http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748703573604574491261905165886-lMyQjAxMDA5MDIwODEyNDgyWj.html
Wherever the Wharton School at UPENN is currently ranked in the various business school surveys (and that's usually somewhere in the Top 3), their Finance Department continues to be number 1 by consensus. And the number 1 professor in their Finance Department is Jeremy Siegel who has authored the article attached.
Siegel nicely summarizes the positions of those who feel that Efficient Market Theory (or EMH: Efficient Market Hypothesis) is the basic cause of the financial crisis. Siegel's definition of EMH is that the prices of securities reflect all known information that impacts their value. The hypothesis, again according to Siegel, does not claim that the market price is always right. He goes on to allow that EMH is not an "excuse" for the failures of CEOs and regulators who did not see the risks that sub-prime mortgage backed securities posed to the financial stability of the economy.
With the housing boom in this decade boosted by historically low nominal and real interest rates, the development of the securitized subprime lending market was inevitable. According to data accumulated by Professor Robert Shiller of Yale, in the 61 years from 1945 through 2006, the maximum cumulative decline in the average price of homes was 2.84% in 1991. In this environment, the credit quality of home buyers was secondary because it was thought that underlying collateral - the home - could always cover the principal in the event the homeowner defaulted. These models led credit agencies to rate these subprime mortgages as "investment grade." But this assessment was faulty since national home prices rose 88.7% from 2000 to 2006 (versus a 1% rise in median household income) totally out of sync with incomes and GDP growth.
This should have sent up red flags and cast doubts on using models that were based only on historical declines to judge future risk. With few exceptions (Goldman Sachs being one), financial firms ignored these warnings. CEOs failed to exercise their authority to monitor overall risk to the firm. And, the Fed never saw the signs.
A theory doesn't cause a crisis. Actions taken or not taken cause a crisis. Siegel rightly points out that blind faith in EMH did not "cause" the crisis. And, again, Siegel rightly points out that the "risks" have not disappeared. His analogy that, just because automobiles are safer today than they were years ago, does not mean that you can drive 120 mph, works perfectly. Ergo, our financial firms drove too fast, our central bank failed to stop them, and housing deflation crashed the banks and the economy.
Regardless, Siegel goes on to point out that neither the rating agencies' mistakes nor the overleveraging of the financial firms in the subprime securities is the fault of the Efficient Markets Hypothesis. The fact that yields on these mortgages were high despite their investment grade rating indicated that the market was rightly "suspicious" of the quality of the securities, and this should have served as a warning to to prospective buyers.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
James Bond vs Al Gore
lMyQjAxMDA5MDIwMDEyNDAyWj.html
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748704107204574475181433552914-
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748704500604574482191245495128-lMyQjAxMDA5MDIwMTEyNDEyWj.html
Those of us who are hidden away from the Al Gore Forces (AGF) have some allies. We try to keep a low profile so that we won't be attacked and discredited. First attached, we were given access to a conversation between James Bond and Felix Leiter on how many feet above high tide the Thames River would have to be before it floods London. While Bond's original reaction to Leiter's question was that "SPECTRE" must have some plot to make that happen, Leiter informs him that it is part of CIA Director Leon Panetta's newly launched "Center on Climate Change and National Security" where the CIA has been tasked to evaluate potential threats to the U.S. from climate change. Quoting Panetta, "Decision makers need information and analysis on the effects climate change can have on security."
Of course, Bond's reaction to all of this is that nobody listens to Al Gore but Leiter informs Bond that the CIA is not allowed to question the science. Leiter goes on to explain to Bond that it's really not the CIA anymore, it's the "CYA".
At the risk of offending the AGF, I'll go with Pete DuPont (second attached) who sees "global" and "warming" as the two most important words used to justify the approaching governmental control of the U.S. economy. DuPont's "reality" is that global warming is barely occurring: in the 30 years starting in 1977, warming amounted to 0.32 degree Fahrenheit per decade, and, in the next 100 years, it is estimated to be about half a degree per decade. So, global warming looks like something that does not merit the extreme control currently being contemplated in Congress. The new Boxer-Kerry Bill is the Senate version of the Waxman-Markey House bill. The Boxer-Kerry bill looks to require a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.
