or so after the the blue ribbon deficit commission provided guidelines for cutting the deficit. In a stroke, the politicians have rejected any action on the commission's proposals and simultaneously increased the deficit by as much as the commission sought to reduce it for the first few years.
Yet they say that the very fact that the commission gave everybody the stark news means that people will see that soon, real soon, we need to do something.
Right. Sure. You betcha.
Monday, December 06, 2010
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Pretty good work for Al Qaeda amateurs
According to the Christian Science Monitor, the bombs from Yemen indicate that the bomb makers are amateurs and may be trying in a "foolhardy" way to create fear. Looks to me like they're generally succeeding.
Recall the claims that Ronald Reagan broke the Soviet Union by forcing them to engage in an arms race they couldn't afford. Maybe, maybe not, but if Al Qaeda's objective is to break the United States financially, they're doing pretty well. We're spending hundreds of billions of dollars annually in the War on Terror, in two military campaigns and a worldwide $80 billion effort at "intelligence" which can't have any other target than them. They don't need to successfully deliver bombs. They just need us to shut down the world's air transport system from time to time because we're worried. And tie us down in God-forsaken places while we try futilely to suppress terror and build democracy at the same time.
The world is moving past us. Other countries build high speed rail systems, effective nuclear power plants, spectacular bridges and tunnels. We spend trillions on defense and cower in fear. This isn't going to be the American Century redux. Probably not even a good American Decade.
Recall the claims that Ronald Reagan broke the Soviet Union by forcing them to engage in an arms race they couldn't afford. Maybe, maybe not, but if Al Qaeda's objective is to break the United States financially, they're doing pretty well. We're spending hundreds of billions of dollars annually in the War on Terror, in two military campaigns and a worldwide $80 billion effort at "intelligence" which can't have any other target than them. They don't need to successfully deliver bombs. They just need us to shut down the world's air transport system from time to time because we're worried. And tie us down in God-forsaken places while we try futilely to suppress terror and build democracy at the same time.
The world is moving past us. Other countries build high speed rail systems, effective nuclear power plants, spectacular bridges and tunnels. We spend trillions on defense and cower in fear. This isn't going to be the American Century redux. Probably not even a good American Decade.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Thomas Friedman misses again
In today's New York Times, Thomas Friedman contrasts the attitudes of China and America to global warming, and smiles approvingly on the Chinese. We have not adopted legislation regarding greenhouse gases, while the Chinese are busily making their economy more energy efficient, with the intention of creating jobs.
Nonsense. The problem is not that we don't confront greenhouse gas emissions enough. We do quite a bit, and our economy produces more GDP per ton of CO2 than the Chinese do or can expect to do in the near future. The Chinese recognize that they don't want to depend on foreign oil, so if they intend to grow, they must become more efficient and generate more energy themselves from renewable sources. Nevertheless, if CO2 is causing AGW, then the prime drivers of the increase are China and, lesserly, India.
The Chinese are not becoming efficient to benefit the world, just themselves. We, on the other hand, adopt policies aimed at helping the world by reducing GHG's and shoot ourselves in the economic foot. We let the Chinese become the leaders in producing solar panels. We force our last incandescent light bulb plant to close and switch to itsy bitsy flourescents, which we buy from China.
We aren't generating green jobs and China is, but this is just one more symptom of the epidemic.
Nonsense. The problem is not that we don't confront greenhouse gas emissions enough. We do quite a bit, and our economy produces more GDP per ton of CO2 than the Chinese do or can expect to do in the near future. The Chinese recognize that they don't want to depend on foreign oil, so if they intend to grow, they must become more efficient and generate more energy themselves from renewable sources. Nevertheless, if CO2 is causing AGW, then the prime drivers of the increase are China and, lesserly, India.
The Chinese are not becoming efficient to benefit the world, just themselves. We, on the other hand, adopt policies aimed at helping the world by reducing GHG's and shoot ourselves in the economic foot. We let the Chinese become the leaders in producing solar panels. We force our last incandescent light bulb plant to close and switch to itsy bitsy flourescents, which we buy from China.
We aren't generating green jobs and China is, but this is just one more symptom of the epidemic.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Alan Simpson: A demonstration why America is doomed
I've been trying to figure out just what the issue is. "Tit" is the pronunciation, although the usual spelling is "teat," for what you get milk out of a cow with. Simpson said, essentially, that everybody wants to milk the cow.
Surely, a woman old enough to lead an old women's organization has heard the term before. The context is certainly not "sexist." Yet, Democratic lawmakers and "women's advocates" are calling for Simpson's resignation.
And clearly what these people want is to get rid of the conservative Republican and stop talking about Social Security, so they can focus on their agenda to "balance the budget." Except that you could eliminate the Bush tax cuts and slash defense spending and still not be balanced.
You need a bull that's going to gore everybody if the deal is going to be done, but that's not going to happen. The only support for shared sacrifice is support for all the other people to share it. Entitlements need to be reduced. The idea that we have enough wealth to police the entire world must go. Taxes will need to be raised.
And it won't be done with a partisan commission, and the idea that you can pitch Alan Simpson and still reach the goal is foolish. We need somebody blunt and willing to offend. In my mind, Alan Simpson has polished his credentials.
Surely, a woman old enough to lead an old women's organization has heard the term before. The context is certainly not "sexist." Yet, Democratic lawmakers and "women's advocates" are calling for Simpson's resignation.
And clearly what these people want is to get rid of the conservative Republican and stop talking about Social Security, so they can focus on their agenda to "balance the budget." Except that you could eliminate the Bush tax cuts and slash defense spending and still not be balanced.
You need a bull that's going to gore everybody if the deal is going to be done, but that's not going to happen. The only support for shared sacrifice is support for all the other people to share it. Entitlements need to be reduced. The idea that we have enough wealth to police the entire world must go. Taxes will need to be raised.
And it won't be done with a partisan commission, and the idea that you can pitch Alan Simpson and still reach the goal is foolish. We need somebody blunt and willing to offend. In my mind, Alan Simpson has polished his credentials.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Dumb and Dumber
It was not a smart political decision for President Obama to take any position on the building of an Islamic center near Ground Zero in New York City. The only thing dumber is that the Republican party seems intent on making this a campaign issue at the same time we're at war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
We are in the Middle East, trying to persuade people that when we bring in the army, we're fighting for their rights to a good life, free of oppression, and that we feel strongly that Islam, their religion, is great and worthy.
Then back home, we have one of our two main political parties seizing on the building of a peaceful, welcoming, educational center that Muslims in NYC want to showcase their ability to integrate into American society, and denouncing it as some kind of blasphemy. In so doing, making it clear that for Republicans, Muslim and Islamist are the same thing.
In New York City, where an infinitely rich blend of cultures, ethnicities and religions dates back many decades, this kind of islamophobia probably doesn't play well. But Republicans expect it to play well in East Armpit, Louisiana, where their political base lies.
Republicans seem intent on fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan until we've exhausted the last dollar the Chinese will loan us, but if we're going to be serious, it makes no sense to undercut the mission with petty politics.
We are in the Middle East, trying to persuade people that when we bring in the army, we're fighting for their rights to a good life, free of oppression, and that we feel strongly that Islam, their religion, is great and worthy.
Then back home, we have one of our two main political parties seizing on the building of a peaceful, welcoming, educational center that Muslims in NYC want to showcase their ability to integrate into American society, and denouncing it as some kind of blasphemy. In so doing, making it clear that for Republicans, Muslim and Islamist are the same thing.
In New York City, where an infinitely rich blend of cultures, ethnicities and religions dates back many decades, this kind of islamophobia probably doesn't play well. But Republicans expect it to play well in East Armpit, Louisiana, where their political base lies.
Republicans seem intent on fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan until we've exhausted the last dollar the Chinese will loan us, but if we're going to be serious, it makes no sense to undercut the mission with petty politics.
Monday, August 09, 2010
Funny Math
The people who count things for the media are now saying that the Pakistan floods are going to be worse than three previous mega disasters -- two earthquakes and the Indonesia tsunami. Because "more people are affected."
OK, guys, "affected" is open to interpretation. But death is binary. On/off. You're dead or not. And while the death toll in Pakistan is above 1500, the three above mentioned were in the range of half a million stone cold dead. Defunct. Pakistan is a horrible and still unfolding story, but it's not in the same league.
OK, guys, "affected" is open to interpretation. But death is binary. On/off. You're dead or not. And while the death toll in Pakistan is above 1500, the three above mentioned were in the range of half a million stone cold dead. Defunct. Pakistan is a horrible and still unfolding story, but it's not in the same league.
Sunday, August 08, 2010
Of course, whining aside, we should help Pakistan
Not because they will be as grateful as Indians, or that this is a good use relative to other places in the world where there are more appreciative people, but the way to sell this is part of the war on terror. For that, we'll spend a billion dollars a day and not blink.
