Confession Of A “Climate-Change Denier”

Yes:

There are two things necessary for a mass movement to succeed: true believers and a well-defined enemy. The enemy of the climate change mass movement is fossil fuels and the Industrial Age, with the “deniers” being the enablers of planetary destruction.

In the past, the term “denier” has been associated with that extreme group who denies the existence of the horrible, tragic historical fact, the Holocaust. Many climate change true believers want the public to put anyone who questions or disagrees with climate change projections in the same category as the Holocaust deniers. But one is a fact, the other a contested projection. Nevertheless, they have been quite successful.

Here is one of the definitions of “denier” found on the Internet: “a person who denies something, especially someone who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of the scientific or historical evidence: a prominent denier of global warming.”

Here is Hoffer’s warning on the role of the true believer: “where mass movements can either persuade or coerce, it usually chooses the latter.”

Something we are seeing in spades.

It’s demagoguery. And it trivializes the Holocaust itself, in the service of a(nother) collectivist political agenda.

A New Cholesterol Drug

I’m suspicious of these results. And like most such studies, they’re not properly controlled, and we don’t know if we’re treating a symptom. It may be that the drug does reduce risk, but that the LDL reduction is a side effect, not the reason that the risk is reduced. And notice that there is no mention whatsoever of diet. My LDL is very low since I cut back on carbs.

The Laffer Curve

Yes, there’s more to tax revenue than rates. I think that from an economic growth (and revenue) standpoint, a reduction in regulations would be more effective. I don’t think that most people understand the regulatory cost to the economy. It’s probably trillions.

[Update a while later]

This, on the continuing and growing ignorance of the media, seems related:

The article explained that unlike Egypt or Pakistan, America doesn’t really have a powerful deep state, and to claim that it does “presents apolitical civil servants as partisan agents.”

Give me a break. “Apolitical civil servants”?

A deep state absolutely exists. Some call it “administrative state” or “regulatory state.” These are the people who crush innovation and freedom by issuing hundreds of new rules. Regulators, if they don’t pass new rules, think they’re not doing their jobs.

Even “anti-regulator” President George W. Bush hired 90,000 new regulators. Calling them “nonpartisan” doesn’t make them harmless—it just means we put up with them through multiple administrations.

Even if you exclude the military and post office, more than 20 million Americans work for the government. Because of civil service rules, it’s almost impossible to fire them.

The Times calls these 20 million people “apolitical”. Please. Most are just as partisan as you or I. Maybe more so, as leaks and signs of bureaucratic resistance to presidential edicts demonstrate.

The notion that George W. Bush was an anti-regulator is ludicrous.

Sorry, Saudis

You have lost control of the oil market, probably permanently. Boo hoo.

[Monday-morning update]

OPEC’s cuts are treading water. “The simplified version is that U.S. oil production is reaching a point where OPEC can choose to sell 100 barrels at $50, or 125 barrels at $40. They can choose between higher profit margins or larger market share, but the days of having both are over for now.”

Trump’s NASA Proposal

Loren Grush has the details.

This is just a proposal; as she notes, Culberson is likely to restore the Europa lander. And in general, the White House proposes, and Congress disposes. What really matters is what gets appropriated.

Shared Risk

No, that’s not how insurance works. The word “insurance” has lost all meaning in the context of the health-care debate.

But this raises another issue. I’ve been seeing stories that insurance companies are factoring “climate change” into their premiums. These people have real skin in the climate game, and I’m wondering if they’re taking the “climate scientists” too seriously, and creating a market opportunity for an insurer who doesn’t buy the nonsense?

Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!