Correlation of viewpoints.

[KeithE]

Interesting study. Free marketeerism correlates with GW/CC skepticism.
Survey: "Climate Skeptics" More Likely to Embrace "Free Market" Ideology,
Looking at underlying research paper Motivated Rejection of Science, the correlation coefficient is 86.6%. Look at Table 1 near back.

Roy Spencer comes to mind given his books Fundanomics and Great Global Warming Blunder.

David- Are you a free marketeer?

Matto- I know where you stand on GW/CC. But not sure about free marketeerism.

ET - I know where you stand economically and on GW/CC.

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Keith you didn't ask me but I lean more toward a free market than toward heavy limitations. I do not believe this is an either or proposition.

With a bit of tweaking that survey could be titled "Global warming alarmist" More Likely to Embrace "Heavy limits" Ideology.

But let me ask, Keith, Do you believe that economics is a "pure science" ?

[MJ Willett]

I'm a liberal. I also believe that a free market should be the default mode with one of the only exceptions being cases of substantial negative externalities. Pollution that leads to climate change would easily fall into that category.

Most liberals today seem to reject the value of markets, purely on the basis of ideological opposition, in the same manner that most conservatives blithely reject all environmental science. Both sides have reasons to be suspicious too and as groups tend to use their ideologies in an exploitative and dishonest fashion.

[ET]

Interesting, we're supposedly the ones more likely to believe in conspiracy theories, yet Keith is the HUGE 9/11 conspiracy guy around here. Actually, I see far more conspiracy folks on the left than the right.

It's time to come clean: climate change is a hoax. And the moon landings were faked, 9/11 was an inside job, and the CIA is hiding the identity of the gunman on the grassy knoll.

Only problem is that I don't believe any of these. I don't believe climate change is a hoax. I'm a skeptic that it is caused by man. I don't give a about "consensus". Consensus is NOT science. Science is reproducible results that can be tested and proved or disproved. It is not a bunch of computer models with a group of degree'd yahoos (tic) around them saying, "yep, that looks like a good to us, we know what the climate will be like a 100 years from now".

Even if man-made climate change were true, I'd have an INFINITE amount more faith in my fellow human beings acting in voluntary cooperation to do something about it (aka the free market, with an emphasis on free) over a handful of arrogant, dumb- politicians (aka Obama, Reid, Pelosi et al), acting on the advice of scientists addicted to their public handouts, thinking they know best how to manipulate 300 million people into doing something about it.

You gotta love the hubris in all this. Lucifer would be proud. The earth has supposedly been around for billions of years, yet here comes a few tiny little human beings burning a little coal and oil for barely a 100 years and -- BIG BANG --- we've changed the planetary climate to the detriment of all humankind.

Lucifer himself couldn't have displayed much more pride when he thought "I will become like God".

[MJ Willett]

An 87% correlation between believing in free markets and opposing climate science means that those folks are rejecting that science out of hand for purely ideological motivations and not based on any sort of actual logical reasoning as ET's response seems to demonstrate.

[Matto]

I'm a liberal. I also believe that a free market should be the default mode with one of the only exceptions being cases of substantial negative externalities.

What's this " free market " I keep hearing about? There's no such animal.

I see monopolies, duopolies, cabals and big government holding them in place.

When Titanic Corporations can give millions in political donations, who do you think the Government represents when it gets in office. That's right, Titanic Corporations.

[ET]

An 87% correlation between believing in free markets and opposing climate science means that those folks are rejecting that science out of hand for purely ideological motivations and not based on any sort of actual logical reasoning as ET's response seems to demonstrate.

I think there's plenty of logical reasons to question man-made global warming. I think it's ridiculous to think puny little man with his toy computers can claim to predict global climate issues 100 years into the future. I think it's ridiculous to think in barely 100 years that man can supposedly burn enough oil and coal to exact so much carnage on the planet to cause catastrophic climate change. I think there's plenty of reason to be skeptical that whatever warming of the earth may be occurring cannot be shown by scientists to be significantly caused by man.

I think we've also got plenty of scientists nursing at the government teat of publicly funded research that it helps keep them employed to stir up a doomsday prediction so that the money continues to flow to their pockets and they can keep doing "research" for decades to come. Scientists are no more noble than anybody else. They can be just as corrupt as some CEO that the left so often claims to have nefarious motives, such as the currently fashionable Koch brothers.

Along with the fact that humans in general, particularly of the more highly educated classes, tend to "think more highly of themselves than they ought", I have little doubt that there's more than a few scientists that would fall under this category:

"Between the year A.D. 1 and the year 1850, volcanos and fluctuations in the heat from the sun were responsible for temperature changes, but these changes were much less pronounced than the warming (supposedly) caused by man-made pollution in the years since the mid-19th century. This gets to the point of the hysteria. Scientific Man in all his manufactured glory can't bear the thought that he might not, after all, be as powerful as a volcano or a solar flare. How many learned degrees does a volcano have, after all? The idea that forces of the universe greater even than Scientific Man may be responsible for the cyclical changes is unbearable. Hence 'global warming' has become the religion—the opiate, you might say—of Scientific Man, a doctrine supported by quackery, supposition and speculation, and as closely held and as ferociously defended as the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection at a gathering of devout Christians. You could ask the Rt. Rev. Al Gore, the presiding archbishop of the First Church of the Boiling Globe. The bishops and monsignors of the church treat dissent harshly, though not yet at the stake." -- Wesley Pruden

Wonder what these folks think about the moon landings?

