Government and Taxes: Dr. Roy Spencer

Showing posts with label Dr. Roy Spencer. Show all posts

Sunday, June 03, 2018

Climate Tricks 68, High demand for climate money

Debates if not fights among climate negotiators and planet saviours over climate money is a perennial, annual characteristic of the annual UN FCCC talks. As admitted by this article from
http://climatetracker.org/climate-finance-stumbling-block-negotiations-cop23/.

Also from some WUWT articles,

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/maldives-government-wheres-our-climate-cash/ April 26, 2018,

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/05/climate-shakedown-iran-demands-their-share-of-paris-agreement-climate-cash/ May 20, 2018.

The range of climate money being expected to be redistributed from rich to developing countries is from $100 B/year starting 2020 (just 1 1/2 years from now) to $5 trillion/year. Huge climate money and extortion is the defining characteristic of all these climate talks by the UN and other multilaterals.

Meanwhile, I posted this last June 2, 2010 in my fb wall.

My picture with Dr. Roy Spencer (www.drroyspencer.com), a known climatologist at the Univ. of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). Among his important work is interpreting satellite data of global tropospheric temperature. Picture during the Heartland's 4th ICCC in Chicago 2 weeks ago.

I reposted that picture in my wall yesterday with this note,

With one of my idol scientists. Data and theory should conform with each other, always. If data does not show what theory says or predicts, the former should prevail, throw away the theory and it should go back to being a hypothesis. Among the important things I learned from these scientists.

Meanwhile, here's the latest global ·air temperature data from Dr. Spencer.

YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2017 05 +0.44 +0.39 +0.49 +0.41 +0.10 +0.21 +0.06
2017 06 +0.22 +0.33 +0.10 +0.39 +0.50 +0.10 +0.34
2017 07 +0.29 +0.30 +0.27 +0.51 +0.60 -0.27 +1.03
2017 08 +0.41 +0.40 +0.42 +0.46 -0.55 +0.49 +0.77
2017 09 +0.54 +0.51 +0.57 +0.54 +0.29 +1.06 +0.60
2017 10 +0.63 +0.67 +0.59 +0.47 +1.21 +0.83 +0.86
2017 11 +0.36 +0.33 +0.38 +0.27 +1.35 +0.68 -0.12
2017 12 +0.41 +0.50 +0.33 +0.26 +0.44 +1.37 +0.36
2018 01 +0.26 +0.46 +0.06 -0.11 +0.58 +1.36 +0.42
2018 02 +0.20 +0.24 +0.16 +0.03 +0.92 +1.19 +0.18
2018 03 +0.25 +0.40 +0.10 +0.06 -0.32 -0.33 +0.59
2018 04 +0.21 +0.31 +0.10 -0.13 -0.01 +1.02 +0.68
2018 05 +0.18 +0.40 -0.05 +0.03 +1.93 +0.18 -0.40

Source: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2018-0-18-deg-c/

From 0.44 C global temp. anomaly or deviation/departure from average 30 years in May 2017, down to only 0.18 C in May 2018. Yeah, planet Earth is getting hotter and warmer and sizzler.

Trump listens to guys like Dr. Spencer while Obama and HRC despise him. He's too independent minded, too science-based that only facts and data would guide his pronouncements (along with his boss Dr. John Christy, also few other scientists), not politics and govt funding (US or UN or WB, etc).

Trump transition teams in 2016 wanted to tap him to head EPA or as Presidential Science Adviser but he declined, he dislikes heavy politics up there so he stays at the Univ. of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). Only 2 teams in the planet provide global air temp analysis, UAH and RSS. Heavy, big data collected by NASA satellites every hour 24/7, from N hemisphere and the Arctic to tropics to S hemisphere and Antarctica.

--------------

See also:
Climate Tricks 65, "Last chance" to save the planet stories, 1992-2018, March 16, 2018
Climate Tricks 66, Ignoring the implications of worsening cosmic rays situation, March 18, 2018
Climate Tricks 67, Alarmists with deep-seated intolerance, May 26, 2018

Saturday, January 06, 2018

Climate tricks 64, Bitter cold and snow are caused by AGW

Al Gore the planet saviour. Less rain or lots of rain, less snow or more snow, less cold or bitter cold, the planet is in danger from anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW) so we should send him and the UN more money. :-)

Reposting this, from Dr. Roy W. Spencer:

My imagined conversation with Al Gore:

MR. GORE: This cold wave and snowstorm are just what global warming predicted!

