About the Green New Deal, dreams given form

Summary: The Green New Deal, most recently advocated by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, could start the biggest decade for government projects since the 1960’s Great Society & Apollo. Big beyond most people’s imagination. But it has received little critical analysis (other than calling it “socialism”). Here is a brief look at it, analytical not political. This is a brief first cut at it. Please circulate if you find it useful, and post links in the comments to other analyses.

Man leaping with joy - dreamstime_90026293
ID 90026293 © Everst | Dreamstime.

New Deal Button

The original New Deal

“Extreme remedies are appropriate for extreme diseases.”
— From Hippocrates’ Aphorisms.

They were desperate times requiring desperate remedies. The banking system was in ruins. There was massive unemployment (nobody knows how many, roughly a quarter of the workforce). Businesses were falling like dominoes. Germany showed what might happen here: in the 1930 election the Nazi Party got 18% of the votes, the Communist Party got 13%. In January 1933 Hitler was appointed Chancellor (FDR took office in March).

The need for immediate action forced use of unconventional and untested methods. The unused economic capacity of America, both plant and people, meant that even fantastically large fiscal and monetary stimulus would cause no inflation. Of course, Americans did not know that in 1932. The first thorough explanation was published in 1936: Keynes’ General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. It was a gamble, done by an alliance of progressives and populists. We won.

But that does not mean that gamblers always win, or that high stakes gambles should be made in normal times.

Screaming people
© Chrisharvey | Dreamstime.

Incite panic to begin a Green New Deal

“Let’s stipulate right now that America is in the midst of overlapping crises that are worse, arguably, than anything we’ve seen since 1861 …”
January 20 article by Will Bunch, nationally syndicated columnist.

What to Care About When Everything Is Terrible.”
— NYT op-ed by Quinta Jurecic (managing director of Lawfare).

The Left wants to copy aspects of the New Deal, despite our very different circumstances. First, they have to create panic – convincing America that we have emergencies only they can solve. Since that is false, they must rely on propaganda. The barrage of warnings that Trump will end democracy is one such campaign (despite its absurdity after two years). “Donald Trump’s War on Democracy” by John Feffer at The Nation. “Is Donald Trump Ending American Democracy” – about Brian Klaas’ book, The Despot’s Apprentice: Donald Trump’s Attack on Democracy. “This Is How American Democracy Ends” by Bill Blum at Common Dreams. “The Suffocation of Democracy” by Christopher R. Browning at the NY Review of Books. “Does Trump win mark the end for liberal democracy?“, a BBC news story by Ben Wright. Plus the many hysterical columns by Paul Krugman (e.g., here, here, and here).

The use of questions in headlines to arouse irrational fears is the basis of Betteridge’s Law: “Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.”

Another campaign seeks to arouse panic about global warming. The latest phase has abandoned the consensus of scientists, as represented by the IPCC and major climate agencies. As in the July 2017 article by David Wallace-Wells in NY Magazine: “The Uninhabitable Earth” (expanded into a book: The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming). Climate scientists seldom criticize even the most outrageous exaggerations and misrepresentations of their work by alarmists. But this went too far. Some spoke out, such as those quoted in this WaPo article – and especially this FB post by Michael Mann. His summary…

“The article argues that climate change will render the Earth uninhabitable by the end of this century. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The article fails to produce it.”

But the NY Mag article went viral, becoming their most successful article ever. So imitators multiplied. NakedCapitalism’s valuable daily links (a guide to the Left’s perspective on events, which I read every morning) cites such articles several times per week). The common elements of these…

(1)  A lack of context. Historical – present vs. the past. Quantitative: big numbers to scare, such as gigatons of ice – not mentioning the percent of the ice cap or time required for significant melting. And outright misleading: ocean warming in Joules not degrees (e.g., the ocean heat content of the top 700 meters warmed by 10^22 Joules over 1955 to 2008 – which is 0.17°C).

(2)  An exclusive focus on highly improbable worst-case scenarios, often presented as likely. The most frequent example is RCP8.5, a well-designed worst-case scenario in the IPCC’s AR5. It describes a horrific scenario, and the large changes in long-standing trends required for this to happen. For example, the given path to RCP8.5 requires fertility no longer dropping with industrialization (esp. in Africa), although this has been so everywhere else (and doomsters now warn about the coming population crash). And technological progress slowing to a crawl, although it appears to be accelerating (perhaps beginning another industrial revolution). The result: a crowded world in the late 21st century in which coal is again the primary power source (as it was in the late 19th century). Alarmists describe these incredible trend changes as “business as usual.” That’s a lie. For more information, see these posts about RCP8.5 and climate scenarios.

(3)  Attributing all extreme weather to climate change. The most mindless example is the recent California wildfires (see the analysis by climate scientist Cliff Mass of the Camp Fire). The US Southwest had a century of grossly inappropriate fire suppression followed by building in nature fire zones – in a region in which fires and long droughts are natural. No anthropogenic climate change necessary to produce this disaster – and the ones to come.

Of course, AO-C is out front on this issue – making statements without little in climate science. Even the worst-case RCP8.5 will do little in 12 years.

“Millennials and people, you know, Gen Z and all these folks that will come after us are looking up and we’re like: ‘The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?'” {See the video.}

Panicking the American public is a smart tactic. It has worked before, and might do so again.

“Mr. President, if that’s what you want there is only one way to get it. That is to make a personal appearance before Congress and scare the hell out of the country.”
— Senator Arthur Vandenberg’s advice to Truman about starting the Cold War. Truman did so in his famous speech on 12 March 1947. From Put yourself in Marshall’s place by James Warburg (he helped develop the US WWII propaganda programs).

See posts about fear and about doomsters. Such as these…

  1. Requiem for fear. Let’s learn from failed predictions to have confidence in ourselves & our future.
  2. Threats come & go, leaving us in perpetual fear & forgetful of the past.
  3. Dreams of apocalypses show the brotherhood of America’s Left & Right.
  4. Collapsitarians and their doomster porn.
  5. We love scary stories. The reason why reveals a secret about America.
  6. Our fears make us weak and easily manipulated.
  7. America suffers from the Crisis Crisis, making us weak.

Fools Paradise

Problems with the Green New Deal (GND)

“{The Green New Deal} would only change the dates for planetary suicide by a decade or so.”
— “We Need Radical Thinking on Climate Change” by Kevin Drum at Mother Jones. He gives neither these “dates” or its peer-reviewed source.

Inflation and debt.

Most measures suggest that the US economy is running at or near capacity. Another massive fiscal stimulus might spark inflation, as the combination of the Vietnam War and Great Society did in the 1960s. That becomes especially likely since some versions of the GND advocate Fed action to suppress interest rates. Spending cuts – such as to DoD – could offset this. But US history suggests that such grand plans seldom pass when combined with such measures.