Things are getting worse and the Pakistanis may be getting a little tired of their government. They may not become cheerleaders for America out of this, but if we donated a bazillion tents, cook stoves, sacks of rice and porta-potties, all marked "Made in USA," it might do us some good, and the billion a day is doing less than nothing, so why not?
Of course, before writing "Made in USA" on the materiel, we would need to scrub off all the "Made in China" markings.
Things are getting worse and the Pakistanis may be getting a little tired of their government. They may not become cheerleaders for America out of this, but if we donated a bazillion tents, cook stoves, sacks of rice and porta-potties, all marked "Made in USA," it might do us some good, and the billion a day is doing less than nothing, so why not?
Of course, before writing "Made in USA" on the materiel, we would need to scrub off all the "Made in China" markings.
Pakistan Needs Our Help, They Tell Us
It seems that Pakistan is going to need billions of dollars to repair damage from the monsoon flooding.
Now if I remember right, Pakistan is the country that helped North Korea get the technology for its nuclear bomb. Its intelligence branch has been helping the Taliban, which just murdered ten people for the crime of helping while Christian.
If we plan to assist Pakistan to boost our image, we should consider the recent past. As the Christian Science Monitor reported, the 2005 earthquake similarly opened an opportunity to boost the US image. Five years later, most Pakistanis view us as an enemy. They'll take our help again, but we aren't going to win any hearts or minds.
In India, a country with a generally positive attitude towards the United States, there are many among the dalits, formerly known as untouchables, who have suffered for a couple thousand years what the Pakistanis are suffering now for a few weeks. Bill Gates has recognize this and has started to help. Our money would earn us a lot more return if we spent it in India.
Now if I remember right, Pakistan is the country that helped North Korea get the technology for its nuclear bomb. Its intelligence branch has been helping the Taliban, which just murdered ten people for the crime of helping while Christian.
If we plan to assist Pakistan to boost our image, we should consider the recent past. As the Christian Science Monitor reported, the 2005 earthquake similarly opened an opportunity to boost the US image. Five years later, most Pakistanis view us as an enemy. They'll take our help again, but we aren't going to win any hearts or minds.
In India, a country with a generally positive attitude towards the United States, there are many among the dalits, formerly known as untouchables, who have suffered for a couple thousand years what the Pakistanis are suffering now for a few weeks. Bill Gates has recognize this and has started to help. Our money would earn us a lot more return if we spent it in India.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Rush Limbaugh on Sherrod -- No Surprise
It's odd the people are showing shock and surprise at Rush Limbaugh for his goal line stand on the Sherrod fiasco. Limbaugh is a very rich man, who has built his fortune on his ability to present the world to a significant segment of the population in a manner that they support.
He's a successful businessman and his expressed opinions are his product. Whether they are genuine opinions, or whether they make sense, is as irrelevant as whether Lindsay Lohan thinks she should go to jail. He says what his rabble wants to hear and gets well paid for doing so. End of story.
He's a successful businessman and his expressed opinions are his product. Whether they are genuine opinions, or whether they make sense, is as irrelevant as whether Lindsay Lohan thinks she should go to jail. He says what his rabble wants to hear and gets well paid for doing so. End of story.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Paul Krugman versus reality
Krugman believes that without government opening the spigots of borrowed cash to solve our current economic problem, we're doomed to sink further. The Europeans, he assures us, have it all wrong. Gonna tank over across the Atlantic.
Despite his advice, the Europeans are showing signs of discipline in government spending. They are taking deficits seriously. Nevertheless, or in consequence depending on what you believe, the euro zone is showing signs of life, while the American economy, having "benefited" from trillions of deficit spending, remains in the doldrums.
How inconvenient!
Despite his advice, the Europeans are showing signs of discipline in government spending. They are taking deficits seriously. Nevertheless, or in consequence depending on what you believe, the euro zone is showing signs of life, while the American economy, having "benefited" from trillions of deficit spending, remains in the doldrums.
How inconvenient!
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Why the Washington Post is still needed
If we saw anything from the Shirley Sherrod incident, it's the danger of allowing people who don't understand fact checking to lead national opinion. Bloggers have their role, which is to stir things up, but when the NAACP and the USDA take as gospel their "investigation" of something, and act immediately, we get what we have just got. Those people who were genuinely snookered will now be backing up, and claiming that it wasn't their fault. People like Fox News will be making excuses like they had nothing to do with it.
The truth is that the blogosphere has scared everybody in power to the degree that they feel obligated to respond quickly. This is what the social media people tell companies. When criticized in the evening, have a response on Facebook by midnight. Don't wait until the morning.
Responsible journalism, as practiced still by the Washington Post and some others, checks facts and gets as full a story as possible, or at least indicates that all the facts are not yet in. If they go down and we're left with the raving lunatics of the Internet, God help us.
The truth is that the blogosphere has scared everybody in power to the degree that they feel obligated to respond quickly. This is what the social media people tell companies. When criticized in the evening, have a response on Facebook by midnight. Don't wait until the morning.
Responsible journalism, as practiced still by the Washington Post and some others, checks facts and gets as full a story as possible, or at least indicates that all the facts are not yet in. If they go down and we're left with the raving lunatics of the Internet, God help us.
Reality sets in
In an AP article about how the well is soon to be capped, appeared the following telling items:
News that a solution is near cheered Jeff Hunt who scans the waves daily for telltale tar balls in Pensacola Beach, Fla.
If three months on, people are "scanning" for signs of the oil spill in Pensacola, we can assume that Pensacola isn't going to be much impacted. Things always wash up on beaches. Dead fish, dead birds, dead whales. A few tar balls aren't going to matter much.
The spill hasn't reached the big money beaches of Florida so we can assume that they either won't at all or won't in any material way. The surface of the water around the well is already starting to look better. There are many other seeping wells in the gulf that nobody bothers with because the gulf simply processes the oil.
In six months, except for a few locations, you'll have a hard time finding evidence that this spill ever took place.
News that a solution is near cheered Jeff Hunt who scans the waves daily for telltale tar balls in Pensacola Beach, Fla.
If three months on, people are "scanning" for signs of the oil spill in Pensacola, we can assume that Pensacola isn't going to be much impacted. Things always wash up on beaches. Dead fish, dead birds, dead whales. A few tar balls aren't going to matter much.
The spill hasn't reached the big money beaches of Florida so we can assume that they either won't at all or won't in any material way. The surface of the water around the well is already starting to look better. There are many other seeping wells in the gulf that nobody bothers with because the gulf simply processes the oil.
In six months, except for a few locations, you'll have a hard time finding evidence that this spill ever took place.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Global Warming vs AGW
Eugene Robinson, appearing in today's Register-Guard, considers the debate on global warming to be over. We should now proceed to the debate on how to deal with it. I'd be perfectly happy, except that warmists shut down any discussion of alternatives to their apocalyptic vision.
But leaving that aside, the debate is not really over warming, it's over manmade warming and specifically over the impact of CO2 in the atmosphere. NASA has a Key Climate Indicators site where they should a number of interesting graphs. One of these is temperature. It does in fact show a much steeper rise over the past 30 years than during the 30 that preceded. CO2 is also much higher. This could be taken as an indication of causation.
However, looking somewhat left on the same graph, we find the period 1910 to 1940. Also 30 years, also showing a rise of about .5 C, however without the corresponding CO2 concentrations.
It's probably getting a bit warmer. It has been getting warmer for the past two and a half centuries, since the end of the Little Ice Age. Still farther back in time, it used to be warmer than then and maybe warmer than now. At the point that science can explain why it's now CO2 and not the same factors that have played out before, then maybe the science will be settled. Not before.
But leaving that aside, the debate is not really over warming, it's over manmade warming and specifically over the impact of CO2 in the atmosphere. NASA has a Key Climate Indicators site where they should a number of interesting graphs. One of these is temperature. It does in fact show a much steeper rise over the past 30 years than during the 30 that preceded. CO2 is also much higher. This could be taken as an indication of causation.
However, looking somewhat left on the same graph, we find the period 1910 to 1940. Also 30 years, also showing a rise of about .5 C, however without the corresponding CO2 concentrations.
It's probably getting a bit warmer. It has been getting warmer for the past two and a half centuries, since the end of the Little Ice Age. Still farther back in time, it used to be warmer than then and maybe warmer than now. At the point that science can explain why it's now CO2 and not the same factors that have played out before, then maybe the science will be settled. Not before.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Why liberals should support the Second Amendment
Daily Kos has an article entitled, "Why Liberals Should Love the Second Amendment." Personally, I think this goes a little too far, but a more moderate position would be expect liberals, and most particularly ACLU liberals, to support the Second Amendment, whatever they feel about the NRA.
Back in the 1960's, Lyndon Johnson remarked, with reference to those attacking him from the left of his own party, "I'm the only president you've got." Those were different times and many of us probably would not have eased up, even knowing that it might lead to Richard Nixon.