ME: And what if the weather had been unusually warm and snow-free?

MR. GORE: That would also be consistent with global warming theory.

ME: So warm winters, cold winters, snowy winters, and no-snow winters are all predictions of global warming?

MR. GORE: Yes, that is correct.

ME: Are you aware how foolish that sounds to many people?

MR. GORE: I am aware that there are deniers of the current climate crisis we are in, yes.

ME: Ugh.

Meanwhile, in December 2008, Al Gore announced this:

Al Gore: "North Pole Will Disappear in 5 Years" (Video)

December 13, 2008 by Jim Hoft 14 Comments

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2008/12/al-gore-north-pole-will-disappear-in-5/

The Goracle spoke to an audience in Germany this week where he told them that “the entire North Polarized cap will disappear in 5 years.”

Global messengers of fake climate news and predictions have no shame. They have to continue the dishonesty and deception, non-stop, even if nature does not obey or conform with their ever-warming-predictions.
--------------

See also:
Climate Tricks 61, Hysteria and tantrums over Trump's withrawal from Paris Agreement, June 02, 2017
Climate Tricks 62, Climate religionism of Arcy Garcia, July 02, 2017
Climate Tricks 63, The search for huge climate money in COP 23, November 26, 2017
La Nina and flooding in the PH, other countries, December 30, 2017

Friday, January 20, 2017

Climate Tricks 59, Trump's climate advisor to reverse US government alarmism

Mr. Trump has a foul mouth but in terms of climate and energy policies, he is a realist, not alarmist. Now the world should begin to realize that climate change is mainly nature-made, not man-made.

Below are some fb updates from world famous climatologist, Dr. Roy Spencer of UAH last January 15, 2017:

"good news, looks like my friend Will Happer is one step closer to being Trump's Science Advisor."

"I've helped Will come up to speed on climate issues over the years...

Will is familiar with government service and the press, he will play by the rules. Definitely not a loose cannon."

"It now looks like my co-conspirator (and boss) John Christy is being floated to head NOAA. I can't see any other reason for his name to be mentioned in this new article by James Delingpole (James will probably neither confirm nor deny his intention-- wink wink nudge nudge). John has said it's the only position he'd consider taking, and I recommended him for it to two Trump transition team members. The downside is we really need him here in Huntsville...but he'd do a great job as NOAA Administrator." http://www.spectator.co.uk/.../stop-worrying-about-trump.../

"... John "knows" NOAA, their mission, and is an expert on thermometer measurements. He's a good scientist AND manager. I'd like to see him get to the bottom of the thermometer adjustment mess...it won't be easy. He's been working with Anthony Watts and others on what I believe to be the best analysis of U.S. temperature data. I'd LOVE to see that work get legs....

again, we are just reading between the lines here. He has not yet been offered the position. John alerted me to the new article, and I believe it's the second "trial balloon" that has been floated with his name."

There were 2 other GOP candidates who were skeptic of "man-made" CC, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. But I doubt if pushed to the wall, they will challenge the climate establishment heads on. Seems that only Trump has the ball to take the huge climate alarmism establishment.

Two comments from two American friends:

Roy W. Spencer I agree. No one else would dare challenge the orthodoxy. Too many powerful people invested in green schemes.

Todd Foster "John Christy is being floated to head NOAA..." Will I ever get tired of such win. And that's Trump's biggest asset. His complete inability to be cowed by a media that fewer and fewer even trust. Yes, he'll take a beating from the howling monkeys of the press but he'll just keep pushing on, to higher approval ratings.

Wow, Dr. Spencer commented on my wall, haha, was so happy. I have heard him first in 2009 in NYC, 2nd ICCC by the Heartland Institute. Since I was not so familiar with the highly technical aspects of climate science that time, was struggling with a very steep learning curve right there at the conference, I did not fully comprehend his talk and discussion about positive vs. negative cloud feedbacks to more CO2 added to the atmosphere, related topics. That conference was a start for me to read more about the technical aspects of climate science. I was visiting his blog, WUWT, others more regularly.