Advocates often point to the many workers not in the labor force. But that is a mirage. First, many lack the skills needed to fill jobs created by the green energy industry. Second, there are not that many of them. Many of those not in the labor force are retired or disabled. One measure is the number of people not in the labor force but looking for work: putting them to work would increase the labor force by 1%. Click the graph to enlarge.

Available but unemployed workers as a percent of the Labor Force

Second, this is a bad time to boost the federal deficit. Keynes recommended running fiscal deficits during recessions and paying down that debt during expansions. That hard won wisdom has been successfully used many times.

Massive debt was incurred – correctly – during the Great Recession. Now we should be paying it down. Ahead lies another recession (timing and size unknowable). More importantly, we will run massive deficits as the Boomers retire from Social Security, Medicare, the various Federal pension plans, and the inevitable bankruptcies of corporate pension plans (the Federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation’s multi-employer plan will go broke by 2026). America can easily manage this demographic transition by borrowing, assuming we do not run up too much debt now.

Federal Debt held by the public as a percent of GDP

Building uneconomic infrastructure.

Programs like the GND tend to result in massive construction of uneconomic infrastructure as everyone jumps on the gravy train. Enthusiasm and dreams provide opportunities for tapping the taxpayers for billions or more.

Worse, many of the Greens promises are based on flawed accounting. Most seriously, they calculate the cost of wind and solar (intermittent sources) without including the cost of upgrading the power grid to handle their fluctuations – and the back-up power sources required when they falter. The physicist and energy expert Robert Hirsch described these problems 13 years ago (“Electric Power from Renewable Energy: Practical Realities for Policy-makers” in The Journal of Fusion Energy, gated) – and Greens often ignore it today.

Words to fear.

“It’s inevitable that we’re gonna create industry and it’s inevitable that we can use the transition to a 100% renewable energy as the vehicle to truly deliver and establish economic social and racial justice in the United States. This is going to be the Great Society, the moonshot, the civil rights movement of our generation. That is the scale of the ambition that this movement is going to require. …

“It’s important to also talk about the fact that this is not just an economic solution is that this is how we this is the mechanism through which we can really deliver justice to communities that have been underserved. The water in Flint is still dirty. We’ve got children that are that are choking on the smoke in California. …Children in Puerto Rico are choking on the fungal spores because we have not recuperated from the crisis, and the mold from the floods is taking up all of these people’s homes. Those injustices are concentrated in front-line communities and indigenous, black, and brown communities. They’re the ones that experience the greatest depths of this injustice.”

— Ocasio-Cortez during a panel discussion with Vermont senator Bernie Sanders and activist Bill McKibben (See YouTube).

The size and scope of the Green New Deal has grown over time, becoming a Trojan Horse for a panoply of Leftist dreams. They plan a restructuring of America’s economy and society, fueled by what they see as limitless government spending. They have dreamed about this moment for generations. The proposal combines commonsense infrastructure upgrades (never done because not a priority for either party), speculative drastic changes to the energy infrastructure, and a growing list of social engineer programs.

They are offering all good things, promising that it won’t cost the public a dime. Experienced people see this as a once per generation pot of gold. Unsurprisingly, the polls show strong bipartisan support.

History is littered with similar stories. Most end badly. Her analogy to the “moonshot” is apt, as Apollo was twenty billion dollars burned for almost no benefit to America. Enthusiasm for the GND reminds of Athens just before it launched the Sicilian Expedition. Its people saw the fantastic benefits of success but closed their eyes to the cost – and the risk. Like most such projects, it ended badly.

Listen to Ocasio-Cortez. Hear the certainty in her voice. What is its source? Not her personal experience with public policy, social or civil engineering. But with ideology. She and her cohorts will roar ahead with the enthusiasm of fanatics. Many or most of the GND’s designers are professors. My guess is that this will be another big bold Leftist experiment in social engineering – with us as lab rats – and will end as badly as the others.

“I would rather be governed by the first two thousand people in the Boston telephone directory than by the two thousand people on the faculty of Harvard University.”
— William Buckley on “Meet the Press”, 17 October 1965.

Trust me!

A mad scientist recommends - dreamstime_s_99011597
ID 99011597 © Igor Mojzes | Dreamstime.

For More Information

Ideas! See my recommended books and films at Amazon.

If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See these posts for more information…

  1. The similar delusions of America’s Left and Right show our common culture – and weakness.
  2. Programs to reshape the American mind, run by the left and right.
  3. Who lies to us the most? Left or Right?
  4. Delusions of the well-educated and intelligent on the Left and Right leave us nowhere to hide.
  5. Facts are the enemy of both Left and Right in our America.
  6. Watch the Left and Right move against America.
  7. DEFCON 2: both Left and Right have turned against us.
  8. Diversity is a grand experiment. We’re the lab rats.
  9. The Democrats will open the borders & make a New America.
  10. The Left pushes America down a slippery slope.
  11. Visions of America if the Left wins.

Useful books explaining what happened to America

Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People? by Thomas Frank.

The Party Is Over: How Republicans Went Crazy, Democrats Became Useless, and the Middle Class Got Shafted by Mike Lofgren.

"Listen, Liberal" by Thomas Frank
Available at Amazon.
"The Party is Over" by Mike Lofgren
Available at Amazon.

144 thoughts on “About the Green New Deal, dreams given form”

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor


      Free things are very popular. So it the Green New Deal, with broad support in people of both parties. Laugh now. The Left might have the last laugh.

      Afterwards we can all cry, as poor helpless babies do.

      1. The Citizens Climate Lobby is the biggest joke of all. I won’t go down without a fight, I do it all day long on the local liberal rag LTE section. Sad

      2. Larry Kummer, Editor


        Leftist advocacy groups are like leaves on a tree these days. They obviously have big money powering them.

  1. How was running up the debt a great idea in 2008-2009? The unemployment rates with the stimulus surpassed Christina Romer’s estimate of the unemployment rate if we didn’t pass the stimulus? And please don’t say the stimulus wasn’t enough. That’s about as good of an argument as the neocons saying the reason the Middle East is so messed up is because we didn’t intervene enough.

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor

      We have nine decades of experience in dozens of nations about the effects of fiscal stimulus. Keynesian economics is well validated by this data.

      1. Wait which countries successfully used stimulus to get out of a deep recession? The US still had double digit employment after one Hoover (who was a Keynesian despite the nonsense we learned in school) and two FDR terms. Japan tried every Keynsian trick in the book and still could never reach it’s 1980’s levels of growth in the years since.

      2. Larry Kummer, Editor


        I’m uninterested in providing Econ 101 classes. Long painful experience has shown that it is a waste of time, as people thoroughly indoctrinated – left and right – are immune to facts and logic.

        “The US still had double digit employment after one Hoover (who was a Keynesian despite the nonsense we learned in school) and two FDR terms.”