What the ACLU and its supporters should now recognize is that the first ten amendments are the only Bill of Rights we've got. The horse trading ended two centuries ago. Actually, at that time the First and Second amendments were probably not appealing to separate constuencies as they do now, but no matter. They are both in the Bill of Rights.
For two hundred years, courts have been extending the interpretation of the Constitution from its literal form to adapt to modern realities and modern sensibilities. It's certainly true that the framers of the Constitution did not envision powerful and accurate handguns, or assault rifles beyond what anyone would use to hunt game for the family. But they also did not regard burning a flag as speech.
The problem is that by criticizing an expansive view of the Second Amendment, you call into question the expansive view of the First. Frankly, the Second isn't much of a problem. Gun laws haven't stopped gun violence, or even dented it in places like Chicago.
But actually reining it in would be a problem. I worry much more about my government than about my armed neighbors, and a possibly overwrought interpretation of the Second Amendment isn't going to change my priorities.
Back in the 1960's, Lyndon Johnson remarked, with reference to those attacking him from the left of his own party, "I'm the only president you've got." Those were different times and many of us probably would not have eased up, even knowing that it might lead to Richard Nixon.
What the ACLU and its supporters should now recognize is that the first ten amendments are the only Bill of Rights we've got. The horse trading ended two centuries ago. Actually, at that time the First and Second amendments were probably not appealing to separate constuencies as they do now, but no matter. They are both in the Bill of Rights.
For two hundred years, courts have been extending the interpretation of the Constitution from its literal form to adapt to modern realities and modern sensibilities. It's certainly true that the framers of the Constitution did not envision powerful and accurate handguns, or assault rifles beyond what anyone would use to hunt game for the family. But they also did not regard burning a flag as speech.
The problem is that by criticizing an expansive view of the Second Amendment, you call into question the expansive view of the First. Frankly, the Second isn't much of a problem. Gun laws haven't stopped gun violence, or even dented it in places like Chicago.
But actually reining it in would be a problem. I worry much more about my government than about my armed neighbors, and a possibly overwrought interpretation of the Second Amendment isn't going to change my priorities.
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
Dog Bites Man Again
It seems to be news that the Afghan government won't allow prosecutions of corrupt government officials. It also seems to be news that the powerful people behind the "government" of Haiti are more concerned with further enrichment than rebuilding Port-au-Prince.
This isn't news. These are not governments in the sense we know them, organizations of people working generally for the betterment of the population. The "governments" of Afghanistan and Haiti, and many others throughout the world, are essentially criminal in nature and exist for the exploitation of the citizenry.
There isn't anyone who can fix Haiti. And nobody can fix Afghanistan except the Taliban. Oops, we're fighting the Taliban while insisting that Afghanistan be fixed. Just a small logical dilemma.
This isn't news. These are not governments in the sense we know them, organizations of people working generally for the betterment of the population. The "governments" of Afghanistan and Haiti, and many others throughout the world, are essentially criminal in nature and exist for the exploitation of the citizenry.
There isn't anyone who can fix Haiti. And nobody can fix Afghanistan except the Taliban. Oops, we're fighting the Taliban while insisting that Afghanistan be fixed. Just a small logical dilemma.
Monday, July 05, 2010
The third world is looking robust
In two articles I've just read, Southeast Asia and Turkey seem to be booming while the United States and Europe are in the doldrums. To quote part of the article on Turkey:
So complete has this evolution been that Turkey is now closer to fulfilling the criteria for adopting the euro — if it ever does get into the European Union — than most of the troubled economies already in the euro zone.
The comfortable feeling that we know how to do things and everybody else needs to learn from us may have been true. Fortunately or unfortunately, they appear to have learned what they need.
So complete has this evolution been that Turkey is now closer to fulfilling the criteria for adopting the euro — if it ever does get into the European Union — than most of the troubled economies already in the euro zone.
The comfortable feeling that we know how to do things and everybody else needs to learn from us may have been true. Fortunately or unfortunately, they appear to have learned what they need.
Sunday, July 04, 2010
Maybe this time, word will get around
An Associated Press writer reports from the congo:
At the time, Jackson Ndengwa, 15, was inside one of the makeshift halls to watch one of his favorite teams, Ghana, play Uruguay.
"The hall was full of people," he said from his hospital bed in the lakeside town of Uvira, about 20 miles (30 kilometers) to the south. "We never expected that there could be a fire like this."
At first, I assumed it was a sudden event that nobody could escape. Now it turns out that the tanker was leaking for an hour and the UN folks were trying to get everyone out of the area because of the danger.
Instead, they wanted to watch the World Cup.
At the time, Jackson Ndengwa, 15, was inside one of the makeshift halls to watch one of his favorite teams, Ghana, play Uruguay.
"The hall was full of people," he said from his hospital bed in the lakeside town of Uvira, about 20 miles (30 kilometers) to the south. "We never expected that there could be a fire like this."
At first, I assumed it was a sudden event that nobody could escape. Now it turns out that the tanker was leaking for an hour and the UN folks were trying to get everyone out of the area because of the danger.
Instead, they wanted to watch the World Cup.
Saturday, July 03, 2010
Bye, Bye, Karzai
According to the LA Times, during the huge festivities to welcome General Petraeus to Kabul,
Karzai, whose relationship with the Obama administration has been strained amid fresh allegations of corruption in his government, was not present for Saturday's festivities, although the presidential palace said he was in the capital. He sent his foreign minister, Zalmay Rasul, to represent him.
We're spending untold billions of dollars propping up his sorry ass, and he snubs the ceremony. Let's get the hell out. Now. Today. Pack our gear, come home, and let the rump government sort things out. If they start any more trouble, nuke 'em.
Karzai, whose relationship with the Obama administration has been strained amid fresh allegations of corruption in his government, was not present for Saturday's festivities, although the presidential palace said he was in the capital. He sent his foreign minister, Zalmay Rasul, to represent him.
We're spending untold billions of dollars propping up his sorry ass, and he snubs the ceremony. Let's get the hell out. Now. Today. Pack our gear, come home, and let the rump government sort things out. If they start any more trouble, nuke 'em.
Monday, June 28, 2010
They can't do the math in New York
“The difference between us and him is $200 million,” said Sheldon Silver, the Assembly speaker, “$200 million over what will be a $135- or $136-billion budget, which I suggest to you is less than a tenth of 1 percent.”
And we tell sixth graders that if they don't learn how to calculate percentages, they end up homeless, derelict, unemployable, or speaker of the New York Assembly.
And we tell sixth graders that if they don't learn how to calculate percentages, they end up homeless, derelict, unemployable, or speaker of the New York Assembly.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Slower Progress in Afghanistan. Really!
Leon Panetta seems to feel that things are going a bit slowly in Afghanistan. Slower than anyone expected.
Slower than expected by whom? I can identify quite a number of people, from the illustrious like William Pfaff down to obscure unknowns such as your present writer, who are not only not surprised that progress hasn't been greater, but would be surprised if there is in fact any underlying, sustainable progress whatsoever.
It reminds me of how Governor Kulongoski wants us to believe that the revenue shortfall in Oregon, identified in May, "couldn't have been predicted," although quite a number of people, again including this writer, predicted it twelve months earlier. People who make mistakes shouldn't assume that nobody else is able to see future trends any better than they can.
Slower than expected by whom? I can identify quite a number of people, from the illustrious like William Pfaff down to obscure unknowns such as your present writer, who are not only not surprised that progress hasn't been greater, but would be surprised if there is in fact any underlying, sustainable progress whatsoever.
It reminds me of how Governor Kulongoski wants us to believe that the revenue shortfall in Oregon, identified in May, "couldn't have been predicted," although quite a number of people, again including this writer, predicted it twelve months earlier. People who make mistakes shouldn't assume that nobody else is able to see future trends any better than they can.
Another way of looking at the BP spill in the Gulf
What we keep hearing is how bad it's getting. It's not good, but let's consider this.
There are half a quintillion gallons of water in the Gulf, and every one is full of microbes. The water is warm, the sun is shining straight down on it, and while fish may not eat petroleum, microbes do, and things eat microbes that are eaten by things that are eaten by fish, oysters, and shrimp. People talk about this as an environmental disaster for the Gulf. I look at it as lunch.
Of course, in the short term, those higher up the chain such as fishermen and pelicans are going to be stressed, but I worry about real national catastrophes that we might do something about, like why our sixth graders can't multiply. In the mathematical sense.
There are half a quintillion gallons of water in the Gulf, and every one is full of microbes. The water is warm, the sun is shining straight down on it, and while fish may not eat petroleum, microbes do, and things eat microbes that are eaten by things that are eaten by fish, oysters, and shrimp. People talk about this as an environmental disaster for the Gulf. I look at it as lunch.