When I attended the 4th ICCC in Chicago, still sponsored by Heartland, I was more familiar with the basic concepts. Solar irradiance, GCRs, PDO, AMO, cloud feedback, UHI, datasets from UAH, RSS, and so on. When I saw Dr. Spencer during a coffee break, I asked for a selfie with him, he gladly obliged. I was awed, so happy to stand beside this huge, giant mind in climate science :-)

More articles here. This one is from new friend in fb, Willis Eschenbach. I think Willis was also present in the 2 ICCCs that I have attended, but I did not know him then.

"These NOAA claims of wildly accelerating rates of sea level rise are not science in any form. They are government sponsored hysteria, and whoever did this at NOAA should resign.

Unfortunately, the costs of this rampant alarmism will be huge, as coastal communities will struggle to comply with a meaninglessly exaggerated risk." -- https://wattsupwiththat.com/.../noaa-jumps-the-shark-in.../

"In my opinion, we are an over-regulated society. Over-regulation not only destroys prosperity and jobs, it ends up killing people. And political pressures in government to perform scientific research that favors biased policy outcomes is part of the problem.

Science is being misused, prostituted if you wish.

Yes, we need regulations to help keep our air, water, and food reasonably clean. But government agencies must be required to take into account the costs and risks their regulations impose upon society." -- Roy W. Spencer http://www.drroyspencer.com/.../science-under-president.../

--------------

Friday, December 25, 2015

Agri Econ 22, Why "peak food" hypothesis is wrong

Merry Christmas.

Lots of food almost everywhere here in the Philippines, other countries, in celebration of family reunions and the holiday, Christian season.

And this is near the subject of "Peak food" or "more global hunger" and related hypothesis or conspiracy theories. And they remain as conspiracies, spreading and alarmism. Here's a good observation and chart from Dr. Spencer, January 29th, 2015,

“food production is not limited by available land…it depends upon demand. If demand rises, so does food production. Hunger, malnourishment, and starvation are not due to a lack of food. They are almost always due to governmental policies which hinder farming or hinder the prosperity needed to import food….”

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/01/now-its-peak-food-give-me-a-break/

A world of rising... famine, or abundance? There is more food per capita now, and more in the future. The prophets of doom and alarmism may consider findinng other more useful jobs. Also from Dr. Spencer, March 18th, 2014.

“Here in the U.S, as well as globally, grain production as well as yields (in bushels per acre) have been on an upward linear trend for at least 50 years, primarily due to improvements in varieties (e.g. with greater drought tolerance) and growing practices.”

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/03/the-next-great-famineor-age-of-abundance/

Another chart, by regions and continents, 2000-2009.

http://www.newsustainabilityinc.com/author/admin/

Land productivity is agricultural gross production per hectare of agri land. Labor productivity is agricultural gross production per economically active person in agriculture.

In Asia, they are steadily rising except in Afghanistan, Bhutan and North Korea.

Data is from Table 6, Global Food Policy Report 2014-2015, by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

http://www.ifpri.org/.../files/publications/gfpr20142015.pdf

The figures are even more impressive, much larger in some MidEast countries than those in Asia proper. Note the numbers for Israel, Egypt, Bahrain and Lebanon.

same source above.

Some reports and articles.

(1) "Journalists know that alarmism attracts readers. An article in the British newspaper the Independent titled, “Have we reached ‘peak food’? Shortages loom as global production rates slow” claimed humanity will soon face mass starvation.

Just as Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 bestseller The Population Bomb predicted that millions would die due to food shortages in the 1970s and 1980s, the article in 2015 tries to capture readers’ interest through unfounded fear. Let’s take a look at the actual state of global food production." May 26, 2015. http://fee.org/.../capitalism-defused-the-population-bomb

(2) "For the first time, the world is eating more fish from farms than from the open sea, spurring billions of dollars of takeovers as one of the largest food companies seeks to capitalize on rising demand.