This 20% reduction would mean getting back to 1977 levels of emissions which would require fairly draconian measures: for example, car and truck miles would have to be reduced by one-third (over 10 years). Who volunteers to go first with that one? And, what's the impact of that on our very weak economic recovery? Oh, and there is a return to "protectionism" with a new "border adjustment program" where we in the U.S. can apply "tariffs" on goods imported from countries that do not adopt acceptable environmental standards. Acceptable to whom, the AGF?
Both the House and Senate bills would allow "emitters" to claim they were hitting reduction targets (while actually emitting more carbon) by investing in projects that reduce carbon. There is no "cap-and-trade" system that really works - Europe tried it.
High cost policies with low impact results are not in America's best interests. While the AGF look to change how we approach improving our environment, hiding behind radical approaches and threatening opponents is not the way to do that. Improving the environment while having a progressive approach to economic growth and jobs is the only way to go.
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748704107204574475181433552914-
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748704500604574482191245495128-lMyQjAxMDA5MDIwMTEyNDEyWj.html
Those of us who are hidden away from the Al Gore Forces (AGF) have some allies. We try to keep a low profile so that we won't be attacked and discredited. First attached, we were given access to a conversation between James Bond and Felix Leiter on how many feet above high tide the Thames River would have to be before it floods London. While Bond's original reaction to Leiter's question was that "SPECTRE" must have some plot to make that happen, Leiter informs him that it is part of CIA Director Leon Panetta's newly launched "Center on Climate Change and National Security" where the CIA has been tasked to evaluate potential threats to the U.S. from climate change. Quoting Panetta, "Decision makers need information and analysis on the effects climate change can have on security."
Of course, Bond's reaction to all of this is that nobody listens to Al Gore but Leiter informs Bond that the CIA is not allowed to question the science. Leiter goes on to explain to Bond that it's really not the CIA anymore, it's the "CYA".
At the risk of offending the AGF, I'll go with Pete DuPont (second attached) who sees "global" and "warming" as the two most important words used to justify the approaching governmental control of the U.S. economy. DuPont's "reality" is that global warming is barely occurring: in the 30 years starting in 1977, warming amounted to 0.32 degree Fahrenheit per decade, and, in the next 100 years, it is estimated to be about half a degree per decade. So, global warming looks like something that does not merit the extreme control currently being contemplated in Congress. The new Boxer-Kerry Bill is the Senate version of the Waxman-Markey House bill. The Boxer-Kerry bill looks to require a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.
This 20% reduction would mean getting back to 1977 levels of emissions which would require fairly draconian measures: for example, car and truck miles would have to be reduced by one-third (over 10 years). Who volunteers to go first with that one? And, what's the impact of that on our very weak economic recovery? Oh, and there is a return to "protectionism" with a new "border adjustment program" where we in the U.S. can apply "tariffs" on goods imported from countries that do not adopt acceptable environmental standards. Acceptable to whom, the AGF?
Both the House and Senate bills would allow "emitters" to claim they were hitting reduction targets (while actually emitting more carbon) by investing in projects that reduce carbon. There is no "cap-and-trade" system that really works - Europe tried it.
High cost policies with low impact results are not in America's best interests. While the AGF look to change how we approach improving our environment, hiding behind radical approaches and threatening opponents is not the way to do that. Improving the environment while having a progressive approach to economic growth and jobs is the only way to go.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Jobs, the HR Hurdle, and Housing
http://wwwom/2009/10/11/jobs/11search.html?emc=eta1.nytimes.c
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/business/economy/11view.html?emc=eta1
At the recent G-20 summit in Pittsburgh, world leaders agreed that getting Americans to save and produce more while encouraging the Chinese to consume more is essential to placing the global economy on a stable footing. Well, you see, there it is - the solution was staring us in the face all along and it was in Pittsburgh! Who knew?