Of course, in the short term, those higher up the chain such as fishermen and pelicans are going to be stressed, but I worry about real national catastrophes that we might do something about, like why our sixth graders can't multiply. In the mathematical sense.
Violence at G20
It is reported that Canada spent more than a billion dollars on security for the G20 conference in Toronto.
One has to ask: Haven't these people heard of teleconferencing?
One has to ask: Haven't these people heard of teleconferencing?
Thursday, June 24, 2010
A War Too Far
Remember "A Bridge Too Far," the movie about World War II? I think we may be seeing the equivalent now. With General Petraeus taking over in Afghanistan, expectations are starting to crop up based on his "success" with the surge in Iraq.
And that would be what, exactly? We've given them elections, but they don't result in a new government and whatever government they had probably couldn't deliver reliable electric power to their cities. They've stopped killing each other quite as freely, but by any standards other than Iraqi, the civil war goes on.
But however weak his legacy really was in Iraq, there was at least a pleasant illusion that he had succeeded. Now he has Afghanistan. Nobody, from Alexander the Great on, has marched into Afghanistan and later marched out, thinking back about what a splendid idea it was. Not the Macedonians, not the British, not the Russians, and now not us. There is no good outcome in the works. And it's Petraeus' baby now.
They say it's technically a demotion. Technically, politically, spiritually, ...
And that would be what, exactly? We've given them elections, but they don't result in a new government and whatever government they had probably couldn't deliver reliable electric power to their cities. They've stopped killing each other quite as freely, but by any standards other than Iraqi, the civil war goes on.
But however weak his legacy really was in Iraq, there was at least a pleasant illusion that he had succeeded. Now he has Afghanistan. Nobody, from Alexander the Great on, has marched into Afghanistan and later marched out, thinking back about what a splendid idea it was. Not the Macedonians, not the British, not the Russians, and now not us. There is no good outcome in the works. And it's Petraeus' baby now.
They say it's technically a demotion. Technically, politically, spiritually, ...
Sunday, June 20, 2010
American Demagoguery at its Worst
H L Mencken said that America was ruled by the booboisie. It still is, a century later. Today there are two stories. Tony Hayward is catching hell for taking Father's Day off, and BP is making progress towards capping the spill.
First, why shouldn't he take Father's Day off? Would he be helpful, a Brit, working in the Louisiana bayous scooping up oil? Aren't there enough unemployed Louisianans looking for a paycheck to fill any vacancy?
And has he ever had anything to contribute personally to capping the well? This is the worst accident in oil drilling history, and the people who will solve it are petroleum engineers, working for industry not the government. I hope they succeed soon. I don't expect all the people who happily drive cars powered by the petroleum they find to express any gratitude.
There's a lot of talk about the possible impact of a hurricane. What will eventually solve the problem is the natural process of degradation, which takes place because petroleum is a natural, organic substance. It breaks down as a function of its surface area. The surface area of the petroleum that has spilled goes up as the spill is broken up. A hurricane will speed up the process.
There are a half a quintillion gallons of water in the Gulf of Mexico. That's a real number, not like a gazillion. A quintillion is a billion billion. In six months, you will have trouble finding a beach with a tar ball on it. In two years, you'll never know this happened unless you're a research scientist and know where to look.
None of this is to deny that Joe Barton is a bought and paid mouthpiece of the petroleum industry. That's a separate issue.
First, why shouldn't he take Father's Day off? Would he be helpful, a Brit, working in the Louisiana bayous scooping up oil? Aren't there enough unemployed Louisianans looking for a paycheck to fill any vacancy?
And has he ever had anything to contribute personally to capping the well? This is the worst accident in oil drilling history, and the people who will solve it are petroleum engineers, working for industry not the government. I hope they succeed soon. I don't expect all the people who happily drive cars powered by the petroleum they find to express any gratitude.
There's a lot of talk about the possible impact of a hurricane. What will eventually solve the problem is the natural process of degradation, which takes place because petroleum is a natural, organic substance. It breaks down as a function of its surface area. The surface area of the petroleum that has spilled goes up as the spill is broken up. A hurricane will speed up the process.
There are a half a quintillion gallons of water in the Gulf of Mexico. That's a real number, not like a gazillion. A quintillion is a billion billion. In six months, you will have trouble finding a beach with a tar ball on it. In two years, you'll never know this happened unless you're a research scientist and know where to look.
None of this is to deny that Joe Barton is a bought and paid mouthpiece of the petroleum industry. That's a separate issue.
Friday, June 11, 2010
A silver lining for the BP spill
As anger in the U.S. increases over British Petroleum's having done exactly what the U.S. economy's unrestrained lust for oil required, so the British resentment begins to rise, a sort of political version of Newton's third law.
This could work out well. For instance, after a little more British bashing by Obama, the Brits might say, "You're right. We're at fault here. And it's going to cost us a ton of money. So why don't you take care of Afghanistan from now on?"
As the "allied" effort in Iraq dwindles to just the United States, so might the war in Afghanistan. Maybe we'd just bag it.
Not likely, but one can dream.
This could work out well. For instance, after a little more British bashing by Obama, the Brits might say, "You're right. We're at fault here. And it's going to cost us a ton of money. So why don't you take care of Afghanistan from now on?"
As the "allied" effort in Iraq dwindles to just the United States, so might the war in Afghanistan. Maybe we'd just bag it.
Not likely, but one can dream.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Gaza and Afghanistan, a common attitude
The actions of Israel against the aid flotilla headed to Gaza should be no great surprise. If you accept enough premises, you can justify almost any conclusion. The Zionist premise is that God gave them Palestine and the non-Jewish elements are there on sufferance. They cannot accept the notion of large numbers of people who hate them occupying much of Palestine and governing themselves. So they accept any method to defeat this result.
In fact, since the first establishment of a Zionist state in an Arab region, this outcome has been pretty much inevitable. The Palestinians are going to hate them and there are too many to drive away. Eventually, they will have a state and they will deeply hate Israel, even if they decide they need to do business.
Now consider Afghanistan. We refuse to contemplate a country governed by people who once allowed Osama bin Laden to hang out, so we try to change the country through war even though this won't work. We assume that given enough time, money, and American knowhow, anything is possible. All the evidence to the contrary will not change our leaders' minds.
The American view of nuclear weapons is going to be very difficult to sell in the UN now. Everybody knows Israel already has them. We want everyone to view Iran as the worst possible country in the Middle East to have nuclear weapons. Today, do we think this is going to fly?
We are living with North Korea's having nukes. We've lived almost 50 years with China having them. Pakistan and India live with the fact that each of them have them. Do we want Iran to have nukes? Of course not. Is it tolerable? Of course it is, and we will soon need to tolerate it.
In fact, since the first establishment of a Zionist state in an Arab region, this outcome has been pretty much inevitable. The Palestinians are going to hate them and there are too many to drive away. Eventually, they will have a state and they will deeply hate Israel, even if they decide they need to do business.
Now consider Afghanistan. We refuse to contemplate a country governed by people who once allowed Osama bin Laden to hang out, so we try to change the country through war even though this won't work. We assume that given enough time, money, and American knowhow, anything is possible. All the evidence to the contrary will not change our leaders' minds.
The American view of nuclear weapons is going to be very difficult to sell in the UN now. Everybody knows Israel already has them. We want everyone to view Iran as the worst possible country in the Middle East to have nuclear weapons. Today, do we think this is going to fly?
We are living with North Korea's having nukes. We've lived almost 50 years with China having them. Pakistan and India live with the fact that each of them have them. Do we want Iran to have nukes? Of course not. Is it tolerable? Of course it is, and we will soon need to tolerate it.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
David Brooks Scores Again
In his latest essay, David Brooks is at his best, looking at the nature of risk management in a complex world. He offers some advice on directions we should collectively take. I'd like to think we will, but I don't.
Mexicans Boycott Arizona. Not a problem.
There appears to be a movement by Mexican musicians to boycott performances in Arizona. I don't think they're getting the message. The majority of Arizonans will not miss them. And, in fact, if they can persuade their fellow Mexicans to stay out of Arizona, the citizens of Arizona are likely to feel that they got the job done.
Arizona police are not going to harass everyone who looks Hispanic. If you are legitimately in Arizona, you probably speak decent English. If you look Mexican and don't speak English and have no paperwork, there's a damned good chance you're illegal.
Arizona police are not going to harass everyone who looks Hispanic. If you are legitimately in Arizona, you probably speak decent English. If you look Mexican and don't speak English and have no paperwork, there's a damned good chance you're illegal.
When The Free Market Isn't Enough
The news the BP chose a riskier but cheaper approach to their well shouldn't be a shock. The world works on the sum of individual decisions, and individuals know more about what they are doing than the higher bosses, let alone investors. So when people drilling in the deep ocean look at decades of success, they will ask themselves whether it's more profitable for themselves if they cut corners.
