An interesting interview of one of the most fascinating men of the 20th century. I saw him at ISDC, and he is holding up well mentally, though he’s been physically frail for decades.
Judith Curry lays out her luke-warmist case.
The (rare) voices of reason:
10. Can we put the polarization genie back in the bottle, on climate or anything else? I really don’t know. But I do wonder how those advocating further radicalization of climate advocacy imagine any of this ends.
11. Making ever more radical demands might be a fine strategy were there someone to negotiate with. But by the reckoning of most prominent climate hawks, there isn’t.
12. Nor does it appear that a more inclusive climate coalition is likely to bring larger congressional majorities. Any Democrat-only climate strategy has to be predicated on not only winning but holding purple/red districts over multiple elections.
13. These are precisely the districts that radicalized climate rhetoric alienates culturally and the green policy agenda punishes economically. Since the failure of cap and trade in 2010, climate activists have taken rhetoric to 11, and what it got them was Trump.
And it will continue to.
Yes, all of these are a sign that the belief is religious, not scientific or rational.
Why they are useless BS, that can’t provide a guide to policy. Remember how the “tax cuts” were going to increase the deficit?
All told the government collected $515 billion and spent $297 billion, for a total monthly surplus of $218 billion. That swamped the previous monthly record of $190 billion, set in 2001.
CBO analysts were surprised by the surplus, which was some $40 billion more than they’d guessed at less than a month ago.
Analysts said they’ll have a better idea of what’s behind the surge as more information rolls in, but for now said it looks like individual taxpayers are paying more because they have higher incomes.
You don’t say.
Probably not news to my readers, but here’s a Reason interview with Nina Teicholz on how government recommendations have made America fat.
“A 2011 analysis of 52 claims made by nutritional epidemiology tested in 12 well controlled trials found that not one of the 52 claims—0%–could be confirmed.”
Another sterling example of “science.”
[Update a while later]
Broken link fixed, sorry.
Is it mathematically impossible?
I haven’t read the article in detail, but I doubt it. I suspect they’re going after a straw man.
All of a sudden, they’re no longer rare.
Isn’t technology great?
And who does it hit hardest? China. Boo fricken’ hoo.
We must restore it.
It’s nuts to think there was some benign past in which the climate was ideal. The only benign climate is one that we’re wealthy enough to deal with.