Most striking, on average, 6.3 unemployed job seekers are trying to fill each open position (Labor Department figures) in the U.S. economy. When the recession started in December, 2007, 1.7 people were competing for each open slot.
This makes it an employer's market right now, so the issue is what to do about it? The NY Times article attached addresses a perspective on that situation. And, they rightly point out that HR people, faced with hundreds of faceless online applications, have one main goal: to weed out as many people as they can. However; establishing personal contact with someone on the inside (sounds like networking to me) can help make a person's case. As the article says, job seekers who don't fit all the requirements (some of which are deliberately unrealistic) "need to go around the gatekeeper; they need to find another door." When someone that a hiring manager "knows" introduces them to a candidate, there's a trust link there that can make an opportunity happen. Many times, your personality will sell you when a two dimensional "career summary" won't. Having spent a career in human resources and, ultimately, with the responsibility for it as a part of larger responsibilities, I can endorse this perspective. I can also add that humility and the espoused ability to act as a team player are critical to creating a positive impression.
From December, 2007, when our friends the economists were busy telling us there was no recession (until, of course, they could retroactively declare one following two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth), "housing" was what to watch and "housing" is what to watch now. We said then (and since) that, when the housing market rights itself (or, put differently, when the housing inventory overhang snugs up), the recession, and its most critical "lagging indicator" - JOBS - will come back. Robert Shiller (at Yale) created the Case-Shiller Home Price Index 20 years ago (Case is at Wellesley) to keep track of the housing market. Their just completed 2009 surveys (article attached) show the sharpest upturn that Shiller has ever seen! The suddenness of this shift surprised even Shiller. Good news like this has been hard to find. Certainly, it could be short term, but their own (Case-Shiller) home price index has stabilized. So, there is hope.
Whenever there is "hope", we must mention Nouriel Roubini, the Great Recession "predictor", who has the capacity to find the negative in anything. His most recent contrarian outlook (Reuters, 10/08/09) stated that U.S. housing prices may still fall more than 10%, killing an incipient recovery, as demand from first time buyers fades. He goes on to add that massive losses in commercial real estate loans will add to the problem, forcing banks to raise more capital. This was part of Roubini's presentation to the World Economic Forum.
In spite of all of this, Roubini sees a greater chance of a "U-shaped" recovery in developed economies, with a 20 to 25% chance of a "double-dip"(recession).
Catherine Rampell, writing in the Times "Economix" blog, has discovered the most recent unemployment numbers from across Europe with some striking "outliers". So, while the 27 member European Union is at 9.7%, both Spain and Latvia were nearly double that. If a "convoy" is only as fast as its slowest ship, one wonders where Europe's numbers are going.
So jobs, our lagging indicator here in the U.S., could come back consistently with housing, or Roubini could burst another hope by being right again (this time about commercial real estate). However; even Roubini sees, as indicated above, the possibility of light at the end of the tunnel. We have to drag him along kicking and screaming, but that's OK. Every 25 years Roubini will be right, as he was with his prediction in 2007. Meanwhile, we have hopeful signs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/business/economy/11view.html?emc=eta1
At the recent G-20 summit in Pittsburgh, world leaders agreed that getting Americans to save and produce more while encouraging the Chinese to consume more is essential to placing the global economy on a stable footing. Well, you see, there it is - the solution was staring us in the face all along and it was in Pittsburgh! Who knew?
Most striking, on average, 6.3 unemployed job seekers are trying to fill each open position (Labor Department figures) in the U.S. economy. When the recession started in December, 2007, 1.7 people were competing for each open slot.
This makes it an employer's market right now, so the issue is what to do about it? The NY Times article attached addresses a perspective on that situation. And, they rightly point out that HR people, faced with hundreds of faceless online applications, have one main goal: to weed out as many people as they can. However; establishing personal contact with someone on the inside (sounds like networking to me) can help make a person's case. As the article says, job seekers who don't fit all the requirements (some of which are deliberately unrealistic) "need to go around the gatekeeper; they need to find another door." When someone that a hiring manager "knows" introduces them to a candidate, there's a trust link there that can make an opportunity happen. Many times, your personality will sell you when a two dimensional "career summary" won't. Having spent a career in human resources and, ultimately, with the responsibility for it as a part of larger responsibilities, I can endorse this perspective. I can also add that humility and the espoused ability to act as a team player are critical to creating a positive impression.