Not whether it's better for the public, because that's abstract. What's concrete is that if you do a job for another year in a manner that has been successful for 20 years, you'll get paid. If you insist on safety measures that nobody understands the need for, you may get fired. And if you guess wrong, you can take your savings and go to Montana.
But would regulation have prevented the blowout? Is it likely that regulators will know what all the issues are, let alone the appropriate level of safety required? Unlikely.
At the end of the day, the lessons is mostly that this is a very uncertain world, where doing things on a large scale must involve large risks and we should prepare ourselves for mishaps. The lesson the most people are likely to take away is unfortunately that we should stop drilling in deep water.
Not whether it's better for the public, because that's abstract. What's concrete is that if you do a job for another year in a manner that has been successful for 20 years, you'll get paid. If you insist on safety measures that nobody understands the need for, you may get fired. And if you guess wrong, you can take your savings and go to Montana.
But would regulation have prevented the blowout? Is it likely that regulators will know what all the issues are, let alone the appropriate level of safety required? Unlikely.
At the end of the day, the lessons is mostly that this is a very uncertain world, where doing things on a large scale must involve large risks and we should prepare ourselves for mishaps. The lesson the most people are likely to take away is unfortunately that we should stop drilling in deep water.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Dump Potiowsky
I've been watching the pattern of Oregon state tax revenue forecasts ever since the first time I ran for the Lane Community College Board. The person in charge for most of that time, except for an interim where he went back to academia, has been Tom Potiowsky. If nothing else, my observations have convinced me that Oregon should be cutting waste and inefficiency in order to balance the budget, starting by firing Mr. Potiowsky.
Yesterday, he announced that the revenue forecast for 2009-2010 was being reduced by a half billion bucks from what he had said three months earlier. He said this in an environment of no major surprises. No new flu epidemics. No wars or terrorist attacks. Nothing. But after three months, critically the three months during which the legislature went home thinking they'd done their job, the forecast plummets.
The problem is that the state's Democrats will spend almost every nickel that isn't nailed down, and the Republicans are so distrustful that rather than trying to nail much down, they prefer to ship it back to the taxpayers, especially since this earns them political points. A reasonable state operation would, after 150 years, have set aside enough reserves that it could proceed calmly through a biennium, spending what it estimated and handling noise in the revenue stream with reserves.
But this isn't going to happen. Nevertheless, if we're going to act stupidly we might as well save money. Let's get rid of the state economist and simply project Oregon's revenues to vary from the previous biennium by the average amount that CA and WA are estimating their own changes. I don't think we can do any worse, and it irritates me to think that our taxes in future years will be spent covering the amount of Potiowsky's PERS pension that we're not currently funding.
Yesterday, he announced that the revenue forecast for 2009-2010 was being reduced by a half billion bucks from what he had said three months earlier. He said this in an environment of no major surprises. No new flu epidemics. No wars or terrorist attacks. Nothing. But after three months, critically the three months during which the legislature went home thinking they'd done their job, the forecast plummets.
The problem is that the state's Democrats will spend almost every nickel that isn't nailed down, and the Republicans are so distrustful that rather than trying to nail much down, they prefer to ship it back to the taxpayers, especially since this earns them political points. A reasonable state operation would, after 150 years, have set aside enough reserves that it could proceed calmly through a biennium, spending what it estimated and handling noise in the revenue stream with reserves.
But this isn't going to happen. Nevertheless, if we're going to act stupidly we might as well save money. Let's get rid of the state economist and simply project Oregon's revenues to vary from the previous biennium by the average amount that CA and WA are estimating their own changes. I don't think we can do any worse, and it irritates me to think that our taxes in future years will be spent covering the amount of Potiowsky's PERS pension that we're not currently funding.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Palin Makes Inteligent Support Difficult
On a day when Sarah Palin said something rare that I could support, namely that Highland Park IL is being stupid in not sending its girls basketball team to play a game in Arizona due to that state's law on illegal immigrants, she follows up with nonsense.
Noting the school has allowed student trips to China, Palin questioned whether school officials knew “how they treat women in China.”
Women? China denies many freedoms to its citizens, but I hadn't heard anything about women in particular. The only thing I can think is that she is referring to the country's aggressive campaign to limit the size of families.
China has one and a third billion people and a very urgent need to cap that. Should we be pleased if they let matters run their course and went for two billion?
A reasonable comment would have been that China suppresses its ethnic minorities, which would be a good analogy with Arizona. Instead, she shows that she is less opposed to curtailing human rights than birth control. She still stops my list of dangerous politicians.
Noting the school has allowed student trips to China, Palin questioned whether school officials knew “how they treat women in China.”
Women? China denies many freedoms to its citizens, but I hadn't heard anything about women in particular. The only thing I can think is that she is referring to the country's aggressive campaign to limit the size of families.
China has one and a third billion people and a very urgent need to cap that. Should we be pleased if they let matters run their course and went for two billion?
A reasonable comment would have been that China suppresses its ethnic minorities, which would be a good analogy with Arizona. Instead, she shows that she is less opposed to curtailing human rights than birth control. She still stops my list of dangerous politicians.
Sunday, May 02, 2010
The Intractable Greek Problem
Everybody is getting into the act, with headlines that joke about Greek gods and phrases like "Acropolis Now." OK, the parody of "Apocalypse Now" is not new, but the meaning is.
Paul Krugman, writing in the New York Times, bemoans the fact that the Greeks, by joining the eurozone, gave up the freedom to solve their crisis by devaluing the currency. He seemed to suggest that all they got in return was some prestige, which wasn't worth what they gave up.
But when they gave up the right to "fix" their economy with devaluation, they gave international investors the confidence to buy their government bonds at rates comparable to what would be charged Germany. The assumption was that the return on such bonds would be safe because the government could neither devalue nor default. Greeks saved a ton on interest.
However, the Greeks lied and cheated. They never qualified for membership without cooking the books and they have run deficits that they hid.
The technique which Krugman thinks so highly of is one that screws the international investors, who eventually get back their money in Greek currency but it's worth less than when they loaned it.
I don't see the exit plan. Loaning Greece money in euros, while the economy deflates, means that later they won't be able to repay the principal. Greece has a bloated civil service with cushy retirement plans. They need a more active private sector producing goods and services to be sold to foreigners, but this isn't likely to happen during the forthcoming austerity period. Whatever happens, it's likely to be ugly.
Paul Krugman, writing in the New York Times, bemoans the fact that the Greeks, by joining the eurozone, gave up the freedom to solve their crisis by devaluing the currency. He seemed to suggest that all they got in return was some prestige, which wasn't worth what they gave up.
But when they gave up the right to "fix" their economy with devaluation, they gave international investors the confidence to buy their government bonds at rates comparable to what would be charged Germany. The assumption was that the return on such bonds would be safe because the government could neither devalue nor default. Greeks saved a ton on interest.
However, the Greeks lied and cheated. They never qualified for membership without cooking the books and they have run deficits that they hid.
The technique which Krugman thinks so highly of is one that screws the international investors, who eventually get back their money in Greek currency but it's worth less than when they loaned it.
I don't see the exit plan. Loaning Greece money in euros, while the economy deflates, means that later they won't be able to repay the principal. Greece has a bloated civil service with cushy retirement plans. They need a more active private sector producing goods and services to be sold to foreigners, but this isn't likely to happen during the forthcoming austerity period. Whatever happens, it's likely to be ugly.
Thursday, April 08, 2010
The Qatari Diplomat did not cause an incident
Despite the news reports, nothing whatsoever happened on the plane that was diverted to Denver. The diplomat may have been sneaking a smoke in the lavatory, but the "incident" evidently was when asked, he said something like, "I was trying to set my shoes on fire." So all hell breaks loose.
Somebody at TSA or Homeland Security or wherever needs to look at the record of people who are in airports or on airplanes and make jokes about bombs. To date, over say the last century, there is no instance of someone making a joke who was actually serious. In the first place, it doesn't make any sense. More importantly, it never happens.
So a rational person, hearing the Qatari diplomat make a joke, would lean back and say to himself, "Well, at least I can feel confident that this guy isn't going to set off a bomb." Instead, we scramble the air force.
Somebody at TSA or Homeland Security or wherever needs to look at the record of people who are in airports or on airplanes and make jokes about bombs. To date, over say the last century, there is no instance of someone making a joke who was actually serious. In the first place, it doesn't make any sense. More importantly, it never happens.
So a rational person, hearing the Qatari diplomat make a joke, would lean back and say to himself, "Well, at least I can feel confident that this guy isn't going to set off a bomb." Instead, we scramble the air force.
Sunday, April 04, 2010
Lessons from Lewis Carroll
"In the midst of the word he was trying to say, in the midst of his laughter and glee,
he had softly and suddenly vanished away, for the Snark was a Boojum, you see."