        Read some history. Hoover ran fiscal surpluses during the first stage of the Great Depression. In terms of GDP: 1929: 0.7%, 1930: 0.8%, 1931: a deficit of 0.6% (mostly due to a collapse of tax revenue, not spending).

        FDR ran what we now know were absurdly small deficits (vs. the need), averaging about 4.5% GDP during 1932 – 1936. Under pressure from conservatives, he then implemented austerity. Deficits in 1937 were 2.4% and 0.1% – which threw the economy back into recession.

        The definitive proof of Keynesian economics were the WWII deficits which ended the Depression, peaking at -27% in 1943 with the economy well over full employment.

      3. “Read some history. Hoover ran fiscal surpluses during the first stage of the Great Depression. In terms of GDP: 1929: 0.7%, 1930: 0.8%, 1931: a deficit of 0.6% (mostly due to a collapse of tax revenue, not spending).

        FDR ran what we now know were absurdly small deficits (vs. the need), averaging about 4.5% GDP during 1932 – 1936. Under pressure from conservatives, he then implemented austerity. Deficits in 1937 were 2.4% and 0.1% – which threw the economy back into recession.”

        Spending still went up every year in the Hoover administration. And why did we recover so quickly from the recession of 1921 when spending was significantly slashed?

        As to the 1937 recession, the austerity was a mix of tax increases and spending cuts, which on the latter would have been warranted.

        And again, your “the spending wasn’t large enough” is just as un-falsafiable as “we didn’t bomb enough Muslims to create peace in the Middle East” of the neocons. And I can point to various periods, such as the US in 1921 and Canada in the early 1990’s, where a fiscal tightening during an economic downturn led to a quick recovery.

        “The definitive proof of Keynesian economics were the WWII deficits which ended the Depression, peaking at -27% in 1943 with the economy well over full employment.”

        It’s easy to have full employment when millions of workers are shipped away oversees. And if WWII brought us such a miracle, why did the private consumption numbers look so dismal during the war, and why couldn’t anyone buy a new appliance? Forcing people into war and then building things that will destroy or be destroyed is not economic prosperity.

        Finally, as you failed to address, if Keynesianism is such an ironclad law of the universe, why did Romer’s predictions of unemployment without stimulus end up being significantly lower than we actually got with stimulus?

      4. Larry Kummer, Editor


        As I said, this is a waste of time. I’ve done this hundreds of times before. Each round of facts is met with more misinformation. Eventually, we return to the first set of misinformation.

        I corrected your factual errors in one comment. Read a textbook to learn more. We’re not running Econ 101 here.

  2. Re:

    I have seen no broad analysis of the proposals for a Green New Deal, most recently advocated by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. This is a brief first cut at it. Please circulate if you find it useful. Post links in the comments to other analyses.

    Since you are a regular follower of links at Naked Capitalism, you might choose to address Lambert Strether’s analysis of politics and policy of the GND. I am quite skeptical of claims that our economy is running near full capacity; I will believe that when I see widespread wage increases.

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor


      I was thinking of Strether’s articles when I wrote that. A comparison of mine and his shows what I think of as a broad analysis. He gives a good but quite brief commentary on one of the GND proposals (AOC’s). But there is little analysis.

      There is another and more important aspect. AOC’s speeches about the GND have little resemblance to her proposal. I believe her speeches are a better guide to what we can expect than her proposal.

      Re: full capacity

      Wage increases become forced when the economy’s growth exceeds full capacity, and businesses have to compete for a too-small labor force. Until then it is a struggle to divide the gains from improved productivity. Those gains are running quite slowly, and the increasing cartelization and crushed unions (and other methods of businesses) tilt that contest in favor of businesses.

      Also – this post was already too long, so I didn’t discuss this – but note Strether’s reliance on MMT to finance this project. This is an example of what I referred to in my previous post as the Left’s use of Americans as lab rats to test their theories. Running America’s debt up to the levels to test MMT would have catastrophic effects if conventional macroeconomics (Keynes, etc) is correct and MMT wrong. Most theories are wrong.

      1. Appreciate your thoughtful reply, Larry. Thanks!

        [N]ote Strether’s reliance on MMT to finance this project. This is an example of what I referred to in my previous post as the Left’s use of Americans as lab rats to test their theories. Running America’s debt up to the levels to test MMT would have catastrophic effects if conventional macroeconomics (Keynes, etc) is correct and MMT wrong. Most theories are wrong.

        I have to take some issue with this. MMT calls itself a theory but I suggest you view it as two parts: a descriptive part which is about the reality of a fiat currency (e.g. money is created by sovereign spending (and bank lending) and destroyed by taxation (and loan repayment), a sovereign can never be forced into default in its own currency, banks create deposits by lending, etc), and a prescriptive part (i.e. policy suggestions), of which the most dramatic is the notion of a job guarantee. Our ruling elite is fully conversant with the reality of MMT; witness the cavalier attitude towards military spending and tax cuts for nearly half a century. They reject the prescriptive parts because those would rebalance economic surplus away from profits towards wages. Fear-mongering around deficits (austerity) along with the pretence that our money is bounded is policy designed to protect profits while keeping workers mired in precarity. It’s conventional macroeconomics that has failed to grasp economic reality, not MMT. Excuse my self-promotion, but I urge to you consider my more exhaustive discussion of these matters in Getting Money Right. Thanks for hosting this valuable forum!

      2. Larry Kummer, Editor


        How nice that you think it is a proven theory. How sad that almost all actual economists disagree with you.

        “witness the cavalier attitude towards military spending and tax cuts for nearly half a century.”

        Those are irrelevant to MMT. The US can easily support the current debt load and deficit. The most commonly used credit ratio is debt/gdp: at ~75% is not close to the yellow zone around 100%. A test of MMT would be to run it up to 150%, and see if high annual deficits were sustainable. But if this test of MMT failed, we would be screwed big-time.

      3. Japan is the experiment. Debt to GDP just passed %250. But then, according the very link I’ve posted the Debt/GDP should be going back down just around the corner now, but all I can say — I’ve heard that before. I honestly think this is Japan’s plan. Forever promise ‘debt/GDP’ reduction in the near future to satisfy the markets, then balls out debt increases, future stimulus. Right now, massive construction all over Tokyo for the 2020 Olympics. It doesn’t feel like a country about to do the decade of austerity needed to bring this down..


      4. Larry Kummer, Editor


        That’s not really accurate. Net debt, not gross debt, matters more. That’s easily shown. Write yourself an IOU for a billion dollars. Your broke, doomed. Your gross debt to income ratio is a zillion. Yet your net debt is zero.

        Governments often hold large quantities of government bonds, either directly or thru agencies (such as the central bank). Japan is an extreme example. It’s net debt to GDP is in the 80%s, easily tolerable for a nation with low interest rates, low inflation, and a high savings rate.