From December, 2007, when our friends the economists were busy telling us there was no recession (until, of course, they could retroactively declare one following two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth), "housing" was what to watch and "housing" is what to watch now. We said then (and since) that, when the housing market rights itself (or, put differently, when the housing inventory overhang snugs up), the recession, and its most critical "lagging indicator" - JOBS - will come back. Robert Shiller (at Yale) created the Case-Shiller Home Price Index 20 years ago (Case is at Wellesley) to keep track of the housing market. Their just completed 2009 surveys (article attached) show the sharpest upturn that Shiller has ever seen! The suddenness of this shift surprised even Shiller. Good news like this has been hard to find. Certainly, it could be short term, but their own (Case-Shiller) home price index has stabilized. So, there is hope.
Whenever there is "hope", we must mention Nouriel Roubini, the Great Recession "predictor", who has the capacity to find the negative in anything. His most recent contrarian outlook (Reuters, 10/08/09) stated that U.S. housing prices may still fall more than 10%, killing an incipient recovery, as demand from first time buyers fades. He goes on to add that massive losses in commercial real estate loans will add to the problem, forcing banks to raise more capital. This was part of Roubini's presentation to the World Economic Forum.
In spite of all of this, Roubini sees a greater chance of a "U-shaped" recovery in developed economies, with a 20 to 25% chance of a "double-dip"(recession).
Catherine Rampell, writing in the Times "Economix" blog, has discovered the most recent unemployment numbers from across Europe with some striking "outliers". So, while the 27 member European Union is at 9.7%, both Spain and Latvia were nearly double that. If a "convoy" is only as fast as its slowest ship, one wonders where Europe's numbers are going.
So jobs, our lagging indicator here in the U.S., could come back consistently with housing, or Roubini could burst another hope by being right again (this time about commercial real estate). However; even Roubini sees, as indicated above, the possibility of light at the end of the tunnel. We have to drag him along kicking and screaming, but that's OK. Every 25 years Roubini will be right, as he was with his prediction in 2007. Meanwhile, we have hopeful signs.
Friday, October 9, 2009
WSJ Consensus Forecast
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB125494927938671631-lMyQjAxMDI5NTA0OTkwNDk5Wj.html
The new WSJ consensus forecast (attached) shows an estimated GDP growth for the just ended third quarter of 3.1%. That's a full percent better than this group of 48 economists projected at year start. On average, the economists don't expect unemployment to fall below 6% until 2013. On average, the economists expect unemployment to peak at 10.2% this coming February.
At the end of the cover article for the survey data, there is an excellent graph depicting the "Long Road Back". The graph displays how long it would take to regain the job level at the start of this recession (December 2007) : assuming the average monthly pace of the most recent expansion, it would take 86 months, or not until December 2016. From a "jobs" perspective this is an awfully heavy load for a recovering economy to shoulder - the "numbers" look more like a double-dip recession. Where is the "consumer"? In many cases, the consumer is unemployed or underemployed. In addition, Roubini points out that there is a vast negative potential currently in the economy from commercial real estate. That observation, while accurate, should be tempered by the fact that Roubini can find the negative in anything.
"Consensus" amongst economists is a scary thing, but I'm going to go with the positive GDP projections because part of any recovery is confidence.
The new WSJ consensus forecast (attached) shows an estimated GDP growth for the just ended third quarter of 3.1%. That's a full percent better than this group of 48 economists projected at year start. On average, the economists don't expect unemployment to fall below 6% until 2013. On average, the economists expect unemployment to peak at 10.2% this coming February.