A word of caution is in order. Arctic ice extent is a Boojum. Many climate skeptics are entirely thrilled at the March anomaly, and it's not irrelevant. But as Serreze is being forced to acknowledge prior anomalies, we should not forget that this is one as well. Just a few months ago, Arctic ice extent was running lower than ever for the date. Now it's the highest in years, but past experience says that there will faster melting through June, when the extent seems to be roughly the same every year, and what happens afterwards isn't much affected by what happened in March.
We're seeing an increase in Bering Sea ice. Elsewhere in the Arctic, temps are above normal but not enough to melt any of the solid cover. The Bering ice will soon melt and the other Arctic ice may be setting up for a serious decline as well. Those who trumpet the "return to normalcy" may wind up like the Baker.
Although maybe not. An odd event may represent a fundamental change in pattern, or it may just be odd. A real skeptic reserves judgment, even while perhaps hoping deeply for a colder Arctic ASAP.
he had softly and suddenly vanished away, for the Snark was a Boojum, you see."
A word of caution is in order. Arctic ice extent is a Boojum. Many climate skeptics are entirely thrilled at the March anomaly, and it's not irrelevant. But as Serreze is being forced to acknowledge prior anomalies, we should not forget that this is one as well. Just a few months ago, Arctic ice extent was running lower than ever for the date. Now it's the highest in years, but past experience says that there will faster melting through June, when the extent seems to be roughly the same every year, and what happens afterwards isn't much affected by what happened in March.
We're seeing an increase in Bering Sea ice. Elsewhere in the Arctic, temps are above normal but not enough to melt any of the solid cover. The Bering ice will soon melt and the other Arctic ice may be setting up for a serious decline as well. Those who trumpet the "return to normalcy" may wind up like the Baker.
Although maybe not. An odd event may represent a fundamental change in pattern, or it may just be odd. A real skeptic reserves judgment, even while perhaps hoping deeply for a colder Arctic ASAP.
Saturday, April 03, 2010
The Real China
From the BBC, a Chinese activist who investigated whether shoddy construction contributed to deaths in the 2008 Sichuan quake has been sentenced to five years in jail. Another recent story told how Saudi Arabia is threatening to behead a man for make astrological predictions about them from his home in Lebanon.
People who think that buying from China is like buying from non-union plants in Arkansas only more so should think again. Or that running trade deficits with OPEC have no consequences.
There are a lot of foreign countries that I don't mind trading with. Pretty much all in Europe and North America, most of South America. Most of the Pacific Rim. But there are others that I detest and so should all freedom loving Americans. Starting with the Chinese and including pretty much all of OPEC.
We should pressure that Chinese to revalue their currency, and we should put enough tax on gasoline to cut demand to where our petroleum imports are mostly from Canada and Mexico. We are making tyrants rich and this folly will eventually come back to haunt us.
People who think that buying from China is like buying from non-union plants in Arkansas only more so should think again. Or that running trade deficits with OPEC have no consequences.
There are a lot of foreign countries that I don't mind trading with. Pretty much all in Europe and North America, most of South America. Most of the Pacific Rim. But there are others that I detest and so should all freedom loving Americans. Starting with the Chinese and including pretty much all of OPEC.
We should pressure that Chinese to revalue their currency, and we should put enough tax on gasoline to cut demand to where our petroleum imports are mostly from Canada and Mexico. We are making tyrants rich and this folly will eventually come back to haunt us.
Live by the anomaly, Die by the anomaly
Those who have watched Arctic sea ice extent fluctuate with an objective eye have noticed several things. Within each year, there are times when the extent seems to be the roughly the same each year. June for one, and a couple times in November and December. This means that, as one warmist blogger just pointed out, that it doesn't seem to matter a lot what the extent is in April. It will wind up the same in June and the minimum depends on the rate of loss in the following three months.
Quite true, although based on limited data, but the same could have been said when 2009 showed a brief streak last fall that was the lower than any other for the decade. Undeterred, Jeff Masters, alarmist-in-charge at wunderground.com, blogged that it was a foretaste of more record losses. It wasn't, as ice extent returned to the normal bundle soon thereafter.
It's also easy to see that the winter maximum does not correlate at all well with the summer minimum. So when people say that 2010 was "on track" to be as bad as 2007, because the winter data looked like 2007's, they are overlooking the obvious fact that earlier years were "on track" to be worse yet, but weren't. There is no winter track.
But while the correlation between winter and summer isn't robust, it's hard to believe that having more ice on April 2 than at any time in almost a decade isn't a material fact, likely to impact September's minimum. Other factors are probably more important, such as ocean currents and wind patterns, but there's a decent chance that the current anomaly will provide enough extra ice cover to put 2010 on the high side of recent years next September.
Which may be an anomaly but will be hard to explain by the warmists who were so urgent in their warnings about the other anomalies. I'd sympathize if they had been consistent, but what goes around, comes around.
Quite true, although based on limited data, but the same could have been said when 2009 showed a brief streak last fall that was the lower than any other for the decade. Undeterred, Jeff Masters, alarmist-in-charge at wunderground.com, blogged that it was a foretaste of more record losses. It wasn't, as ice extent returned to the normal bundle soon thereafter.
It's also easy to see that the winter maximum does not correlate at all well with the summer minimum. So when people say that 2010 was "on track" to be as bad as 2007, because the winter data looked like 2007's, they are overlooking the obvious fact that earlier years were "on track" to be worse yet, but weren't. There is no winter track.
But while the correlation between winter and summer isn't robust, it's hard to believe that having more ice on April 2 than at any time in almost a decade isn't a material fact, likely to impact September's minimum. Other factors are probably more important, such as ocean currents and wind patterns, but there's a decent chance that the current anomaly will provide enough extra ice cover to put 2010 on the high side of recent years next September.
Which may be an anomaly but will be hard to explain by the warmists who were so urgent in their warnings about the other anomalies. I'd sympathize if they had been consistent, but what goes around, comes around.
Thursday, April 01, 2010
When Climate is Only 20 Years
The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) publishes a graph of Arctic ice extent, updated daily. It has recently been showing a rapid rise in the extent compared with the long term average. The graph dated March 31 shows the 2010 ice extent nearly reaching the long term average.
But note what constitutes "long term" for NSIDC. 1979 through 2000. That's 22 years. The originating date is the start of satellite observations. No problem there, but the usual definition of a climate average is 30 years. NSIDC could have done that.
But they don't. If they did, they would include the years of the past decade that were below the first 20 years and that line would drop. If it were to drop, then the difference between what we now have and the average wouldn't be as scary. In fact, in 2010, it would show us to be above the 30-year average.
So why doesn't this government agency present the data in the most scientifically objective manner? If you don't know the answer, you haven't been paying attention.
But note what constitutes "long term" for NSIDC. 1979 through 2000. That's 22 years. The originating date is the start of satellite observations. No problem there, but the usual definition of a climate average is 30 years. NSIDC could have done that.
But they don't. If they did, they would include the years of the past decade that were below the first 20 years and that line would drop. If it were to drop, then the difference between what we now have and the average wouldn't be as scary. In fact, in 2010, it would show us to be above the 30-year average.
So why doesn't this government agency present the data in the most scientifically objective manner? If you don't know the answer, you haven't been paying attention.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Not unprecedented warming, even in last century
I was just looking at the Key Indicators page from NASA, which shows global temperatures over the past 130 years. The smoothed line is based on a 5-year mean, which is arbitrary so this analysis should be taken only as a first-order calculation.
But it's clear that from 1880 to around 1915, nothing much happened. Then for the next 25 years, temperatures rose rapidly, roughly .4C. After which 40 years of very little change (actually a small decline) and then 25 years of rapid increase. Looks like just about .5C during the period. Due to the 5-year mean, data since 2005 is incomplete and not shown, but eyeballing, it seems to have leveled off.
Nobody of any credibility denies that we have warmed somewhat in the past 150 years, although some reasonable people think the rise is exaggerated by changes in land use. However, even taking NASA's numbers (not suggesting that they originated them), the pattern since 1880 makes the CO2 theory a little dicey. We had decadal periods with, respectively no rise, a sharp rise, no rise, and a sharp rise. The sharp rises took place in periods when CO2 was not a significant driver and when it was. The placid periods included a pre-AGCO2 period and one during which CO2 was rising rapidly. The CO2 "signal" isn't evident.
You can always fix this with a computer model by declaring a CO2 signal, subtracting it from the recorded numbers, and identifying whatever remains as natural variation. However, the argument that the increase can only be manmade CO2 emissions because the pattern is unprecedented doesn't stand up.
But it's clear that from 1880 to around 1915, nothing much happened. Then for the next 25 years, temperatures rose rapidly, roughly .4C. After which 40 years of very little change (actually a small decline) and then 25 years of rapid increase. Looks like just about .5C during the period. Due to the 5-year mean, data since 2005 is incomplete and not shown, but eyeballing, it seems to have leveled off.