Fish consumption is growing at a faster pace than beef, pork and poultry, driven by an expanding, increasingly prosperous global population that recognizes the health benefits of eating seafood. Demand is forecast by United Nations to outstrip supply in coming years. Wild fish aren’t going to fill the gap, and that leaves farming in lakes and coastal waters -- also known as aquaculture -- to make up the shortfall." http://www.bloomberg.com/.../hungry-fish-farms-lure...

(3) "The future of food is not bleak, as Liu suggests and mainstream media agrees, the future of food looks fantastic. Since the 1970s American farmers, who embrace science more than any in the world, have grown more food on less land in a way 1970s projections believed was only science-fiction. If Europe and the developing world embraced science the way American agriculture does, not only could we grow the same food we have right now, we could let farmland equivalent to the entire region of Amazonia go back to nature and not lose a single carrot." http://www.science20.com/science_20/no_we_have_not_reached_peak_food-152734

(4) "Between 1990–92 and 2014–16, despite a global population increase of 35% (or 1.9 billion), the population suffering from chronic hunger declined by 216 million. Consequently malnutrition also declined. Since reductions in hunger and malnutrition are the first steps to better public health, age-adjusted mortality rates have declined and life expectancy has increased." -- Indur Goklany, July 6, 2015, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/06/have-fossil-fuels-diminished-the-worlds-sustainability-and-resilience/

(5) From human progress. I chose the four most populous countries in Asia -- China, India, Indonesia and Bangladesh. http://humanprogress.org/.../Bangla.../China/India/Indonesia

Yes, we have entered the period of rising productivity and prosperity. Governments and NGOs of alarmism should step back from more regulations and interventions in various innovations in food production, storage, marketing and distribution. Innovation and competition among players, big and small, plus civil society volunteerism can address problems in distribution to the most vulnerable and poorest sections of the population.
-----------

See also:

Agri Econ 18: Israel's Modern, High Tech Farming, March 17, 2015

Agri Econ 19: Charcoal Supply and Demand, May 01, 2015

Agri Econ 20, On NFA-BOC Campaign for Expensive Rice, May 19, 2015

Agri Econ 21, Rice protectionism as poverty-maximizing policy, September 25, 2015

GM crops and rising population, March 10, 2011
Pilipinas Forum 4: GMOs are good, August 31, 2011
GMOs, Greenpeace and Public Health, January 15, 2014

Sunday, October 04, 2015

TIME mag. on global warming (3)

Another collection of "be worried, be very worried" headlines by TIME magazine, from the web.

And these, dated May 27, 2014 and October 01, 2015.

Large scale famine? Hehehe, old alarmism claim. Here are actual data and why such alarmist claims are plain alarmism. The truth is that global food production keeps rising, food prices on average are becoming more affordable, there is greater food security in the planet than before. It is not possible to have a rising global population if there are frequent huge food riots in many countries -- something that exists only in the minds of the food conspiracy theorists.

source: Dr. Roy Spencer, “Peak Food”? No, the Average Person Has More Food to Eat, January 29th, 2015.

Meanwhile, here's a chart on CO2 emission and global temperature "linkage" and "causality". Green line is global CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, now at 400+ parts per million (ppm) and the "safe" level for the planet according to 350.org, WWF, Greenpeace, etc. is only 350 ppm or lower. Red line is the best fit line for global air temperature, average for UAH and RSS satellite data, January 2002 to September 2015. It is -0.02 C per decade.

source: http://friendsofscience.org/

As CO2 concentration rises, global temperature declines, and there is "causality" and "direct linkage"? The climate alarmists are joking.
----------

See also:

Climate Tricks 40: Arrest Climate Change Deniers, April 11, 2015

Climate Tricks 41, CO2 Leads Temperature, or Vice Versa?, June 14, 2015

Climate Tricks 42, SDGs and Jeffrey Sachs, oil and warming planet, August 05, 2015

Climate tricks 43, Interview at Sonshine Radio, DZAR 1026, August 08, 2015

Monday, March 02, 2015

Climate Tricks 38: Threats and Witch Hunt of Skeptical Scientists

The anthropogenic or "man-made" warming/climate change camp is getting desperate, some or many of them are turning to outright threats and witch hunting. See these news reports below.

