Great Guys Weblog

On June 2nd, Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT, made a presentation at a conference showing empirically that the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is 0.5 degrees Celsius. Since the climate models show a sensitivity that is 3 to 10 times larger, if Lindzen's findings are accurate, this would simultaneously invalidate the results of the climate models and eliminate the possibility of catastrophic man-made global warming. Indeed, at the end of his presentation, Lindzen states:

However, for the low sensitivity obtained from the actual climate system, we see that sensitivity is narrowly constrained to about 0.5C, and strongly implies that there is little to be concerned about.

In a normal field, these results would pretty much wrap things up, but global warming/climate change has developed so much momentum that it has a life of its own – quite removed from science. One can reasonably expect that opportunism of the weak will lead to efforts to alter the data (though the results presented here have survived several alterations of the data already).

It seems to me like this should be fairly big news. Lindzen is well known, with a long track record, from a relatively prestigious institution, with astounding results.

But there is remarkably little buzz. There's no mention that he's going to submit these results in a paper for peer review. The global warming skeptics don't seem to have much noticed these appealing results. The global warming believers haven't bothered to refute it.

The quiet seems strange to me. The debate has never lacked volume before.

Labels: environment

We're back safe and sound from London and France with no significant glitches in the entire trip.

The jetlag due to the 9 hour time difference is really bad though. It was bad going the other way too. I'm gettin' too old for that kind of travel.

I'm so jetlagged that I accidently clicked the 'Publish' button instead of the 'Save Draft' button on some notes I was making for a future post. So if your feed aggregator shows you a post titled 'I Shrugged', ignore it, it wasn't meant to be seen and I've since deleted it.

Oops.

Labels: administrivia

Much of the public discussion does not even grapple with determining the most important criteria in determining policy changes. That can be the subject of another post. George Newman goes bowling, lining up several nonsensical shibboleths and knocking them down:(here)

The health-care debate continues. We have now heard from nearly all the politicians, experts and interested parties: doctors, drug makers, hospitals, insurance companies, even constitutional lawyers (though not, significantly, from trial lawyers, who know full well "change" is not coming to their practices). Here is how one humble economist sees some of the main arguments, which I have paraphrased below:

- "The American people overwhelmingly favor reform."

If you ask whether people would be happier if somebody else paid their medical bills, they generally say yes. But surveys on consumers' satisfaction with their quality of care show overwhelming support for the continuation of the present arrangement. The best proof of this is the belated recognition by the proponents of health-care reform that they need to promise people that they can keep what they have now.

- "Forty-five million people in the U.S. are uninsured."

Even if this were true (many dispute it) should we risk destroying a system that works for the vast majority to help 15% of our population?

- "The cost of treating the 45 million uninsured is shifted to the rest of us."

So on Monday, Wednesday and Friday we are harangued about the 45 million people lacking medical care, and on Tuesday and Thursday we are told we already pay for that care. Left-wing reformers think that if they split the two arguments we are too stupid to notice the contradiction. Furthermore, if cost shifting is bad, wait for the Mother of all Cost Shifting when suppliers have to overcharge the private plans to compensate for the depressed prices forced on them by the public plan.

- "A universal plan will reduce the cost of health care."

Think a moment. Suppose you are in an apple market with 100 buyers and 100 sellers every day and apples sell for $1 a pound. Suddenly one day 120 buyers show up. Will the price of the apples go up or down?

- "We need a public plan to keep the private plans honest."

The 1,500 or so private plans don't produce enough competition? Making it 1,501 will do the trick? But then why stop there? Eating is even more important than health care, so shouldn't we have government-run supermarkets "to keep the private ones honest"? After all, supermarkets clearly put profits ahead of feeding people. And we can't run around naked, so we should have government-run clothing stores to keep the private ones honest. And shelter is just as important, so we should start public housing to keep private builders honest. Oops, we already have that. And that is exactly the point. Think of everything you know about public housing, the image the term conjures up in your mind. If you like public housing you will love public health care.