        The IMF runs this calculation broadly defining liabilities and assets, and show Japan as having a tiny net debt to GDP ratio (unlike, for example, Britain). See it here.

        Calculating credit worthiness is a complex matter. The kind and timing of liabilities and debt matters, as does the nation’s vulnerability to inflation, economic growth trend, and overall stability. Japan scores well on most of these.

        No, Japan is not a test of MMT.

      5. With quantitative easing, the central bank purchases government debt. After that, the bonds are owned by the central bank. It’s no longer external debt.

      6. Larry Kummer, Editor


        Security accounting principles distinguish between trading (short-term) and permanent (intended to be held to maturity) debt. The securities purchased by the Fed as quantitative easing (ie, as monetary policy) were explicitly a temporary measure – and hence properly not counted in govt debt ratios.

        Central bank purchases of its govt debt, intending to hold until maturity, are “monetizing” the debt. The Fed governors explicitly stated that QE was not monetizing the debt issued during the recession.

        Credit agencies, bond investors, and other private sector actors rightly consider the two different actions to have different implications.

  3. One shouldn’t worry (me thinks):
    Most evolved societies have a form of progressive taxation; however, to jump from the recent ~40% to 70% (as claimed by the GND proponents) is, in current campaign “funding rules” — un-electable.
    Further, e.g. Germany had very recently a “great” experience with the “green” part of energy generation already — why nobody talks about that example, for change. Someone will, I hope, at the proper time, and all this glitter may just fade away…
    OTOH the alternative:
    The Donald isn’t following the Keynesian principle (any principle, for that matter) either, so there’s the lurking danger. He could end up the same as The Witch the last round — the electorate choosing a lesser evil, perceived or otherwise.

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor


      (1). AOC obviously understands little about taxation (or anything else about public policy). While gross marginal rates on income were 70% in the 70s, effective tax rates were in the 40%s. There were massive tools to reduce taxable income, removed during the Reagan tax reforms.

      Going to 70% rates under or system would be a massive experiment. Just like most of of the Left’s proposals. But worry not, they have ideology!

      Re: Germany

      The Greens talk about Germany incessantly. But they only mention selected facts. They seldom mention how renewables have replaced some of their nuclear generation, with no effect on GHG emissions. Or the fantastic cost, and the doubling of electricity costs (Greens tend to have nice incomes, so that doesn’t bother them). Or that the US has done better at reducing GHG emissions at far less cost.

      Here is one of the rare articles about the things people don’t talk about: “Germany’s green energy shift is more fizzle than sizzle” by Kalina Oroschakoff at Politico, March 2018 — “Despite spending billions, it is falling behind other European countries.”

  4. > Advocates often point to the many workers not in the labor force. But that is a mirage. First, many lack the skills needed to fill jobs created by the green energy industry

    It’s a problem. Socialists (in their quest for full employment) rarely seem to recognise that some jobs need education and skills, and in a normal functioning economy with normal levels of unemployment, people who’re educated with relevant skills are, generally, not unemployed for long. The long term unemployed almost always need (re)training and are most definitely *not* spade ready.

    Perhaps there’s a longer game here. Shortly after the policy is implemented, there will be a shortage of skilled workers. Then the argument will be that immigration rates should be raised to ensure there’s sufficient supply. At no point will anyone do anything to improve retraining to give the unemployed a shot at those jobs. Because funding education is a significant cost, and importing the skills is much, much cheaper and quicker.

    Love it that Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t like to let facts get in the way :-)

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor


      Now that’s something worth considering!

      “Love it that Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t like to let facts get in the way”

      Just like Trump. They are the Bobbsey Twins of US politics.

  5. Still, I think she might be better at balancing the budget than Drump.
    The green stuff will be tempered.
    GOP have shown themselves to be totally un-fiscal.
    One wonders where good leadership is to be found.

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor


      “I think she might be better at balancing the budget than Drump.”

      Why do you say that? She is openly contemptuous about the need to balance the budget.

      “The green stuff will be tempered.”

      That’s quite a confident prediction. What is the basis for your confidence? In the real world, these projects often gain momentum despite their weak rational foundation. See our wars, and Apollo, and the 1960s dam and canal projects (at the end they were building them with no value whatsoever).

      “One wonders where good leadership is to be found.”

      How sad that passive apathetic people like us don’t get the awesome leaders we believe we deserve! I’ve often written about this mad thinking.

      “Every nation has the government it deserves.”
      — Joseph de Maistre (lawyer, diplomat, philosopher), Letter #76 dated 13 August 1811, published in Lettres et Opuscules.

    1. Ron,

      Agreed. The hope that this move would, at least, undermine the rest of the BS Clan proved to be naive (i.e. yours truly). A fairly recent “Coffee Break quiz/poll” on TheWheaterNetwork.com (Canada) had shown how well this long term propaganda works: 17% of respondents “thought” that most abundant gas in the Earth’s atmosphere was CO2!!! (S. Arrhenius turns in his grave)

      Also this: DOOM on WUWT…

      1. JaKo,

        Yes, it’s hard to believe the state of mind of the climate change crowd. Just think beautiful thoughts like sparkling streams, Unicorns, wind, and solar.
        Facts and reality don’t matter…Do it for the grandchildren.

      2. Larry Kummer, Editor


        “Yes, it’s hard to believe the state of mind of the climate change crowd.”

        I usually find that statements like that represent a misunderstanding of events. As I describe in this post, these people are making a grab for power, using climate change as a Trojan Horse. They might succeed. They assume we are fools. Time will tell if they are correct.

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor


      Thank you for pointing to this!

      Esp interesting to see Caiazza mentioning Hirsch’s paper. I often cite it, but have never seen anyone else do so. Lost knowledge!

  6. The Man Who Laughs

    My work resulted in my getting some hands on experience with renewables technology. In my case, it was a gas induction engine for producing electricity from methane gas a la Mad Max. It was paid for by a Department Of Energy grant, and I suppose a lot of the people who bought these things got them the same way. Even when it was “free”, and the methane to run it was free, it never produced enough electricity to cover the operating cost. It’s too complicated to explain in a comment, but the lubricating oil, Winslow filters, and the propane it started and shut down on ran to a pretty penny, not mention a new starter about every other month.) Until you get your hands on one of these things and try to operate one, you don’t realize how impractical they are. I think everyone who got a presumably free induction engine has since got rid of them, as we did. The experience has made me deeply skeptical of claims for renewables and green tech in general.

    Someone made money off that engine, but it was a white elephant. The Green New Deal will have its beneficiaries, but it ain’t gonna be you or me.

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor

      The Man,

      Thank you for posting that note from the past. I’ll bet you are correct. These kinds of project can be run well, but it takes a strong focused leader. Usually we get a politician or ideologue playing Santa Claus.