From truthout.org, November 12, 2014. This camp of environmental militants want to promote deindustrialization, to junk modernity, meaning we go back to the dark ages? For these eco-socialists, modern life like having more computers and mobile phones, more internet acccess, and capitalism is something that we should be ashamed of. But they are using products of capitalism like fb, youtube, google, etc. to advertise their anti-capitalism campaign,

A troubling news from Daily Mail in UK, urging children of skeptical writers to kill their parents. The extent of intolerance by the "man-made" warming establishment seems to have not diminished yet.

This petition in avaaz dated December 10, 2014, is weird. It says,

Fossil fuel companies have polluted the earth due to the sale of their products. Climate change is real and caused by humans. We need to press charges in a Humanity backed class action lawsuit. To press charges for the deaths that have occurred from climate change, and the deaths of all life which will be certain to be near total if we continue on this path. We are in the 6th great mass extinction. I am pressing charges for the death of all life on this planet. Attempted murder of all life on this planet against fossil fuel companies.

And this group, they advocate climate control, birth control, population control. One thing that the eco socialists do not want is governments and UN control. Governments and the UN should keep expanding and climate money, climate junkets, should keep expanding. From interaksyon.com

Climate witch hunting. The political and congressional pressure is too much for some scientists who want to remain independent minded. New victim is Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. From Daily Caller, February 25, 2015.

"University of Colorado climate scientist Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. has been targeted by Arizona Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva, the ranking liberal on the House Natural Resources Committee, for his research challenging the claim that global warming is making weather more extreme.

This investigation, and other attacks, have forced Pielke to stop researching climate issues. He said the “incessant attacks and smears are effective, no doubt, I have already shifted all of my academic work away from climate issues.”

From Dr. Roy Spencer.

The recent WH release of what amounts to a directive to go after “climate change deniers” (who the hell denies that climate changes?? Sheesh!) seems to have been the start of an orchestrated effort to shut us down.

That Roger Pielke, Jr. is one of the current ‘Skeptical Seven’ targets is especially troubling. Roger is quite green and hardly considers himself a skeptic. In fact, he largely agrees with the IPCC. All he asks is that people stop making demonstrably incorrect claims that “climate change” is causing greater damage today than it ever has. (Total monetary losses due to weather rise as prosperity and infrastructure increases, even if weather becomes somewhat less severe). Yet, Roger is now backing out of climate change related research due to the current witch hunt.

Another scientist that is repeatedly attacked by the CC establishment is Dr. Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Boston. If you can't face the message, shoot the messenger, NYT style,

A rebuttal from James Delingpole in Breitbart

What most definitely is scandalous is the vile hypocrisy of Soon’s harrassment by the warmist establishment, which receives billions every year from the US government, left-wing charities, and billionaire activists like Tom Steyer and George Soros to prop up their bankrupt cause by promoting exactly the kind of junk science which Soon (and similarly principled scientists) have made it their business to shred.

The warmists are losing their argument. Their desperation is beginning to show.

And from Hockey Schtick, NYT/Greenpeace think these 4 graphs showing a remarkable130-year solar-climate relationship were fabricated by the oil industry

Resorting to witch hunting, personal attacks, is one sign of desperation. From them who deny that CC is natural and cyclical, who deny that global cooling can also happen, who deny that CO2 is a useful gas to plants, trees, animals and people.
------------

Tuesday, October 07, 2014

Climate Tricks 34: Watermelon Movement, Green Outside, Red Inside

The People’s Climate March in NYC last September 21, 2014, has further shown that the climate alarmism movement is a watermelon movement. Green outside, red inside. Well, at least some of these groups are more frank, more honest of what they really want, global ecological and economic socialism. Modernization and cheaper energy by capitalism is evil. Governments and the UN should keep expanding and regulate everything.

Source: WUWT, ‘Paid volunteers’ forthe NYC climate march, September 21, 2014

And more frank calls, "Capitalism destroys the planet. We need revolution, nothing less". Among the planet saviours in the NY "climate march". wow. See more photos of the planet saviours.