There are many more gems in the article!!

Labels: health, policy

The late Peter Bernstein had much to offer...

Jason Zweig had this to say (excerpts):

Investing has yielded a few stars so famous they are known by first name. Warren Buffett is one. Peter L. Bernstein -- the economist, investment consultant and prolific author who died on June 5 at 90 -- was another.

In his almost 70-year career, he taught economics at Williams College, worked as a portfolio manager at Amalgamated Bank and ran the investment-counseling firm of Bernstein-Macaulay, co-founded by his father and Frederick Macaulay, who invented the modern discipline of bond investing.

In 1974, as Wall Street was suffering its worst market decline since 1929, Mr. Bernstein co-founded the Journal of Portfolio Management to improve risk management with insights from academic research.

In 1970, he asked rhetorically, "What are the consequences if I am wrong?" and said "no investment decisions can be rationally arrived at unless they are [based upon] the answer to this question." He counseled investors to take big risks with small amounts of money rather than small risks with big amounts of money.

The same focus on the consequences of error was one of the main themes of "Against the Gods," which he published more than a quarter-century later.

Also in 1970, Mr. Bernstein wrote: "We simply do not know what the future holds." Over the ensuing decades, he returned again and again to that phrase in his speeches, articles and books, because he felt it captured the central truth about investing.

Asked in 2004 to name the most important lesson he had to unlearn, he said: "That I knew what the future held, that you can figure this thing out. I've become increasingly humble about it over time and comfortable with that. You have to understand that being wrong is part of the [investing] process."

I've read many books and articles over the years written by Mr. Bernstein and always felt fortunate that he shared his thoughts and insights. The willingness to accept uncertainty in the realm of investing (and life in general) is a valuable lesson.

( re: uncertainty see also here here here and here)

There were many who did not ask the question: what if I am wrong?

I can not predict, but I can observe. The trick is learning what observations are worth making and then using that information to construct workable contingencies.

Labels: finance

Off to London, Paris, and Southern France for three weeks to give the kids a chance to see a bit of the world.

No blogging for me during that period, but maybe my coblogger will step up to the plate.

Labels: vacation

I'm sorry, but the entire punditocracy has missed the point.

It is NOT news that someone in show business makes an intensely rude, crude, lewd, insulting, disgusting and/or despicable comment regarding an entirely inappropriate subject. Indeed, if we demanded an apology every time that happened, we'd never get anything else done.

The point is that Letterman's comment is a shot across the bow. He is saying, "Governor Palin, if you so much as poke your nose outside the great State of Alaska, we will insult and smear and humiliate and hound you and your family and your community and anybody who thinks or even looks like you until you feel so degraded and miserable that you run back home with your tail between your legs and never, ever come back. We hate you, we fear you, we loathe you, and we will stop at nothing to destroy you."

That's the news.

Labels: Humor, Influence, Media, politics, Religion

Everyone is a Skeptic when it comes to religion. There are so many religions that it is impossible to be a believer in all of them so we are Skeptical about at least some of them. For the most part, we keep our Skepticism to ourselves because there is limited downside to letting others believe in whatever they choose to believe in as long as their attempts to convert the rest of us to their beliefs are kept within reasonable bounds.

However, if a religion exceeds those bounds, Skeptics will come out of the woodwork to attack that religion. Nobody wants to belong to a church that they believe is False. The propensity to not belong to someone else's church is so strong that wars have been fought over this sort of thing.

The Church of Human Induced Catastrophic Global Warmenism has exceeded reasonable bounds in trying to convert us all. This Church wants to use the full force and authority of the governments worldwide to force us to join. They want to limit our economic and political freedoms to force us to at least behave as if we believe.

To a great number of people, this is simply not acceptable and, sure enough, there is surge of Skeptics appearing all over the world.