At the end of the cover article for the survey data, there is an excellent graph depicting the "Long Road Back". The graph displays how long it would take to regain the job level at the start of this recession (December 2007) : assuming the average monthly pace of the most recent expansion, it would take 86 months, or not until December 2016. From a "jobs" perspective this is an awfully heavy load for a recovering economy to shoulder - the "numbers" look more like a double-dip recession. Where is the "consumer"? In many cases, the consumer is unemployed or underemployed. In addition, Roubini points out that there is a vast negative potential currently in the economy from commercial real estate. That observation, while accurate, should be tempered by the fact that Roubini can find the negative in anything.
"Consensus" amongst economists is a scary thing, but I'm going to go with the positive GDP projections because part of any recovery is confidence.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Jobs, the Economy, and Climate Change
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/weekinreview/04norris.html?_r=1&emc=eta1
Thanks to my followers whose comments on my "Global Cooling" post brought a smile! I believe the "polar bears" are safe, at least for another century. I believe that President Obama had opportunities to fly to Copenhagen twice this year: once was to promote Chicago as an Olympic venue, and once coming up to talk "climate" with the G-20 countries. His first trip was probably one he should not have made (see Goerge Will on that) but his second one might be time well spent if he pays attention to the "economics" of climate (here, he could probably use a "tutorial" from Bjorn Lomberg and the Copenhagen Consensus*).
Specifically, what does global climate mitigation do for worldwide economic growth? While I could be wrong, I believe it was the Bill Clinton presidential campaign that coined the phrase: "It's the economy stupid!" Well, right now, it's "jobs stupid!" The Great Recession has brought the world the curse of massive unemployment (and/or underemployment). So, raising prices and taxes to pay for various cap and trade schemes will help economic growth (which usually correlates with "jobs") how?
If we use the Floyd Norris summary (NY Times, 10/4/09 attached) of employment decline (click on his chart), with current revisions, 8 million jobs have been lost since December, 2007 in the U.S. If I could summarize for a moment: the most recent monthly BLS unemployment report showed 263,000 jobs lost which, while a slight blip up from the prior month, is part of a significant trend down from the early months of the year when roughly 700,000 jobs per month were disappearing. This would be consistent with the economic consensus that GDP growth is returning. Some experts are now predicting that the 2% per quarter GDP growth predicted by the WSJ Economist Survey will be exceeded by 1 to 1.5% for coming quarters. That's the good news. Now, how long will it take the U.S. economy to re-employ the 8 million unemployed from the most recent estimates? Remember, the 263,000 referred to above is less jobs lost. For this economy to function properly, between 100,000 and 150,000 net jobs have to be "created" each month.
The lagging indicator that is so problematic is unemployment. What's interesting with current economic thinking is that those same people who think that GDP has the possibility of growing at 3 to 3.5% over coming quarters also think that "employers" overdid it with layoffs as the Great Recession initiated. If that is the case, then it is possible that an economic comeback will be faster and stronger than was anticipated by economists previously. So, if there is "good news" in the "bad news", that's it.
While the potential for GDP growth over coming quarters is that it will be higher than anticipated, I know of no economists that think unemployment will be under 9.5 to 10% (average) for 2010. Attacking unemployment is the near term priority problem for the U.S. economy, NOT climate change.
If I could refer back to President Obama (and his economic "team") for a moment, the "economic stimulus" was proposed (the $787 billion, or, that plus all the other programs that add up to significantly more money) by the administration in conjunction with an "estimate" that implementation of said stimulus would keep unemployment below 8%. What happened to that?
Just speculating here, China's commitment to renewable energy (already declared and backed up by "incentives") will probably do more for worldwide climate improvement than all the cap and trade programs Europe and North America can create in the coming years.
And, if George Friedman is right about "The Next 100 Years", new energy technologies will mitigate climate problems even further.
_____________
* Interestingly enough, for those who may be unaware, the Copenhagen Consensus Center has, and continues to address the economics of what would do the most good for the most people in the world - in 2008, their blue ribbon panel of economists, including 5 Nobel laureates, weighed what would be the top priorities in the world if $75 billion was put on the table for distribution by cost/benefit rank (#1 to #30). Number1 was a $60 million expenditure for providing vitamin A and zinc that would help some 112 million children in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Number 30 was global climate mitigation (of any kind): $800 billion (a reasonable estimate of what it would take to install current cap and trade schemes worldwide) could, over 100 years, reduce temperature increases by 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of this century. Putting the rich world's political cause du jour, global warming, ahead of poverty, disease and economic growth (Jobs!) is, at best, foolish!