Source: CFACT, Climate craziness descends on NYC, September 21, 2014

In Manila that day, a photo from ANC tweet, below. I zoomed in on the photo, some plackards say, "Capitalism is killing the planet", "Shift to Renewable Energy", "Remember Yolanda victims, ACT NOW." The climate alarmism movement is often driven by anti-capitalism sentiment and deep desire for socialism and dictatorship. The ecological dictators will dictate what power plant can be put up and which ones to over-tax or outrightly kill. They will dictate how much carbon and environmental taxes to collect, dictate how much subsidy crony energy plants will get from taxpayers, and so on.

Source: “Police block activists trying to approach US Embassy in Manila”, Sept. 22, 2014,

https://twitter.com/ANCALERTS/status/514264186742784000/photo/1

CFACT made a follow up article on that Climate March. It noted,

"National Geographic summed up the March this way: “Despite all the enthusiasm displayed in New York and elsewhere on a muggy September Sunday, public opinion polls consistently show that climate change is not a high priority for most Americans.”

Americans are smarter than the collection of anti-capitalism satellite groups think. They’ve seen through the rhetoric and realize, as the Climate March made clear: it is not about Climate Change, it is about system change."

Source: People’s climatemarch wants to change the system, not the weather, October 1, 2014

World reknown climatologist, Dr. Roy Spencer, made an observation a few days before that march. He wrote, 10 Ways To TellTuesday’s UN Climate Summit Isn’t About Climate,

1. There is no way with current technology to get beyond 15%-20% renewable energy in the next 20 years or so….and even that will be exceedingly expensive. No matter how much you care about where your energy originates, physics and economics trump emotions.

2. The UN doesn’t care that global warming stopped 17 years ago. It doesn’t matter. Full steam ahead.

3. The UN’s own climate models have grossly over-forecast warming. Doesn’t matter. Full steam ahead.

4. Scientists and politicians have had to resort to blaming severe weather events on climate change. Like, we never had severe weather before? Really? (Oh, BTW, severe weather hasn’t gotten worse.)

5. The UN Climate Summit participants’ “carbon footprints” far exceed those of normal people…and they don’t care. Flying jets all over the world, traveling and dining in style, and telling a billion poor they can’t have inexpensive electricity? That’s the moral high ground?

6. Leonardo DiCaprio, UN’s Messenger of Peace. Al Gore, Nobel Peace Prize and crony capitalist. ‘Nuff said.

7. The leaders of Australia, China, India, Canada, and Germany are opting out of Tuesday’s meeting. They have real problems to attend to, not manufactured ones.

8. A UN official admitted the climate goal was wealth redistribution. Naomi Klein has admitted what Obama, Kerry, and Clinton won’t admit: it’s about stopping Capitalism. Unless you are a crony capitalist friend getting green energy subsidies.

9. What they can’t admit is that global greening and increasing global crop productivity is the result of us putting some of that CO2 back where it was in the first place – in the atmosphere. I’m still predicting some day we will realize more CO2 is a good thing.

10. The UN’s climate reports exaggerate and misrepresent the science.

Ahhh, watermelons. Lots of them.

Meanwhile, Dr. Steven Koonin, former professor of theoretical physics and provost at Caltech, currently the Director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University, wrote this article at WSJ last September 19, 2014.

"My training as a computational physicist—together with a 40-year career of scientific research, advising and management in academia, government and the private sector—has afforded me an extended, up-close perspective on climate science.

"The crucial scientific question for policy isn't whether the climate is changing. That is a settled matter: The climate has always changed and always will. Geological and historical records show the occurrence of major climate shifts, sometimes over only a few decades...."

-----------

Monday, August 25, 2014

Business 360 18: Innovation, Inequality and Inclusive Growth

* This is my article for August 2014 in a business paper in Kathmandu, Nepal.
--------

Social and economic inequality is a political and emotional issue that continues to chase mankind from its most primitive state to its current modern and information-driven lifestyle. Inequality has been seen to be undesirable, and thousands, if not millions, of different policy measures have been tried by various local, national and international or multilateral government bodies to solve or bridge inequality. And many if not all of them have been failures.

What creates inequality? Or better yet, what creates wealth that allows others to earn so much compared to the rest of humanity?