  7. World be destroyed in 12 years if we don’t spend trillions we don’t have on pie in the sky, hail Mary pass.

    Corte has no clue what she is talking about. Every time she opens her mouth she is spewing world ending CO2.

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor


      She is the mirror image of Trump. Like Trump, she might unexpectedly win. I don’t know why this isn’t obvious.

      1. I don’t see millions of Deplorables changing their minds so they can have windmills in their back yards and paying ten bucks for a gallon of gas anytime soon.

      2. Larry Kummer, Editor


        Neither is a necessary part of the Green New Deal. Exaggeration is not a pretty response, whether done by Left or Right.

  8. The Man Who Laughs

    “These kinds of project can be run well, but it takes a strong focused leader. ”

    I’ll add that I could see errors and bad management decisions that contributed to the failure of the project. If some things had been differently, and the mistakes were pretty easily avoidable, things might have gone better. I once was in the Bay Area and wanted to see one of these machines that was in operation in San Jose and see what they were doing, but I came down with a 104 degree fever and instead learned what an ER visit costs in the great state of California. So my trip was educational, just not in the way I had planned.

  9. It is certainly a more emotionally inspiring infrastructure boondoggle than the one the other fellow is offering. To be fair, Trump did cite a source of funding for his, although it seems clear it has not panned out.

    Apparently AOC has been saying positive things about nuclear power in public appearances (she joined a charity marathon thing on the Internet recently). If this vision includes room for the atom, I think it got a whole lot more realistic.

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor


      That’s an important point, and why the Green New Deal has broad bipartisan support.

    2. Larry Kummer, Editor


      Can you point to favorable mentions by AOC about nuclear power? My quick search via Google shows nothing.

    3. @Larry: I can’t find a direct reference to it. If you have the patience (I sure don’t) it would be in a recording of the “HBomberguy stream.” I suspect it was off-hand, so I’ll class this one under hearsay.

      I can say that a lot of people in my broad generation seem to be a lot calmer over nuclear power than the older generations, at least in a pragmatic observational kind of way.

      1. Larry Kummer, Editor


        Remember how Trump excited the populists, but proved to be a bog-standard Right-wing politician. My guess is AOC will be the same. The Left hates nuclear power, and my guess is that AOC will not oppose them.

      2. Larry,

        US nuclear innovation act becomes law: “US nuclear innovation act becomes law” at World Nuclear News, 17 January 2019.

        “Bipartisan legislation modernising US nuclear regulation and supporting the establishment of a licensing framework for next-generation advanced reactors has been signed by US President Donald Trump. The Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernisation Act (NEIMA) became law on 14 January.”

      3. Larry Kummer, Editor


        Thanks for posting that info. I hadn’t seen it.

        My guess is that it’s too late for nuclear.

      4. Larry Kummer, Editor


        Might be bright. Might not be bright. That’s an advertisement from DOE, with little hard info – so it tells us almost nothing.

      5. Larry,

        “My guess is that it’s too late for nuclear.”
        If you meant time-wise, e.g. CanDU ACR-1000 can be up and running under four years…
        And after Yucca Mt. closure, the CanDU customers could probably jump on the NWMO bandwagon or create their own under a similar framework.

      6. Larry Kummer, Editor


        “If you meant time-wise,”

        I mean in terms of gaining the public’s trust. It’s lost – too many brushes with disaster — and no promises about future wonders can regain it.

      7. Larry,
        “I mean in terms of gaining the public’s trust.”
        OK, I got it.
        To my knowledge (what a term!), Canada never had any memorable disaster with nuclear power generation and, in US, a bit of propaganda on behalf of using safer technology and an independent oversight may go a long way… In any case, these Green Deals should have a Plan B — regardless of validity CO2 being bad — one day the coal/oil/gas will be too expensive to burn in power-plants (at ~45% efficiency) and controlled fusion may never work.
        BTW: We pay 6.5c off peak to 13.2c peak per kWh (CAD) in ON and 60% is from nuclear.

      8. Larry Kummer, Editor


        You are missing the key points. First, people in the US and Canada read about the nuclear disasters elsewhere. They don’t need a melt-down next door to be aware of the risks. It’s delusional to believe “a bit of propaganda” will convince anyone in the US (perhaps Canadians are more gullible).

        Also, utilities in the US have had extensive “independent oversight” for over 50 years.

        Second, the utilities – and those owning and financing the utilities – know the record for nuclear power. Not just of expensive disasters, but expensive cost overruns in construction (an ongoing story for almost 50 years). See the stories of the last nuclear power plants under construction in the US.

        (1) A Scana Corp. project to build two reactors in South Carolina was abandoned after spending $4.8 billion. Cost estimates had risen from the original $9.8B to as high as $23B – it was to be financed by 9 rate increases (which began when construction started). Their customers had paid $2b, and will pay much (or all) of the rest over time. The wreckage of Scana was sold to Dominion Energy. Details here.

        (2) George Power is building two new nuclear reactors. The project is five years behind schedule. Costs have nearly doubled to more than $27 billion.

        To learn about the civilian nuclear power industry in the US, I recommend reading End of a dream as the nuclear power industry dies.

      9. Larry,

        I can see the problem here: the extensive costs and deadline overruns, botched upgrades etc. These are very significant. OTOH: the last two projects of CanDU in China were on time and at projected costs. Here we go, we lost it! We can’t build stuff right, on time and at real cost any more. The complex projects like these require competence from the chief engineers to the last concrete pusher and, that may be gone.

        Further, the long term investments in power generation and in essential infrastructure in general are no longer priority for now-a-day’s governments and private interest have always been rather myopic — that’s why, e.g. in EU, most of crucial infrastructures are traditionally owned or controlled by governments.

        And back to the subject of this article, I think there may have been nothing wrong with trying this utopia of GND, the trouble now is debt. When they realize it was a pipe dream, nobody’s going to invest in a last minute skin-saving Plan B…

        BTW, about gullibility of Canadians — it is there and it is quite bad. But, if you grow up in clear sight of Bruce (the MONPS — mother of all nuclear power stations) or others, in ON, you don’t get jelly knees when you read about Fukushima.

      10. Larry Kummer, Editor


        “you grow up in clear sight of Bruce (the MONPS — mother of all nuclear power stations) or others, in ON, you don’t get jelly knees when you read about Fukushima.”

        That displays an astounding ignorance of statistics.

  10. It is too late for nuclear in the sense that it was too late for motor cars in the 1890s or for aeroplanes in the early 1900s or for space flight in the 1990s pre-Musk. Nuclear is the only form of energy/power with a respectable energy density and global supply of fuel for tens of thousands of years, it is never too late for nuclear once it is developed to a suitable level of safety, efficiency, and affordability.

    Politics is the fiend in the story of US nuclear. Strange how the nuclear dream is not ending in nations with different political incentives.

