What almost everyone one gets wrong about California’s water “problem.” But as is almost always the case, it also completely misses the point that there is no market for water here; it is allocated almost completely by politics.
[Update late morning]
Fight the drought: End recycling?
California is in a huge mess of its own making.
A conversation with Tyler Cowen, on the future of innovation, life extension and God.
Ron Bailey wonders what it would take to convince you that AGW was occurring.
Roy Spencer responds.
I agree that Ron is a smart guy, but I do think there’s some of this going on:
I hate to impute motives, but I really have to wonder if he is succumbing to peer pressure, since believing anything that smacks of denial-ism is really frowned upon in the intellectual circles I’m sure Ron is part of.
I think it’s compounded by the fact that it’s hard enough to change your mind once. It would be kind of embarrassing to revert back to skepticism. The key point, of course, is that Ron doesn’t necessarily believe that the problem demands any particular policy solution.
Rob Hoyt has a revolutionary idea. If power satellites ever happen, this would be the likely construction technique.
The libertarian position.
I’m amused/appalled at the people who cannot make a distinction of what is immoral/wrong and what should be illegal. Particularly when it comes from the same people who whine about how they oppose “legislating morality.” They’re not opposed to it at all, they just want to legislate their morality.
A nice video, from Frank Zegler at ULA.
[Update a few minutes later]
Why SLS is insane.
Judith Curry wonders if it is a “ruin” problem.
I continue to think it cries out for a serious regret analysis.
Looks like SCOTUS may have just struck down most state regulatory boards. Good for them.
Here’s the original piece, on why the propaganda effort is (fortunately) failing.
Two years later, it continues to not stand up to even the mildest scrutiny:
Consensus has no place in science. Academics agree on lots of things, but that does not make them true. Even so, agreement that climate change is real and human-caused does not tell us anything about how the risks of climate change weigh against the risks of climate policy. But in our age of pseudo-Enlightenment, having 97% of researchers on your side is a powerful rhetoric for marginalizing political opponents. All politics ends in failure, however. Chances are the opposition will gain power well before the climate problem is solved. Polarization works in the short run, but is counterproductive in the long run.
In their paper, Cook and colleagues argue that 97% of the relevant academic literature endorses that humans have contributed to observed climate change. This is unremarkable. It follows immediately from the 19th century research by Fourier, Tyndall and Arrhenius. In popular discourse, however, Cook’s finding is often misrepresented. The 97% refers to the number of papers, rather than the number of scientists. The alleged consensus is about any human role in climate change, rather than a dominant role, and it is about climate change rather than the dangers it might pose.
But other than that, it’s a compelling argument.
Yet the warm mongers continue to repeat it, because it fits the narrative.
[Update a while later]
Thoughts from Judith Curry on climate change, Ted Cruz, and “the Stupid Party.”
I agree with her that Cruz’s statements were actually quite reasonable.
[Update a while later]
Don’t ask how bad a paper has to be to get it retracted, ask how bad it can be and still be published.
Use of the “97%” number, at this point, is a sign of someone who is either a liar, or profoundly ignorant about the issues. In either case, such people should not be taken seriously.