I am one of those Skeptics. The science and economics on which the Church rests is full of holes, and unless that religion is one you wish to subscribe to, it may be safely ignored. If you do wish to subscribe to Global Warmenism, by all means please do so and limit your own energy usage and material consumption as you see fit.

Just don't impose your religion on the rest of us. Thanks.

Labels: environment, Religion

Though not personally religious, I've argued numerous times that Christianity post-reformation is a peaceful and constructive religion.

Murders like this one undermine my argument.

Labels: politics, Religion

I like living in California and I hope to continue to be able to live in California. However, if taxes are raised enough, I will feel compelled to leave for a lower tax jurisdiction in order to better provide for my family.

California is having some serious problems governing itself. As Megan McArdle wrote:

California is completely, totally, irreparably hosed. ... You can blame Republicans who won't pass a budget, or Democrats who spend every single cent of tax money .... You can blame the initiative process, and the uneducated voters who try to vote themselves rich by picking their own pockets. Whoever is to blame, the state was bound to go broke one day, and hey, today's that day!

We had a bunch of ballot initiatives to vote on yesterday, and while I got held up and didn't make it to the polls before they closed, I would've voted with the "uneducated" majority against tax increases had I been more timely. To vote for tax increases would mean that I'd be more likely to have to move so it would seem rather pointless to me.

I feel that the voters should set the budget and then the governator and legislature should figure out how to operate within that budget. They should choose which jobs and services to cut and they should get started now. Far fewer teachers, police, firemen, bureaucrats, etc. That I'm willing to live without.

Labels: california, Taxes

Here's a puzzle.

Suppose I made you an offer. I have two check made out to you. One check is hidden in my left hand and one check is hidden in my right hand. One of the checks is for an arbitrary, positive, non-zero amount and the other check is for an amount either ten times larger than the other check or one-tenth the amount of the other check. The amounts have arbitrary precision (i.e., the amounts can contain fractions of a penny). It is random which hand contains the larger check.

Here's the deal.

You can pick the check in either hand. After you look at the check in the hand you picked (but you're not allowed to see the other check), you have to decide which check you want: the check that you've seen in the hand you've picked or the other check that you haven't seen. The game is then over and you walk away with your check.

Here's the puzzle.

Common sense would tell you that since the contents of my hands are random and unknown, it shouldn't matter what you do. Pick the check in either hand and be done with it, or pick either hand and then choose the check in the second hand - shouldn't matter.

Common sense would be wrong.

Let's say you've chosen a hand and find that the check is for $10. The other check is therefore either $100 or $1. The expected value is ($100 + $1) / 2 = $50.50 which is substantially better than the $10 you hold. So you should always go for the second hand after looking at the check in the first.

Which, of course, makes no sense since it's random.

What's the explanation?

The answer to this question is also the key to the secrets of the universe.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. " Lord Acton

Being too big to fail, if true, couples a concentration of power (bigness) with a corruption of the free market ideal. The same concentration of power seems to inherently lead to other corruption as well. Mancur Olson's research and thought regarding the nature of special interests groups makes it seem inevitable to me that mega-corporations, especially in slow changing industries, will (continue to) form symbiotic relationships with the State that further strengthens both the mega-corporation and the State, to the detriment of the rest of the citizenry. We're seeing exactly that with GM, Chrysler, Steel protectionism, banks, etc., etc., etc.

So, given this seemingly inevitable sequence away from an ideal free market economy and towards Corporatism, exacerbated by the existence of huge business, is there anything that can be done to slow it down?

I think that reducing the number and size of large corporations would be helpful. However, giving the Federal government the directive to do such a thing by fiat would be a cure far worse than the disease. The method of reducing the number of large corporations, in order to avoid even more corruption and waste, would have to be formulaic and not subject to the whims of the President, Congress or regulatory agency bureaucrats.