    These things proceed in stages, and sometimes one nation (US) forfeits its place in the developmental staging, at least temporarily, due to idiotic political ideology.

    1. As much as I’d love to embrace what you’re saying — the reality is: we can’t build this stuff on our own any longer (a conclusion from my exchange and further reading as recommended by Larry).
      In Ontario, there were a couple of projects lately with horrendous budget / timeline overruns as well.
      Perhaps we should do what Russians do — they bring in the Chinese to do it!
      You see, if you want to become a bricklayer in EU or China, you don’t just quit school and go working, you take an apprenticeship first (with a real school-time theory and practice), the same even with waiting!

    2. Larry Kummer, Editor


      It is not only the US that has lost interest in nuclear. Europe and Japan are as or
      more opposed to it.

      China is the big exception, with its famous distain for environmental issues – and history of low quality civil engineering. If they get thru the next decade without any severe incidents, I will be surprised.

      As to the future, nobody can predict. Your statement that nuclear is the only way is disputed by private investors in fusion.

      Further out, other power sources might become feasible.

      1. It is also not just the environmental or NIMBY issues that torpedo nuclear power in the US or other countries. The electric power utility companies generally do not have sufficient market capitalization to easily finance the $3B+ needed for a new base-load nuclear plant. That is why the Gov’t loan guarantees were such a critical part of the effort a decade or more ago to re-invigorate nuclear power in the US. The combination of cheap natural gas and thermal efficiency improvements for NG gas turbine plants (allowing for their use as base load generators) torpedoed that effort to re-start nuclear in the US.

        Far less short-term risk (financial or otherwise) to build a base-load natural gas facility than years of effort just to get permission to build a nuclear plant.

      2. Larry Kummer, Editor


        “The electric power utility companies generally do not have sufficient market capitalization to easily finance the $3B+ needed for a new base-load nuclear plant. That is why the Gov’t loan guarantees were such a critical part of the effort a decade or more ago to re-invigorate nuclear power in the US.”

        That is not correct. Utilities – like other companies – borrow in the capital markets to build such projects. The Loan Guarantee program was needed because of the risks – in both construction and operational — of nuclear power were too large for private investors to accept. History has shown that judgement to be correct.

        “Far less short-term risk (financial or otherwise) to build a base-load natural gas facility than years of effort just to get permission to build a nuclear plant.”

        Yes, that’s the key think nuke advocates ignore. Also, gas turbines work well with the increasing role of interruptible power sources (eg, wind, solar).

    3. Kojack,

      “These things proceed in stages, and sometimes one nation (US) forfeits its place in the developmental staging, at least temporarily, due to idiotic political ideology”

      Germany’s failed ‘Energiewende’ is a good example: “Germany Runs Up Against the Limits of Renewables” by Richard Martin at MIT Technology Review, May 2016 – “Even as Germany adds lots of wind and solar power to the electric grid, the country’s carbon emissions are rising. Will the rest of the world learn from its lesson?”

  11. Jan 26, 2019 “Ownership & Property” by Larken Rose.

    If someone simply understands what the words “ownership” and “property” MEAN, then the immorality and insanity of collectivism becomes obvious.

  12. Good morning Larry,

    No comment on post although I’ve read it and the comments.

    It has been quite a while since and I check every day. Considering how prolific you are, I’m worried. I hope everything is ok.



    1. I haven’t been here that long to know Larry’s routine but he was pumping things out at a high rate. I see Fabius Maximus post on Twitter now and then as recent as a few days ago, if I remember right and assume it’s Larry. Hoping he’s OK.

    1. logjam,

      Because she tells stupid people what they want to hear. It worked for Obama for eight years.

      1. Refusing corporate campaign financing so she’s free to advocate for things the majority of American’s support like M4A and GND.

        It’s almost like the person who defeated one of the most powerful democrats in the party and garnered a national media profile before even taking office is good at politics.

      2. Larry Kummer, Editor


        Let’s not go bonkers. Medicare for all is – at least in theory – health care in almost all other developed nations. It’s just good sense.

        The Green New Deal is packaging for radical experimentation. Few of the people saying “yes” in the polls have the slightest idea about the policies in the package. Which is the point of this post.

        “It’s almost like the person who defeated one of the most powerful democrats in the party and garnered a national media profile before even taking office is good at politics.’

        A cursory look at US politics shows the absurdity of your statement. It consists to an alarming extent of media-created facades for powerful interests. Lots of those in the late 19th century. We overcame this tendency, somewhat, in the 20th. But it has returned strongly. Jimmy Carter – by your standard, a political genius. Ditto Sarah Palin and Donald Trump.

        These meteoric rises are symptoms of a shallow and easily manipulated public. The fantastic mass hysteria about the Covington boys is another examples.

        I suggest that instead of cheering these people – such as AOC and Trump – you consider them signs of a high fever in the Republic.

  13. Looks like the Green New Deal is in the trash can for now, you know it’s bad when Pelosi nixed it. Too bad…what will they think of next?

    1. You’d think the massive amount of media attention, debate, and public support for the GND shows the opposite but I’ll make sure to tell everyone that random internet dipsh*t Ron Stabb says it’s over. Time to throw in the towel boys.

      1. Got ‘er Ron! Those major media outlets having AOC on to discuss her ideas will have to stop after they find out about this web-1.0-looking climate denial blog you linked to.

      2. logjam,

        Those media outlets are part of the problem. Along with fools like Al Gore pushing the ‘Climate Crisis’ and worse case IPCC RCP8.5 when we are at about 4.5, people buy into her BS.

      3. lg,

        This has been a terrible week for PV at our place. We haven’t generated 1 kWh from our PV system since Sunday. A winter storm dropped 10″ of Sierra cement in my area Sunday night. I think I will be able to get 1 string, of three, cleared of ice/slush before the next storm comes in tomorrow. During an average Feb we will generate about 45% of our electric load with the PV system.

        So far this month we have only generated 3.2% of our load (thank goodness PG&E still has Diablo operating). The GND is being discussed over at a post Tom put up called “Math Vs. The Green New Deal” that you might find of interest-


      4. Larry Kummer, Editor


        Only sorta a traditional socialist manifesto. It is a perfect demo of cultural marxism. Standard Left concerns – the environment, the economy – are only vehicles (almost Trojan Horses) for their larger intent to restructure society.

        The Left has attempted its usual play of misrepresenting the term “cultural Marxism” to render it illegitimate (or rediculous). Very 1984.

        Here is a clear explanation: “The Woke Menace” by Ron Dreher at The American Conservative.

      5. Sure Ron, it’s everyone else that’s the problem, not you. The media, AOC, the large majority of Americans that support a GND, almost every single scientist/expert. They’re all wrong. We should be listening to a handful of weirdos with badly formatted WordPress blogs.

      6. Larry Kummer, Editor


        You are frothing. Please be more specific. That statement is silly. To what specifically are you objecting?