Thanks to my followers whose comments on my "Global Cooling" post brought a smile! I believe the "polar bears" are safe, at least for another century. I believe that President Obama had opportunities to fly to Copenhagen twice this year: once was to promote Chicago as an Olympic venue, and once coming up to talk "climate" with the G-20 countries. His first trip was probably one he should not have made (see Goerge Will on that) but his second one might be time well spent if he pays attention to the "economics" of climate (here, he could probably use a "tutorial" from Bjorn Lomberg and the Copenhagen Consensus*).
Specifically, what does global climate mitigation do for worldwide economic growth? While I could be wrong, I believe it was the Bill Clinton presidential campaign that coined the phrase: "It's the economy stupid!" Well, right now, it's "jobs stupid!" The Great Recession has brought the world the curse of massive unemployment (and/or underemployment). So, raising prices and taxes to pay for various cap and trade schemes will help economic growth (which usually correlates with "jobs") how?
If we use the Floyd Norris summary (NY Times, 10/4/09 attached) of employment decline (click on his chart), with current revisions, 8 million jobs have been lost since December, 2007 in the U.S. If I could summarize for a moment: the most recent monthly BLS unemployment report showed 263,000 jobs lost which, while a slight blip up from the prior month, is part of a significant trend down from the early months of the year when roughly 700,000 jobs per month were disappearing. This would be consistent with the economic consensus that GDP growth is returning. Some experts are now predicting that the 2% per quarter GDP growth predicted by the WSJ Economist Survey will be exceeded by 1 to 1.5% for coming quarters. That's the good news. Now, how long will it take the U.S. economy to re-employ the 8 million unemployed from the most recent estimates? Remember, the 263,000 referred to above is less jobs lost. For this economy to function properly, between 100,000 and 150,000 net jobs have to be "created" each month.
The lagging indicator that is so problematic is unemployment. What's interesting with current economic thinking is that those same people who think that GDP has the possibility of growing at 3 to 3.5% over coming quarters also think that "employers" overdid it with layoffs as the Great Recession initiated. If that is the case, then it is possible that an economic comeback will be faster and stronger than was anticipated by economists previously. So, if there is "good news" in the "bad news", that's it.
While the potential for GDP growth over coming quarters is that it will be higher than anticipated, I know of no economists that think unemployment will be under 9.5 to 10% (average) for 2010. Attacking unemployment is the near term priority problem for the U.S. economy, NOT climate change.
If I could refer back to President Obama (and his economic "team") for a moment, the "economic stimulus" was proposed (the $787 billion, or, that plus all the other programs that add up to significantly more money) by the administration in conjunction with an "estimate" that implementation of said stimulus would keep unemployment below 8%. What happened to that?
Just speculating here, China's commitment to renewable energy (already declared and backed up by "incentives") will probably do more for worldwide climate improvement than all the cap and trade programs Europe and North America can create in the coming years.
And, if George Friedman is right about "The Next 100 Years", new energy technologies will mitigate climate problems even further.
_____________
* Interestingly enough, for those who may be unaware, the Copenhagen Consensus Center has, and continues to address the economics of what would do the most good for the most people in the world - in 2008, their blue ribbon panel of economists, including 5 Nobel laureates, weighed what would be the top priorities in the world if $75 billion was put on the table for distribution by cost/benefit rank (#1 to #30). Number1 was a $60 million expenditure for providing vitamin A and zinc that would help some 112 million children in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Number 30 was global climate mitigation (of any kind): $800 billion (a reasonable estimate of what it would take to install current cap and trade schemes worldwide) could, over 100 years, reduce temperature increases by 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of this century. Putting the rich world's political cause du jour, global warming, ahead of poverty, disease and economic growth (Jobs!) is, at best, foolish!