The devil's in the details, but I'm imagining there might be a way to tax bigness such that the shareholders of large corporations would split the corporations into smaller entities, unless the bigness really was so advantageous, because of some manufacturing efficiencies or something like that, as to outweigh the increased tax burden.

What do you think?

Labels: economics, Extended Order, policy, politics, Taxes

I've been pretty disappointed with Cafe Hayek because the bloggers and commenters there purposely ignore both the real world considerations of government and the fact that the vast majority of the people in the United States are not even vaguely interested in Libertarian ideals. Part of my disappointment is that, for at least a while, I fancied myself as "Libertarian leaning", but they've convinced me (and not politely either) that I'm nothing of the sort.

Conveniently, the following excerpts from Libertarian Democraphobia relieve me of the effort of having to describe in my own words what I think are some of the fundamental problems of Libertarianism:

The libertarian non-coercion principle is a good abstract first approximation of the liberal presupposition that persons are free and equal. No one has a natural right to rule over another, and no one has a natural duty to obey. The liberal presupposition sets a high bar for the justification of coercion, and thus the justification of the state. Many libertarians think there is no justification. Therefore the only acceptable rule of collective choice is unanimity or full consensus. This is one focus of the debate between anarchist and limited-statist libertarians. On the anarchist side, political power cannot get off the ground, and thus the design of mechanisms to control political power is a non-issue. On the limited-statist side, political power does get off the ground, and thus so does the design of constitutions and democratic institutions. [...]

In any case, libertarians often display a confusing or confused reaction to democracy as it actually exists. The scheme laid out in most libertarian ideal theory is so distant from actual democratic practice that the whole existing system can seem by comparison a comprehensive injustice. When one’s ideal theory implies that politics is by its nature illegitimate and corrupt, one tends to develop a sharply disapproving attitude toward participation in politics. Lots of libertarians, for example, think it’s morally wrong to vote. (There are many structural reasons the Libertarian Party is hopeless, but here’s one reason libertarians tend to be at best half-hearted political activists.) Likewise, incrementalist approaches to policy can never be adequately pure from the perspective of radical libertarian ideal theory. School vouchers are still tax-financed; a system of mandatory personal retirement accounts has a restriction on economic liberty at its heart; and so on. So, not only is politics corrupt and corrupting. There are few democratically feasible libertarian policies that merit support. The public does not want libertarianism. Which means that the public does not want a system that respects fundamental rights. So much the worse for the public, the thinking tends to go. [...]

If libertarians are going to shift the politics of the countries we live in, we’ve got to get it through our thick skulls that many people have considered libertarian ideas and have rejected them for all sorts of decent reasons. We’ve got to take those reasons, and those people, fully seriously and adequately address them. Otherwise, we should probably just accept that libertarianism is a niche creed for weird people and reconcile ourselves to impotent, self-righteous grousing.

Cafe Hayek (especially blogger Don Boudreaux) is, in my opinion, completely mired in "impotent, self-righteous grousing".

The irony is that The Fatal Conceit by Hayek is proudly displayed on their website, and the fundamental concept of The Fatal Conceit is that sweeping away all of society's institutions in order to remake society according to better principles is a really, really bad idea, yet this is exactly what the Cafe Hayek bloggers would do in an instant if given the chance.

Labels: politics

Jon Stewart admitted to Cliff May that he was willing to consider Harry Truman a war criminal for giving the order to drop the atomic bomb on Japan. There were a number of revisionist books on this matter many years ago. In doing the homework on the matter it became clear how nonsensical the revisionist notion was on this matter. It requires real historical ignorance and denial of the nature of the moral choice confronted by Truman to fault him.

The video of Bill Whittle fisking of Jon Stewart is extremely well done. Also, a guest blogger at Bookworm Room has a meaningful contribution.

Must see material!