      7. Your personal electricity setup is super interesting Kakatoa but what does it have to do with a national energy policy like a GND?

      8. Larry Kummer, Editor


        He is citing a widely known but – in today’s media frenzy – widely ignored problem with renewables. When intermittent sources become a substantial part of grid power they require upgrades to the grid (at high levels, a “smart”grid”). And more expensively, they requires a rapidly dispatched backup source of power.

        The great energy expert Robert Hirsch explained this in “Electric Power from Renewable Energy: Practical Realities for Policy-makers” in The Journal of Fusion Energy, December 2002. Gated. Countless studies since have validated his insights.

        Now there are proposals to irrationally test this on a large scale, despite the math. Economics trump dreams, every time.

      9. logjam,

        “Sure Ron, it’s everyone else that’s the problem, not you. The media, AOC, the large majority of Americans that support a GND, almost every single scientist/expert. They’re all wrong. We should be listening to a handful of weirdos with badly formatted WordPress blogs.”

        This skeptic stopped trying to convince alarmist’s of my take on AGW. Next comes the 97% agree on GW false talking point. It’s false because it’s actually 100%. The Earth has been warming since coming out of the little ice age.
        I recommend reading some works of Pielke, Curry, Christy and other scientists on this subject.

      10. Who knew solar panels don’t work when buried under a foot of snow?!? Are you gonna tell me the wind doesn’t blow all the time too?

        And holy sh*t, “Cultural Marxism”… lmao, what a joke…

      11. Larry Kummer, Editor


        “Who knew solar panels don’t work when buried under a foot of snow?”

        I see you are unwilling to confront the substance of the points made, and prefer to reply with folly. That’s a distinguishing characteristic of political extremists, Left and Right, necessary to maintain their weird beliefs.

      12. lg,

        There is a bit of a divide among Environmentalists (1) on how far to go when proposing solutions to the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. My example was to highlight (as FM notes) some of the issues with how do we address the low capacity factor issue (as well the within day intermittency issues that batteries can solve to a point) of most forms of RE.

        I am in favor of keeping Diablo open as it provides baseload generation capability when I need grid energy the most- winter time. If we try to run our society with the capabilities of CSP and PV technologies as they exist now folks in the colder parts of CA, let alone the North East will freeze to death or demand response (i.e. the Smart Grid reference noted by FM) will require business and commercial operations to shut down in order to provide energy to the residential sector of the economy.

        The “Future as Demagouge?” section of the Huffington Post article is the lefts current day conundrum.

        1) Denialism and the Scientific Consensus’; Namomi Oreskes’ Attacks……https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/post_10952_b_9111688.html

    2. Reading your word salad is a complete waste of time Ron. No one cares about your blog recommendations. You need to convince a large majority of Americans and the vast majority of scientists of your crackpot ideas. We don’t have to convince you of sh*t, we got the numbers.

      1. Larry Kummer, Editor


        You’ve provided no numbers, or even said much that makes sense. Mainstream Democratic Party leaders are moving to oppose to much of the Green New Deal, for some of the reasons mentioned in this post. See this Bloomberg article for a brief note.

        Good Leftist Noah Smith writes at Bloomberg that it is unaffordable. He is an assistant prof of finance at ultra-liberal Stony Brook U.

  14. I suggest that instead of cheering these people – such as AOC and Trump – you consider them signs of a high fever in the Republic.

    Yes, this is very true. The GND is interesting in this respect because its basically just a list of all the currently fashionable preoccupations of the left, but they don’t add up to a consistent set of policies. As a for instance, the first result of trying to eliminate fossil fuel use on the scale and time proposed would be a huge increase in poverty and loss of opportunity for the American poor.

    Without, of course, having the slightest effect on either global emissions or global temperatures.

    It is indeed a sign of cutlural high fever that public figures are able to advocate and get support for something as incoherent as this. And that the justification of particular energy policies, which would in normal times be an engineering and finance issue, becomes purely based on their political characterization.

    My sense is, maybe others will not agree, that we have reached the high point of a cultural revolution which started about 1965, and that we will shortly see, maybe are already seeing, the start of the reaction. The thing to watch for is when the left purges its own extremists. This is the classic first sign that the reaction is under way.

    Remember the pattern: 1793 the Terror. Thermidor, the reaction and purge of the radicals. Followed by first Napoleon, and then the Restoration.

    The Restoration will come in our case too, and it will be back to the Fifties, and an era of stifling conformity. Yeats writes of one of these cultural shifts that suddenly it was 1900, no one went mad, no-one drank absinthe, no one converted to Catholicism any more… Its coming to a campus near you, quite soon.

  15. The Woke Menace is profound. Thanks for the reference. Often thought in a fragmentary way, but never so well and clearly and systematically expressed.

    A couple of very interesting book links and suggestions as well which look like deserving follow-up.

    By the way, very glad to see you back, and hope all is well.

    1. henrik,

      “The Woke Menace”. A shitfest for sure. The mentioned Stacey Y. Abrams speech was enough for this old white guy. I still haven’t been able to watch the whole thing.
      How did it ever get to this? Sad

  16. AOC’s grand design. We’ll do away with planes and build a cross country high-speed train instead. The four-hour flight now takes ten…That’s your problem until we come up with something better.

  17. Pingback: About the Green New Deal, dreams given form | Watts Up With That?

  18. Pingback: All about the Green New Deal: dreams given form – Trump Slump World

  19. Larry, are you OK? Is something wrong? Is there any way your readers can help if so? If there is, put up a short post and let us know. I am sure there will be no lack of offers.

  20. Feb 11, 2019 Students Love Green New Deal… Until Hearing What’s In It

    Students at The University of Miami loved the idea of the Green New Deal… But they seemed to change their mind after hearing what was actually in it.


  21. To All:

    There’s perhaps an understandable exhaustion on the part of The FM Editor explaining this pause of contributions.

    I propose a “Community Project” — in essence, a cooperative.
    Where we all contribute to an instalment on this site, rather than question/disagree with anything The Editor puts out. Let’s see if the premise of this site could live up to its name!
    It doesn’t have to be a daily article — let’s start with a weekly one.

    I had participated in a similar project some years ago, all within a mailing list, and it worked quite well then.

    OTOH, I also ran an informative/interactive web within an organization and I can attest to the incredible amount of work involved and frustration associated with that.

    I really think that The Editor should get our support and resurrect this web site!

    In any case: I wish the best to Larry Kummer, The Editor…

    1. Larry Kummer, Editor

      Good guess. Quite right. I’ve been quite wrong about important things, and have been pondering how to explain how and why.

      1. If you just embraced being a weird Ron Dreher conservative type who doesn’t believe in climate change you’d actually have an audience – a very modest one – but at least a real audience who wants to engage with your writing. That would require the self-reflection that you’re a bog-standard conservative rather than some kind of free-thinker telling difficult truths so I doubt that’s ever gonna happen.