Friday, October 2, 2009
Global Cooling
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/30/AR2009093003569.html?referrer=emailarticle
I have decided that I will call this thing that the "Al Gore Forces" are pushing "Global Cooling" because that is what it is. Fortunately for me, I have a low profile so I can share my thoughts with those who want to read my "posts" and I'm safe from attack because: (a) I make sense; and (b) I'm invisible to the AGF (Al Gore Forces).
George Will occasionally holds forth (article attached) on Global Cooling (GC) as he did yesterday when he reacted to a NY Times headline about the frustrations of the AGFs over the fact that global temperatures have "plateaued".
The "difficulty", to quote Will quoting the NY Times, "... is building momentum for carbon reduction when global temperatures have been relatively stable for a decade and may even drop in the next few years." As Will goes on to point out, a "few years" became "...the next decade or so..." later in the article. But wait, it might even be two decades in which temperatures cool according to one scientist.
By asserting that the absence of significant warming since 1998 is a mere "plateau", the Times assures readers who are alarmed about climate change that the paper knows the future and that warming will continue: quoting Will, "Do not despair, bad news will resume."
Will, again quotes the Times quoting "scientists" saying that 11 years of temperature stability has "no bearing" on long term warming. So, "...cool stretches are inevitable". I'm guessing that these "scientists" are secret members of the AGF. According to the Times, "... a short term trend (11 years) gives ammunition to skeptics of climate change."
Back to George Will: "Actually, what makes skeptics skeptical is the accumulating evidence that theories predicting catastrophe from man-made climate change are IMPERVIOUS TO EVIDENCE (my caps)."
It would appear that warnings about cataclysmic warming increase in stridency as evidence of warming becomes more elusive.
It strikes me that the AGFs are very similar to Thomas Malthus whose basic theory was that we would run out of food on the planet. Malthus lived to see that he was wrong because he didn't factor in technological advances. George Friedman's much anticipated new book on "The Next 100 Years" gives us a scientifically feasible scenario on how the world's energy problems will be solved and, as an unintended consequence, global warming as well. It would be interesting to see how the AGFs attack that.
I have decided that I will call this thing that the "Al Gore Forces" are pushing "Global Cooling" because that is what it is. Fortunately for me, I have a low profile so I can share my thoughts with those who want to read my "posts" and I'm safe from attack because: (a) I make sense; and (b) I'm invisible to the AGF (Al Gore Forces).
George Will occasionally holds forth (article attached) on Global Cooling (GC) as he did yesterday when he reacted to a NY Times headline about the frustrations of the AGFs over the fact that global temperatures have "plateaued".
The "difficulty", to quote Will quoting the NY Times, "... is building momentum for carbon reduction when global temperatures have been relatively stable for a decade and may even drop in the next few years." As Will goes on to point out, a "few years" became "...the next decade or so..." later in the article. But wait, it might even be two decades in which temperatures cool according to one scientist.
By asserting that the absence of significant warming since 1998 is a mere "plateau", the Times assures readers who are alarmed about climate change that the paper knows the future and that warming will continue: quoting Will, "Do not despair, bad news will resume."
Will, again quotes the Times quoting "scientists" saying that 11 years of temperature stability has "no bearing" on long term warming. So, "...cool stretches are inevitable". I'm guessing that these "scientists" are secret members of the AGF. According to the Times, "... a short term trend (11 years) gives ammunition to skeptics of climate change."
Back to George Will: "Actually, what makes skeptics skeptical is the accumulating evidence that theories predicting catastrophe from man-made climate change are IMPERVIOUS TO EVIDENCE (my caps)."
It would appear that warnings about cataclysmic warming increase in stridency as evidence of warming becomes more elusive.
It strikes me that the AGFs are very similar to Thomas Malthus whose basic theory was that we would run out of food on the planet. Malthus lived to see that he was wrong because he didn't factor in technological advances. George Friedman's much anticipated new book on "The Next 100 Years" gives us a scientifically feasible scenario on how the world's energy problems will be solved and, as an unintended consequence, global warming as well. It would be interesting to see how the AGFs attack that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)