Labels: history, policy

I've never been particularly enthralled by the concept of "sustainability". It seems too static and too pessimistic. It seems to imply we're going to get the world to a certain state, and keep it that way forever, and that's the best we can do. Sometimes you hear the phrase "sustainable growth", but it sounds a bit oxymoronic - either something's sustaining or it's growing, but not both.

Along those lines I noticed an intriguing blurb in Foreign Policy (HT: Virginia Postrel). Here's an excerpt:

Sustainability is inherently static. It presumes there’s a point at which we can maintain ourselves and the world, and once we find the right combination of behavior and technology that allows us some measure of stability, we have to stay there. A sustainable world can avoid imminent disaster, but it will remain on the precipice until the next shock.

Resilience, conversely, accepts that change is inevitable and in many cases out of our hands, focusing instead on the need to be able to withstand the unexpected. Greed, accident, or malice may have harmful results, but, barring something truly apocalyptic, a resilient system can absorb such results without its overall health being threatened.[...]

Ultimately, resilience emphasizes increasing our ability to withstand crises. Sustainability is a brittle state: Unforeseen changes (natural or otherwise) can easily cause its collapse. Resilience is all about being able to overcome the unexpected. Sustainability is about survival. The goal of resilience is to thrive.

The rest of the article talks about attributes of a resilient system. It's a little short on examples and details, but I like the general concept.

Labels: Extended Order, policy

If the opposite of "pro" is "con", does that make congress the opposite of progress?

(HT: Carpe Diem)

Labels: Humor

The Road to Serfdom is best enjoyed in a Chrysler! Or a GM product.

(HT: Jeff via comments in a Vodkapundit post)

Labels: Humor, policy

Instapundit wrote about "GOING GALT" on your next car purchase.

There is pretty much no way I'll buy a GM car at this point, even if (or perhaps especially because) Obama is guaranteeing the warranty. I'm certainly not willing to support unprofitable and now essentially socialistic companies. And now that the unions basically own the company, I'd like to see the value go to zero.

However, this makes it a sad moment for me. I've always dreamed of owning a new Corvette and now the dream is gone. It obviously wasn't a very strong dream since I could've afforded one if I really, really wanted, but the two seat limitation of the car has made it impractical. In fact, it was probably one of those dreams I would've never acted on, but the dream itself was enjoyable.

On the other hand, I suppose that owning the Tesla Roadster wouldn't be a bad alternative dream...

Labels: politics, Technology

In a recent speech, President Obama defined what he means by the phrase "Never Again" when used in reference to the Holocaust:

...our fellow citizens of the world showing us how to make the journey from oppression to survival, from witness to resistance and ultimately to reconciliation. That is what we mean when we say “never again.”

Yeah, well, that's not what "Never Again" used to mean. I'm certain that "reconciliation" wasn't part of it. The idea was to "Never Again" allow a homicidal dictator like Hitler come to power or to let him direct a massive genocide.

Clearly, with rhetoric like this, Obama is not even vaguely interested in standing up to murderous thugs or even attempting to take any real action to prevent present and future genocides. Never Again has unfortunately now completely morphed into Over and Over Again.

Bummer!

Labels: Courage, history, policy, politics

I could not be more disappointed by the vast majority of politicians, both Democrat and Republican.

As a result, I'm thinking of forming a new political party: The Beautiful Babe Party.

The theory is that they couldn't possibly do any worse than our current set of politicians and at least they wouldn't be so hard on the eyes. I think this new party would be very successful since women would vote for them because they're, well, women, and men would vote for them for obvious reasons.

Since this is a post about pretty girls, I obviously have to post some picture. I've chosen Carrie Prejean, who was (possibly) denied winning Miss USA because of her views on gay marriage (she's against it), showing that even good-looking gals have opinions.

Labels: Humor, politics

While I think he's a bit of a loose cannon, I rather like this letter and paper by Monckton for being able to describe (and refute) numerous aspects of the science of Global Warming in terms that I think are understandable by a layperson with relatively little familiarity with scientific terminology.

Labels: environment