      2. I sympathize, having come to a similar conclusion several times in the last few years. To err in opinion is human, inevitable and excusable.

        Its when we err in action and not just thought that real regret is called for. Its called repentance, and its painful.

      3. Paul and henrik, I think Larry is a contrarian to current culture more so than just another b(l)og standard conservative.

        I don’t think he is as much a free-thinker as just a thinker who posts.

        The “problem” with Larry is that he is NOT a reactionary. Language and culture have drifted to accept what was once towards the fringe is now considered the norm. There is a socio-psychological reason for this that Larry has posted several times on this blog, IIRC.

        A good, if unintentional discussion of this, is by those trying to explain why climate change activists have lost. Actually they have won, they just don’t realize what it is that they won.

        These thoughts are my opinion. YMMV.

      4. John,

        If by “won” you mean that many states, and nations, have moved to implementing means to reduce future co2 levels I concur.

        How effective the plans have been, or will be, are open to discussion.

        Making sure that decision makers are aware that they have committed their citizens to a future that includes adjusting to a new paradigm in how and when energy can be used hasn’t been well understood.

        As E3 noted years ago “All Mitigation Scenarios include high levels of flexible loads” (1). I am a bit unsure how one implements a plan, by 2030, to have “50%” of light duty vehicles be flexible loads for up to 12 hours that fast-see page 77.

        1) https://www.ethree.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/E3_2050Pathways_Draft_FullDeck_20180522.pdf

      5. John,

        Agreed with what you say. He is simply not a ‘bog-standard conservative’ at all. He does sometimes arrive at conclusions which are the same as those of conventional conservatism, but that is just where his thought has led him.

        I see, reading my last, that maybe I seemed to be agreeing with Paul. I did not mean to, I was sympathizing with Larry on the recognition that one has got something wrong. That is something that has happened to me quite a bit over the years. Maybe more and more, as I age and reflect on the follies of youth!

      6. kakatoa, yes, the proposals and implementation at present are poor. At this point, I do not think they are a waste, or a loss of money. It is true that those in states and nations pursuing the green dream pay more, but this is a relatively inexpensive lesson in making sure technology not morality should determine technical solutions.

        Henrick: Sorry I didn’t consider your reply was to Larry. My problem of linear thinking as I read downward. Rereading, it makes more sense to think it was for Larry.

      7. It’s weird that his only fans are a handful of conservatives then… How is this not just an example of the “narcissism of small differences”?

      8. Larry Kummer, Editor


        Because you are looking at only one thread. Other threads have all liberal or leftists. This reflects the increasing tribalization of America, seen in most comment threads (eg, Watts Up with That on the Right, Naked Capitalism on the Left).

        For more examples see the page describing the Politics of the FM Website.

      9. There you go again with this silly idea you aren’t a typical reactionary but instead are some kind of free-thinker with appeal across the political spectrum. It’s delusional.

        I feel sorry for the few fans you actually have – you don’t even have enough respect for them to explain why you stopped blogging but will comment at the drop of a hat if anyone calls you a typical conservative. Just goes to show that this entire site is just a shrine to your intellectual narcissism and nothing else.

      10. Paul, he did. That is why I knew he was coming back around this date.

        Your comments are almost information free. You should give examples of Larry’s supposed reactionary bent.

        I assume you include me. I am far from being a typical conservative. Dozens who have known me decades think I am liberal. But truthfully, I vote from doing research on positions and so I don’t think I have ever voted a straight ticket but one year when a republican presidential candidate said something so stupid I did it for spite. And no it wasn’t Trump.

        But anybody can claim anything on the net. Larry provides sources. So, please, back up your claims of Larry with documentation. You should have done this without someone asking if you are going to insult your host and his guests with “Just goes to show that this entire site is just a shrine to your intellectual narcissism and nothing else.”

        P.S. Don’t feel sorry for us. Feed us a couple of good comments. It would raise, in our eyes and thoughts, your intelligence and honesty.

      11. Larry Kummer, Editor


        “convince people of his extraordinary claim that he transcends ideology.”

        You’re making stuff up. You’re ignoring replies. You are discussing personalities, not the substantive content.


      12. ” Please circulate if you find it useful, and post links in the comments to other analyses.”
        OK, I did that and look like a troll.
        Larry, where are you going with this?

      13. Larry Kummer, Editor


        “OK, I did that and look like a troll.”

        Why? See the Wikipedia definition:

        “A troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages.”

        Posting a link to fact-rich analytical material isn’t being a troll, by any definition that I’ve seen.

        “where are you going with this?”

        I don’t understand the question. It’s a major public policy proposal. The next step is analysis by the public. Which this is. In fact, this is deeper than 90% of what I’ve seen – most of which is “whee, wonderful” or “communism evil!” Both translate to “grunt grunt.”

      14. Larry,

        (i) If I were wrong about something important, I’d spell it out first to myself and, it others are involved, then to them too. I found that one’s image doesn’t grow with pretention, nor “explanations,” the opposite seems to be the way that goes. What matters the most is the recognition of the newly found truth (if that may be the case).
        (ii) OTOH, if one is to repent under duress (of any kind), that too needs to be communicated — some of us would perhaps get where “the winds are coming from”…

        In any case, most of us, I guess, have stuck with FM because it is original and (mostly) agreeable, while the most important aspect of our interaction is: we’re able to discuss the issues at hand without pretense and not worrying about “Content Disabled” (to a limit; again, my guess).

        My original offer still holds — CoOp is the way to go!
        I, for one, have some experience/expertise in a few fields and I do read and still keep up in (some) of them and if anyone wants to collaborate in those, I’m all go.
        All would have to go through a(n encrypted) mailing list as some recent experiences (i.e. PCR) show that “some of us” are being watched; hence the (ii) above…

        a dump site hosting some images to point to would be a great asset as well! (I’m quite reluctant to share my domains publicly and I’m too cheap to have those encrypted…) Here we could all chip in a few bucks; per use / per year, whatever works.

      15. Larry Kummer, Editor


        So is water. But people drown. “The poison is in the dosage.” Or, as I have said to such comments for 15 years – “magnitudes matter.”

      16. Larry Kummer, Editor


        Every climate scientist I know, which includes several famous skeptics, believes that CO2 is a major factor affecting global temperatures. The debate is, as usual in science, about magnitudes. If you disagree, that’s nice. No more here, however.

  22. Pingback: (Collective) Displacement: Solve for Y, When X Is Too Tough? – Neelu

  23. Pingback: The Need for Human Connection, Green New Deal, Vaccines, Recycling Crisis y mas – CAFECITO BREAK

  24. Pingback: The Extinction Rise up’s hysteria vs. local weather science – Daily News

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top
%d bloggers like this: