gags

I just came across this paper from Lord Monckton re: MMGW. Here is his conclusion: Even if temperature had risen above natural variability, the recent solar Grand Maximum may have been chiefly responsible. Even if the sun were not chiefly to blame for the past half-century’s warming, the IPCC has not demonstrated that, since CO2 occupies only one-ten-thousandth part more of the atmosphere that it did in 1750, it has contributed more than a small fraction of the warming. Even if carbon dioxide were chiefly responsible for the warming that ceased in 1998 and may not resume until 2015, the distinctive, projected fingerprint of anthropogenic “greenhouse-gas” warming is entirely absent from the observed record. Even if the fingerprint were present, computer models are long proven to be inherently incapable of providing projections of the future state of the climate that are sound enough for policymaking. Even if per impossibile the models could ever become reliable, the present paper demonstrates that it is not at all likely that the world will warm as much as the IPCC imagines. Even if the world were to warm that much, the overwhelming majority of the scientific, peer-reviewed literature does not predict that catastrophe would ensue. Even if catastrophe might ensue, even the most drastic proposals to mitigate future climate change by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide would make very little difference to the climate. Even if mitigation were likely to be effective, it would do more harm than good: already millions face starvation as the dash for biofuels takes agricultural land out of essential food production: a warning that taking precautions, “just in case”, can do untold harm unless there is a sound, scientific basis for them. Finally, even if mitigation might do more good than harm, adaptation as (and if) necessary would be far more cost-effective and less likely to be harmful. In short, we must get the science right, or we shall get the policy wrong. If the concluding equation in this analysis (Eqn. 30) is correct, the IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity must have been very much exaggerated. There may, therefore, be a good reason why, contrary to the projections of the models on which the IPCC relies, temperatures have not risen for a decade and have been falling since the phase-transition in global temperature trends that occurred in late 2001. Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no “climate crisis” at all. At present, then, in policy terms there is no case for doing anything. The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing. http://www.webcommentary.com/climate/monckton.php As the politicians kick around "Cap & Trade", they would do well to consider the fact that this entire "crisis" is a fabrication and their proposal will do untold damage to the US economy.

Here's an even more devastating review of the C4C program in its aftermath: Taxpayers ended up paying an average of $24,000 per vehicle for the Cash for Clunkers program over the summer when sales that would have happened anyway are taken into consideration, says car buying research site Edmunds.com. But Edmunds.com says a lot of those sales would have happened anyway, with or without the clunkers program. Of more than 690,000 vehicles sold, only about 125,000 of the sales were entirely due to the government's added inducement, Edmunds.com says. The rest of buyers just got lucky by getting the government to kick cash into deals that they would have proceeded with anyhow. When the cost of the program is spread over just those extra incremental sales, the total is $24,000 per vehicle. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/dr.../10/620000657/1

I'm with you Zip. We don't have the decades of time or the monetary resources that will be needed to bring this Dark Ages society into the 21st century. We should have killed as many of the Taliban as possible at the beginning, declared victory and left them with a warning of future death and destruction. Now, after having been there for so long, if we leave the country the death worshippers will claim that they have won. It's an extremely sticky situation for Obama and I don't think he has the balls to deal with it properly.

Here's a pretty interesting account of the government takeover of GM and Chrysler. GM's management (true to form) was arrogant and incompetent, right up to the very end. Everyone knew Detroit's reputation for insular, slow-moving cultures. Even by that low standard, I was shocked by the stunningly poor management that we found, particularly at GM, where we encountered, among other things, perhaps the weakest finance operation any of us had ever seen in a major company. For example, under the previous administration's loan agreements, Treasury was to approve every GM transaction of more than $100 million that was outside of the normal course. From my first day at Treasury, PowerPoint decks would arrive from GM (we quickly concluded that no decision seemed to be made at GM without one) requesting approvals. We were appalled by the absence of sound analysis provided to justify these expenditures. http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/21/autos/auto...sion=2009102104

Congratulations, Hoover is pretty prestigious. Mind my asking what you are doing for them?

It sounds like some sort of strange variation on the idea of "original sin". We all suck, so we deserve Capitalism. Never heard that one before.

I'll only watch it if I can find a stolen copy.

Limbaugh is getting grief because he made fun of the tens of thousands of people who showed up in Detroit looking for a government handout. If you didn't hear about it, the city announced that it was giving away $15 million in federal grants to needy people and the rumor spread locally that you could show up and get a check for $3,000. When you have 30%+ unemployment and a city loaded with people who are used to living off of the dole, you better believe that you're going to get a crowd when you announce you're giving away cash. Well, about 50,000 people came to Cobo Hall in the downtown area and a riot nearly broke out. Here's a link to the opinion piece from a Detroit News columnist who didn't take very kindly to Limbaugh's comments: http://www.detnews.com/article/20091011/OP...0312/1409/METRO Also, here's some background on the incident that caused the uproar: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33211233/ns/lo...ews-detroit_mi/

One of the arguments I've heard in the past is that "unit cohesion" will be affected negatively by allowing openly homosexual men in combat units. I'd tend to doubt this is true, but what do you guys in the service think?

I've always thought that this was a very strange policy and I'm particularly surprised that Obama hasn't done away with it yet. I suppose everything is about politics with this administration. I've never been in the military, so I'll defer to people like Zip and others who have actually been in the service. I don't see why would there be a problem with simply accepting gays in the military, the same way they are pretty much routinely accepted in most other professions.

And media types wonder why people are abandoning newspapers in droves.

That's not a proper hypothetical for the situation at hand. If you were to go on TV and agree with some of the Libertarian's political views and clearly point out the areas where you disagree and also explain why, then that wouldn't be "appeasement" at all, would it?

Why would speaking out against the views of a bunch of religionists in a religious setting compromise Dr. Brook's morality? If an Objectivist were to argue with a Nazi or a Communist at a rally, is that compromising the Objectivist's morality? By the way, I'm not comparing Beck to either a Nazi or a Communist. That would be absurd.

It may not be the *best* platform, but I don't think that ABC News is going to give Peter Jenning's job to Dr. Brook any time soon, nor does Jay Leno seem to be looking for a sidekick.

Bob Bidinotto has been on the Thom Hartman show in the past. When I heard him, he was plugged as an Objectivist. Bob expressed himself clearly and never backed down as Hartman started to disagree and spout the normal leftist drivel. These kinds of appearances don't reflect negatively on Objectivism, in fact they're a huge positive because they advertise the philosophy and demonstrate a clear difference between Objectivism and all of the other trash out there.

Last night Dr. Brook spoke to a standing room only crowd on the U of M campus. He started shortly after 7:00 pm and didn't leave until close to 10:00 pm due to the Q&A session afterwards. Dr. Brook's passion really shines through when he gives a speech. Here's a link to an article in the Michigan Daily Newspaper describing the talk: http://www.michigandaily.com/content/free-...nomic-collapse#

There are lot of things I wouldn't put past this crew that is currently in office. However, until there is evidence of this sort of a plot, I think that idle speculation about whether or not it could occur is a complete waste of time and makes people look paranoid.

How about confused, intimidated, and intellectually disarmed by the moral arguments made in favor of universal healthcare? People are constantly being beaten over the head by the claim that healthcare is a right to which we are all entitled. Nevertheless, anyone with a basic level of intelligence knows that making something "free" to the end user while also adding tens of millions of people to the system will result in shortages and rationing. The moral argument based on the false morality of altruism is a tough one for most people to overcome. Hah!, JMS beat me to it.

There appears to be quite a bit of evidence that the accusation are not true. Even if they were, the man should be jailed, not executed.

What??

This is the dilemma that faces and will continue to face Objectivists for the foreseeable future under the current 2 party system. There won't be a Democrat or a Republican with whom most Objectivists can agree on every issue. That being the case we have a couple of choices. One can become completely divorced from politics and thus have no impact on the process, or one can choose sides and switch sides in such a way that our issues are more or less supported and the damage is more or less minimized. I choose the second option, and I support/vote for the party that tends to best reflect my views on the most important issues of the day. I also choose to give my support to candidates where I think that their election will tend to cause gridlock and nothing will happen. If that means forming a temporary alliance with someone who is outwardly religious in order to help defeat socialized medicine (for example), then forming that alliance is a moral political decision. It doesn't mean that I share the religionist's views on religion, it simply means that we are both opposed to socialized healthcare. Right now I believe that Objectivists involved in American politics should be focused on delaying the damage while we fight the long-term philosophical battles needed to change the culture. That won't happen quickly, so holding the socialists and the religionists at bay while we make progress on the philosophical front should be our primary political goal.

A recent article in Barrons talks about a post-mortem done on the program by a couple of academic economists: According to an estimate by two University of Delaware economists cited by the Detroit News, the costs of the $3 billion cash-for-clunkers program exceeded the benefits by $1.4 billion. Still, auto sales surged to a boom-time 14 million annual rate in August as car buyers went ga-ga for clunker cash, bringing joy to them and dealers -- especially dealers. Now comes payback time. "On closer inspection, we do not see lasting, tangible benefits for the economy," Citigroup economists write about cash for clunkers in this weeks Comments on Credit. "The sales spike probably borrowed from future months and will fall off sharply now that the program has ended. "We believe that the program did not help that the program did not help auto makers much because the rise in sales was temporary, and gave car buyers only a small cost savings. The biggest beneficiaries of this program were the auto dealers themselves, who essentially received a huge transfer from the U.S. Treasury," they add. http://online.barrons.com/article/SB125415...?mod=BOL_hpp_dc

C.W., I haven't read his book. How does he explain that increasing US productivity is a myth?

The French may not like Islamic culture, but they're happy to take their money: PARIS — As France debates whether to ban the burqa, the government is leading a drive to attract billions in investment from Muslim countries by turning Paris into the European capital of Islamic finance. The French parliament this month has approved changes to legislation to allow Islamic "sukuk" bonds to be issued and the Qatar Islamic Bank has applied to be the first such bank to open in France. Home to Europe's biggest Muslim minority, France is hoping to unseat London as the European hub for Islamic banking, offering products that comply with Sharia law and meet the needs of big investors mostly from Gulf countries. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/artic...FI5s7zQxguXDBiQ

For those you from Michigan who haven't heard yet, the University of Michigan Students of Objectivism are hosting Dr. Yaron Brook on Tuesday, October 6 at 7:00 pm. He will be giving his lecture entitled "Capitalism Without Guilt: The Moral Case for Freedom". Here's a quick summary: Virtually everyone today regards the financial crisis as a failure of the free market. In this talk, Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, will argue that in fact it is the un-free market that has failed. It was not capitalism that held interest rates below the rate of inflation, spurring massive amounts of borrowing and a housing boom. It was not capitalism that gave us Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which promoted subprime lending and helped fuel the boom. It was not capitalism that gave us deposit insurance and the "too big to fail" doctrine, which encouraged risky financial practices. These, and many anti-capitalist measures like them, Dr. Brook will argue, laid the groundwork for the financial crisis. The only cure, according to Dr. Brook, is to set the market free. But to do that, Americans must embrace capitalism as a moral system--one that should be defended without guilt. Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/n/?event.php&e...48d4dG29b78c3G7 The talk will be held in room 1640 of the Chemistry building. The Chem building is located on the Main Campus in Ann Arbor, MI. It sits on North University Street, across from the Michigan League, which is #15 on the campus map below. Here's a map link: http://www.umich.edu/news/Maps/ccamp.html Everyone is welcome.