Nobody of any credibility denies that we have warmed somewhat in the past 150 years, although some reasonable people think the rise is exaggerated by changes in land use. However, even taking NASA's numbers (not suggesting that they originated them), the pattern since 1880 makes the CO2 theory a little dicey. We had decadal periods with, respectively no rise, a sharp rise, no rise, and a sharp rise. The sharp rises took place in periods when CO2 was not a significant driver and when it was. The placid periods included a pre-AGCO2 period and one during which CO2 was rising rapidly. The CO2 "signal" isn't evident.
You can always fix this with a computer model by declaring a CO2 signal, subtracting it from the recorded numbers, and identifying whatever remains as natural variation. However, the argument that the increase can only be manmade CO2 emissions because the pattern is unprecedented doesn't stand up.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Thomas Friedman is Naive
In a recent conversation with Christiane Amanpour, Thomas Friedman of the New York Times commented about how we should take strong action against a 1% chance of catastrophy. Also today, I've read that medical researchers doubt that all old men should take daily aspirin, because there may be no clear margin of benefit.
That's another story, but consider the difference in views. Friedman is prepared to spend wildly on the off chance that it will be needed. He sees no downside, just the positives of a cleaner environment and new technologies.
There are huge downsides. One is that government-sponsored research will be ineffective and will be distributed politically. The view that there is unlimited money available for research so whatever increment we achieve is a positive, is simply naive.
The other risk is that governments will gain extra power combating global warming and, coming to enjoy it, will decide not to relinquish it. We have avoided the world that George Orwell foresaw in 1984, because one of the superpowers resisted the encroachment of government.
In the new world order, people like Joe Romm will enjoy added influence. If you asked me whether that frightens me more than an extra couple degrees of heat, I wouldn't hesitate for a minute.
That's another story, but consider the difference in views. Friedman is prepared to spend wildly on the off chance that it will be needed. He sees no downside, just the positives of a cleaner environment and new technologies.
There are huge downsides. One is that government-sponsored research will be ineffective and will be distributed politically. The view that there is unlimited money available for research so whatever increment we achieve is a positive, is simply naive.
The other risk is that governments will gain extra power combating global warming and, coming to enjoy it, will decide not to relinquish it. We have avoided the world that George Orwell foresaw in 1984, because one of the superpowers resisted the encroachment of government.
In the new world order, people like Joe Romm will enjoy added influence. If you asked me whether that frightens me more than an extra couple degrees of heat, I wouldn't hesitate for a minute.
An interesting concept of "independence"
I usually excerpt that reference other articles, but today's story about the new independent review of IPCC should be examined end to end:
NUSA DUA, Indonesia (Reuters) — An independent board of scientists will be appointed to review the workings of the world’s top climate science panel, which has faced recriminations over inaccuracies in a 2007 report, a United Nations environmental spokesman said Friday.
We were also told that the IPCC would use purely reviewed science. They haven't and rather than explain why this is not important, they are explaining why it is convenient. Because evidently it allows them to discuss things that aren't fully understood. Since this is indeed a document relied upon by international policy makers, why this is an advantage is not clear.
We are all getting tired of counting large numbers, which are supposed to prove reliability. This is a government report. Does anyone truly believe that there would be any problem finding 10,000 papers funded by governments which would support the government view, particularly since future funding depends on doing so?
Meanwhile Reuters, maintaining its legendary objectivity, divides the believers and unbelievers into two camps, described as "mainstream scientists and the United Nations," on the one hand, and "some quarters," in opposition.
Based on this, it's reasonable to suppose that the composition of the "independent" review panel will be chosen by the same people who chose the IPCC. Perhaps not the IPCC exactly, but people with a vested interest in confirming it. It's like the defense being able to choose the jury without consulting the prosecution. I'm nearly certain that Steve McIntyre will not be asked to participate, or even consulted on who should.
Another whitewash is underway. Penn State has delivered one for Professor Mann. The "respectable" scientists will do one for IPCC. But in the end, the problems remain. Temperatures are not rising. A lot of snow is in fact falling. Arctic ice is not changing much. CO2 and global sea levels are trending below the straight line, rather than rising above as we've been warned to expect. Hurricane seasons have been unimpressive.
Sooner or later, the warmists are going to have to deliver something more attention grabbing than CO2 concentrations, or Copenhagen is going to mark the high water mark of their influence, rather than just another step towards the goal.
NUSA DUA, Indonesia (Reuters) — An independent board of scientists will be appointed to review the workings of the world’s top climate science panel, which has faced recriminations over inaccuracies in a 2007 report, a United Nations environmental spokesman said Friday.
The board’s work will be part of a broader review of the body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said Nick Nuttall, a spokesman for the United Nations Environment Program, who spoke on the sidelines of an international meeting of environment ministers here.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been under fire since it was pointed out that the 2007 report included a prediction that Himalayan glaciers would vanish by 2035, although there is no scientific consensus to that effect.
That brief citation — drawn from a magazine interview with a glaciologist who says he was misquoted — and sporadic criticism of the panel’s leader have fueled skepticism in some quarters about the science underlying climate change. The climate panel’s assessments are a crucial source of guidance for policy makers addressing global warming.
But mainstream scientists and the United Nations have said repeatedly that the evidence that human activity is a major factor in global warming remains unshaken.
Mr. Nuttall said the review body would be made up of “senior scientific figures” who could perhaps produce a report by late summer for consideration at a meeting of the climate panel in October in South Korea.
He said that several countries had made clear at the meeting here in Bali that they would prefer that the review panel be appointed by an independent group of scientists rather than the climate panel. He said that plans for assembling the panel would be announced next week.
“I think we are bringing some level of closure to this issue,” Mr. Nuttall said.
One area to be examined is whether the panel should incorporate so-called gray literature, a term to describe nonpeer-reviewed science, in its reports.
Many scientists say that such material, ranging from reports by government agencies to respected research not published in scientific journals, is crucial to seeking a complete picture of the state of climate science.
Achim Steiner, executive director of the United Nations Environment Program, told reporters here this week that he did not support a ban on the use of gray literature and that the news media had overblown the climate panel’s missteps.
The 2007 report on climate change cites more than 10,000 scientific papers and is more than 3,000 pages long.
So much to discuss. First, the IPCC report has been under fire for much longer than the Himalaya fiasco, and its problem is not a lack of consensus to support it. There isn't an iota of evidence to support it and there isn't a credible individual who supports it.We were also told that the IPCC would use purely reviewed science. They haven't and rather than explain why this is not important, they are explaining why it is convenient. Because evidently it allows them to discuss things that aren't fully understood. Since this is indeed a document relied upon by international policy makers, why this is an advantage is not clear.
We are all getting tired of counting large numbers, which are supposed to prove reliability. This is a government report. Does anyone truly believe that there would be any problem finding 10,000 papers funded by governments which would support the government view, particularly since future funding depends on doing so?
Meanwhile Reuters, maintaining its legendary objectivity, divides the believers and unbelievers into two camps, described as "mainstream scientists and the United Nations," on the one hand, and "some quarters," in opposition.
Based on this, it's reasonable to suppose that the composition of the "independent" review panel will be chosen by the same people who chose the IPCC. Perhaps not the IPCC exactly, but people with a vested interest in confirming it. It's like the defense being able to choose the jury without consulting the prosecution. I'm nearly certain that Steve McIntyre will not be asked to participate, or even consulted on who should.
Another whitewash is underway. Penn State has delivered one for Professor Mann. The "respectable" scientists will do one for IPCC. But in the end, the problems remain. Temperatures are not rising. A lot of snow is in fact falling. Arctic ice is not changing much. CO2 and global sea levels are trending below the straight line, rather than rising above as we've been warned to expect. Hurricane seasons have been unimpressive.
Sooner or later, the warmists are going to have to deliver something more attention grabbing than CO2 concentrations, or Copenhagen is going to mark the high water mark of their influence, rather than just another step towards the goal.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Warming is causing snow
OK, I'll buy the argument that heavy snow in Philly is the result of cold-enough temperatures and unusually moisture-laden air. But now we're getting in in the Deep South. They don't normally get snow now due to lack of moisture but lack of cold. This simply suggests we're having a severe February, that can't be explained by any flavor of global warming.
Those of us in the skeptic, not denier, camp don't object to the consistent use of science in support of public policy positions, but we get a little tired when heat waves in Europe, Katrina, and so forth are quickly attributed to AGW, but snow in Atlanta and record snow in Britain just mark a blip or even another consequence of AGW that nobody had thought to mention before. At least before 1998. With the failure of consistent warming to appear, there have been some "everything is due to AGW" warnings, but increasingly frequent blizzards haven't been mentioned that I recall.
A little consistency would be nice.
Those of us in the skeptic, not denier, camp don't object to the consistent use of science in support of public policy positions, but we get a little tired when heat waves in Europe, Katrina, and so forth are quickly attributed to AGW, but snow in Atlanta and record snow in Britain just mark a blip or even another consequence of AGW that nobody had thought to mention before. At least before 1998. With the failure of consistent warming to appear, there have been some "everything is due to AGW" warnings, but increasingly frequent blizzards haven't been mentioned that I recall.