Three papers will help us answer the above questions. The first is from a NYT article last February 15, 2014, by noted economist from Harvard University, Gregory Mankiw, Yes, the Wealthy Can Be Deserving. Dr. Mankiw wrote,

"When people can see with their own eyes that a talented person made a great fortune fair and square, they tend not to resent it…. the most natural explanation of high C.E.O. pay is that the value of a good C.E.O. is extraordinarily high. That is hardly a surprise. A typical chief executive is overseeing billions of dollars of shareholder wealth as well as thousands of employees. The value of making the right decisions is tremendous. Just consider the role of Steve Jobs in the rise of Apple and its path-breaking products.”

Dr. Mankiw is correct on this observation. Ordinary people are less or non-envious of other people earning so big if they see excellence, hard work and great sacrifices needed to attain such income. It is the politics of envy in government, many NGOs, media, academe, etc. that demonize people because they belong to the top one percent of the income bracket of the nation.

The second paper is from a noted climatologist from the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), Dr. Roy Spencer. He wrote a frank and direct paper on October 17, 2012, It’s Time for the 99% to Start Supporting the 1%.,

"For every successful rich person, there were many more who tried to become rich but lost everything. Why is it that so many people want a greater share from those who have succeeded, but don’t want to share in the losses of those who failed to become rich?... And how would you like to work 12+ hours per day trying to abide by all of the regulations increasingly heaped upon businesses by the government?"

The third paper is a book by Dr. Angus Maddison, Growth and Interaction in the World Economy: The Roots of Modernity, published in 2004 by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI Press, Washington DC. The following table appeared on page 7.

These three articles provided answers to the two questions above. What creates huge wealth for some people is innovation, entrepreneurship and risk-taking. The more innovative the person is, the more risk taker he can be. He/she innovates and find ways endlessly, to reduce costs, optimize the use of production inputs and in the process, sell products and services at a more competitive, more affordable price relative to their quality. Consumers in various parts of the world see this and they reward the innovators by patronizing their products and services.

Dr. Maddison’s table even shows that humanity has benefited from modernization and innovation of some people. Humanity in general, is not hurt by innovation and inequality. It is the politics of envy and the unrealistic philosophy of forced equality that is hurting them more.

Dan Mitchell of Cato Institute made a chart of the Maddison data in his paper, The Miracle of Modern-Day Prosperity…and the Ideas and Policies that Made it Happen. It is a hockey stick figure of human prosperity over the past 2,000 years. In particular, prosperity has jumped about 6x over the past century alone, while almost flat for 18 centuries prior to it.

Before, the poor were riding cows, horses and bicycles while the rich were riding a Toyota sedan. Now the poor ride motorcycles or second-hand sedans while the rich drive SUVs or BMW, Benz or a Ferrari. The upward economic mobility of both the poor and rich are captured in the above hockey stick shape of human prosperity. Add to it the rising life expectancy of people around the world, both from the rich and developing countries. In the Maddison data, average life expectancy around the world in year 1,000 was only 24 years, rose to 31 years by 1900, up to 49 by 1950, and reached 66 years by 2002.

Is this situation bad for the poor? While some people will say Yes, majority of the poor will likely say No. It is not inequality per se but the overall improvement in the living condition of the poor that matters more.

Finally, the politics of envy is being reinvented in public policy formulation. From “equitable growth” in the 60s to 80s, to “broad-based growth” in the 90s to 2000s, it is now popularly called “inclusive growth” starting last decade to the present. The implication is that growth in the past up to the present was non-inclusive, that many were left behind and are dying at conditions similar to 1,000 or 100 years ago, despite heavy involvement by local, national and multilateral governments to have forced equality.

It is not inequality per se that is the problem. Inequality in fact, is a solution to human complacency and politics of envy. The hard working, efficient and highly ambitious people are rewarded with prosperity while the lazy, inefficient and non-ambitious are penalized with lack of wealth.

The primary role of governments is to guarantee and protect the prosperity and private property of those who labored hard, and to penalize those who want to get-rich-quick via robbery and treachery.