A little consistency would be nice.
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
Our linguiistic losses
Old people like me can only shake our heads at learning that Sarah Palin is criticizing Rahm Emanuel for calling people he disagreed with f*cking retarded in a conversation not intended for general public consumption. Not for "f*cking", which would have got you sent to detention when I was in school, but "retarded."
"Retarded" is a euphemism. It means "stupid," and was devised by well meaning people who didn't want to call stupid people "stupid." Unfortunately, as with so many euphemisms, after time it becomes associated with reality and people start to use it as such. Then we decide we won't call stupid people "retarded" either.
Now we have moved to "challenged," which has already moved to the joke level and will sooner or later become an insult. There is a silver lining to this. Eventually, the original words become so dissociated with reality that nobody remembers and they can be used freely. For instance, nobody complains if you call an idea "lame" or a person an "emotional cripple," although both words succumbed to euphemisms generations ago.
Maybe like Gaia, the English language has built-in response mechanisms to attacks on its integrity.
"Retarded" is a euphemism. It means "stupid," and was devised by well meaning people who didn't want to call stupid people "stupid." Unfortunately, as with so many euphemisms, after time it becomes associated with reality and people start to use it as such. Then we decide we won't call stupid people "retarded" either.
Now we have moved to "challenged," which has already moved to the joke level and will sooner or later become an insult. There is a silver lining to this. Eventually, the original words become so dissociated with reality that nobody remembers and they can be used freely. For instance, nobody complains if you call an idea "lame" or a person an "emotional cripple," although both words succumbed to euphemisms generations ago.
Maybe like Gaia, the English language has built-in response mechanisms to attacks on its integrity.
Arctic Ice and Solar Cycle
The gurus of solar cycles were wrong about the timing of Cycle 24, but the sun seems to be kicking up and we're clearly on the rise. Whether we reach the oft-revised target date and intensity, I wouldn't hazard a guess. My interest was always a bit quirky, based mostly on my irritation that people were positively denying possibilities that were real, but I had no real idea why sunspots might affect climate. The Arizona guys were saying that it's the next cycle that will go really quiet, not this one, so we're a few years away from seeing if they're right.
Meantime, the Danish measurements of far North temperatures show somewhat colder weather this January than in the recent past, but the Japanese data on ice extent shows no clear pattern. The multi-year graph still looks like spaghetti. I'm guessing that September will be much like last September, which will disappoint Al Gore.
Also Time Magazine which has run an alarmist story about how ice in the Beaufort Sea seems thin. It's pretty close to a "duh" moment. The researcher discovered this in October. In mid October, the ice extent had grown by about 50% from the September low. On the edge, naturally, so if you take an ice breaker into the ice, you will first encounter thin new ice. This is surprising? That observation is accompanied by additional, unscientific observations of an ad hoc nature.
The author writes for a warmist Web site. I think when someone whose career depends on the success of AGW writes about global warming, there should be some sort of warning label.
Meantime, the Danish measurements of far North temperatures show somewhat colder weather this January than in the recent past, but the Japanese data on ice extent shows no clear pattern. The multi-year graph still looks like spaghetti. I'm guessing that September will be much like last September, which will disappoint Al Gore.
Also Time Magazine which has run an alarmist story about how ice in the Beaufort Sea seems thin. It's pretty close to a "duh" moment. The researcher discovered this in October. In mid October, the ice extent had grown by about 50% from the September low. On the edge, naturally, so if you take an ice breaker into the ice, you will first encounter thin new ice. This is surprising? That observation is accompanied by additional, unscientific observations of an ad hoc nature.
The author writes for a warmist Web site. I think when someone whose career depends on the success of AGW writes about global warming, there should be some sort of warning label.
When will China begin seriously running US Foreign policy?
It's only a matter of time. They are unhappy that we want to sell arms to Taiwan. How do they expect us to earn the money to buy their poisonous widgets? Now they are disturbed that Obama might meet the Dalai Lama and are expressing their concerns with veiled threats.
When you sell your soul, you eventually have to pay the devil his due. We are addicted to improbable stories of easy benefits. We believe people who say they are honestly generating impossible financial returns and are then shocked when they turn out to be running Ponzi schemes. And we are now believing that the Chinese are beneficently letting us enjoy the fruits of their manufacturing labor with no expectation of eventual payment.
They will want payment. The veil is rising. They are tired of the United States exercising an independent foreign policy that may conflict with theirs, and it won't be long before the President realizes that he can't meet the Dalai Lama if our primary banker says we can't.
When you sell your soul, you eventually have to pay the devil his due. We are addicted to improbable stories of easy benefits. We believe people who say they are honestly generating impossible financial returns and are then shocked when they turn out to be running Ponzi schemes. And we are now believing that the Chinese are beneficently letting us enjoy the fruits of their manufacturing labor with no expectation of eventual payment.
They will want payment. The veil is rising. They are tired of the United States exercising an independent foreign policy that may conflict with theirs, and it won't be long before the President realizes that he can't meet the Dalai Lama if our primary banker says we can't.
Abstinence only works with the right question
The new "abstinence only" sex education report is supposed to be surprising. Leaving aside the small sample size, only about 600 divided into four groups, there is the oddity about condom use. Teaching about the advantages of condom use and disadvantages of unprotected sex should have had an impact. According to the report, it didn't. That fact raises a red flag.
However, a larger question is the methodology. How do we know they're not having sex? They say they aren't. Since no data is given on the results from students not involved in the study, the presumption is that only students in the study were asked, so they presumably knew they were being asked by the same people who had been instructing them.
So picture the situation. Child A has been getting instruction in safe sex. He is asked whether he's been having sex. He says yes. Child B has been getting instruction to the effect that sex is intrinstically unsafe. He is asked whether he has disregarded the instruction. He says no. Is this scientific?
Fewer than 100 girls took part in each group. I will be more impressed if, at the end of the ninth grade, it were to be calculated how many in each group got pregnant. Having sex is not a public health issue. Getting pregnant or spreading STDs is, and since the practice that brings them about is the same, the quickest test for that is objectively observing pregnancy rates. The jury is still out.
However, a larger question is the methodology. How do we know they're not having sex? They say they aren't. Since no data is given on the results from students not involved in the study, the presumption is that only students in the study were asked, so they presumably knew they were being asked by the same people who had been instructing them.
So picture the situation. Child A has been getting instruction in safe sex. He is asked whether he's been having sex. He says yes. Child B has been getting instruction to the effect that sex is intrinstically unsafe. He is asked whether he has disregarded the instruction. He says no. Is this scientific?
Fewer than 100 girls took part in each group. I will be more impressed if, at the end of the ninth grade, it were to be calculated how many in each group got pregnant. Having sex is not a public health issue. Getting pregnant or spreading STDs is, and since the practice that brings them about is the same, the quickest test for that is objectively observing pregnancy rates. The jury is still out.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
How long in Afghanistan?
Evidently, Karzai thinks another 15 years to do it right. And we ask ourselves, why Afghanistan? Why are we building their economy and military and government for them? Why not Turkemenistan, or Uzbekistan? Or a reasonable democracy like India?
Because they harbored the mastermind of the greatest recent attack on the United States. For this, we will spend a trillion dollars helping them.
I have a better idea. We agree to buy their opium at reasonable wholesale rates, resell it to druggies in this country and use the profits to provide free drug treatment to anyone who asks for it. Heroin addicts either get cured or die, and either way they stop costing money. And Afghanistan can't say it has no economy to support itself.
And we tell Afghanistan that we are not interested in their internal affairs, which they can regulate as they see fit. But if they allow terrorist plots to be hatched within their country, we will show up without warning at some Annual Taliban Convention and turn it into a smouldering heap of mud and brick. Provided they behave themselves, they can oppress their women and behave backwardly and we don't care enough to interfere.
We have more important things to do with a trillion dollars than drag Afghanistan kicking and screaming into the 17th century.
Because they harbored the mastermind of the greatest recent attack on the United States. For this, we will spend a trillion dollars helping them.
I have a better idea. We agree to buy their opium at reasonable wholesale rates, resell it to druggies in this country and use the profits to provide free drug treatment to anyone who asks for it. Heroin addicts either get cured or die, and either way they stop costing money. And Afghanistan can't say it has no economy to support itself.
And we tell Afghanistan that we are not interested in their internal affairs, which they can regulate as they see fit. But if they allow terrorist plots to be hatched within their country, we will show up without warning at some Annual Taliban Convention and turn it into a smouldering heap of mud and brick. Provided they behave themselves, they can oppress their women and behave backwardly and we don't care enough to interfere.
We have more important things to do with a trillion dollars than drag Afghanistan kicking and screaming into the 17th century.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)