---------

See also:
Business 360 14: Middle Income Trap and Economic Freedom, January 02, 2014
Business 360 15: How to Improve Economic Freedom in Asia, January 22, 2014

Business 360 16: ASEAN Economic Community 2016, March 21, 2014

Business 360 17: Electricity and GDP Growth, April 15, 2014

Inequality 17: The Koch Brothers and Their Critics, April 04, 2014

Inequality 18: Piketty, Fabella, Equity-Efficiency Nexus and EPIRA, June 14, 2014

Inequality 19: Notes and Quotes on Globalization and Inequality, July 18, 2014

EFN Asia 40: Liberalism, Growth and Reducing Inequality, August 19, 2014

Tuesday, May 06, 2014

Climate Tricks 30: On the term "CC Denial/Denier"

Have a friendly debate today in fb with a physician friend, DiVa. She showed a poster of Mr. David Koch saying he has “given $67 million to climate change denial groups since 1997.”

I commented that the term "climate change denial" is stoopid. I am a skeptic, and I do not deny climate change (CC). It is true. It has happened, it is happening, and it will continue to happen in the future. Climate changes from warming-cooling-warming-cooing-warming-cooling... in endless, natural cycles. CC is mainly natural or nature-made, not man-made.

On the contrary, climate alarmists deny that global cooling can also happen along with global warming. Alarmists deny that CC is cyclical, they deny that CC can be nature-made.

She admitted that CC is both nature- and man-made, but “overuse of fossil fuels is reaching alarming levels…it wouldn't hurt to develop renewable energy.”

Global warming (GW) was true. It did happen -- roman warm period, medieval warm period, past century's warm period. Both GW and CC are true. What is being denied by the skeptical groups is the "man-made" adjective. It should be "nature-made GW" and "nature-made CC" and "nature-made global cooling".

Here's a good chart from Dr. Roy Spencer in a testimony at the US Senate last year. Roman WP and Medieval WP shown. They occurred more than 1,000 years ago, not a single car existed then, "man-made" CO2 emission except breathing almost zero, yet GW happened. Now the UN, Al Gore, etc. say it is mainly anthropogenic and did not mention RWP and MWP.

Senate EPW Hearing: “Climate Change: It’s Happened Before”, July 19th 2013.

I have no problem with renewables. If people put up solar panels in their houses, or windmills in their farms or backyards, fine. It's their own money. What I dislike is forcing everyone else to subsidize solar and wind, like the feed in tariff (FIT) in the PH's renewable energy (RE) Act.

Even the warming scientists cannot an answer, how much of the recent warming was man-made and nature made? 10-90%? 25-75%? 50-50? 90-10? Assuming they give such estimate (for now it's zero), what explains for the roman warm period, medieval warm period, when there was not a single car, not even bicycles?

If GW will happen even if we throw all the existing cars and planes and malls, and global cooling will still happen even if everyone in the planet is driving a car, what's the point of all those "fight man-made GW/CC" policies? I only see one goal for their activities. More politics, more government, more bureaucracies, more junkets.

In an earlier discussion, a friend Samson P. observed that Climate Variabilities and Extremes (CVEs) has been cited too often by the warming camp as “proof” of anthropogenic CC. Yes, the alarmist groups say that less rain and more rain, less flood and more flood, less snow and more snow, less cats and more cats, they are ALL proof of man-made CC. This is a very dishonest, sigurista argument.

Many climate research have been done that point to the role of natural factors like the Sun, galactic cosmic rays (GCRs), water vapor, volcanoes and geologic movements, etc. on planet Earth's climate. The problem is people won't find what they are not looking for. If they are so preoccupied to find only anthropogenic sources, that's what they will find, no matter how small, then amplify or exaggerate it. In IPCC AR4 (2007), of the 9 factors as contributors to past century's warming, 8 of them were anthropogenic.

Meanwhile, this is very informative. How much of warming in the past century was due to nature, how much from humans? Are GHGs evil or saviour? Without those GHGs, we should need perhaps 1/4 inch thicker skin, otherwise no life as we know it is possible, simply too cold.

Putting Human-Caused Warming in Proper Perspective by Ira Glickstein, April 7, 2014.

And an update last month from Christopher Moncton of Brenchley, April 5, 2014, using global air/lower troposphere temperature data from the Remote Sensing System (RSS),

No global warming for 17 years 8 months

--------

About Me