"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution." - Editor's comments, APS.org

[KeithE]

I'm a liberal. I also believe that a free market should be the default mode with one of the only exceptions being cases of substantial negative externalities. Pollution that leads to climate change would easily fall into that category.

Most liberals today seem to reject the value of markets, purely on the basis of ideological opposition, in the same manner that most conservatives blithely reject all environmental science. Both sides have reasons to be suspicious too and as groups tend to use their ideologies in an exploitative and dishonest fashion.

I’m with you MJ. There are many exceptions to a totally free market. Murder, theft, prostitution,..... All that falls under the category of "substantial negative externalities”.

[KeithE]

Ed: Keith you didn't ask me but I lean more toward a free market than toward heavy limitations. I do not believe this is an either or proposition.

With a bit of tweaking that survey could be titled "Global warming alarmist" More Likely to Embrace "Heavy limits" Ideology.

But let me ask, Keith, Do you believe that economics is a "pure science" ?

Economics is a difficult science and non-refutable data is hard to come by. Some call it a “soft science” and I would agree. Biology, social science, anthropology are other examples of soft sciences. But nontheless it is instructive to see the correlation between a hard science like global warming and a soft one.

The whole "correlation implies causality” concept is fraught with error unless there be identified reasons that one prior factor to cause a later generated belief. Judith Pearl’s book Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference is thought to be the leading research is this area of statistical inference. I’ll confess that I have never got clear through it (it is dense), even though I had business reasons to study it. But what is clear is that sometimes one factor (say a prior belief in uncontrolled free markets) can have more cause on a second factor (e.g. global warming action) than the other way around (e.g. prior belief in global warming causes one to become a free marketeer). I believe that is the case here Ed (no proof but just opinion). They can have the same correlation either way but causality can be mire unidirectional.

[KeithE]

I'm a liberal. I also believe that a free market should be the default mode with one of the only exceptions being cases of substantial negative externalities.

What's this " free market " I keep hearing about? There's no such animal.

I see monopolies, duopolies, cabals and big government holding them in place.

When Titanic Corporations can give millions in political donations, who do you think the Government represents when it gets in office. That's right, Titanic Corporations.

Right on Matto! Made far worse in this country by the Citizens United verdict.

79% of Americanssupport a Constitutional Amendment to overturn it.

[KeithE]

Interesting, we're supposedly the ones more likely to believe in conspiracy theories, yet Keith is the HUGE 9/11 conspiracy guy around here. Actually, I see far more conspiracy folks on the left than the right.

It's time to come clean: climate change is a hoax. And the moon landings were faked, 9/11 was an inside job, and the CIA is hiding the identity of the gunman on the grassy knoll.

Only problem is that I don't believe any of these. I don't believe climate change is a hoax. I'm a skeptic that it is caused by man. I don't give a about "consensus". Consensus is NOT science. Science is reproducible results that can be tested and proved or disproved. It is not a bunch of computer models with a group of degree'd yahoos (tic) around them saying, "yep, that looks like a good to us, we know what the climate will be like a 100 years from now".

Even if man-made climate change were true, I'd have an INFINITE amount more faith in my fellow human beings acting in voluntary cooperation to do something about it (aka the free market, with an emphasis on free) over a handful of arrogant, dumb- politicians (aka Obama, Reid, Pelosi et al), acting on the advice of scientists addicted to their public handouts, thinking they know best how to manipulate 300 million people into doing something about it.

You gotta love the hubris in all this. Lucifer would be proud. The earth has supposedly been around for billions of years, yet here comes a few tiny little human beings burning a little coal and oil for barely a 100 years and -- BIG BANG --- we've changed the planetary climate to the detriment of all humankind.

Lucifer himself couldn't have displayed much more pride when he thought "I will become like God".

Glad you at least admit that climate change is occurring (albeit not caused by man).

You are also right that my linked articles:
Survey: "Climate Skeptics" More Likely to Embrace "Free Market" Ideology, Conspiracy Theories
and
Motivated Rejection of Science
tried to tie belief in conspiracy theories (like 9/11) to global warming skepticism.

But I deliberately set this trap to illustrate a point. I took out Conspiracy Theories (now in red above) from the title to see if anyone would call me on my well-known 9/11 truth concerns - see below after the ---------------.

ET took the bait. But if he had looked at Table 1 in the second link above (as I suggested), he would have saw only a 19.7% correlation between "conspiracist ideation" and "global warming science" skepticism. Hardly worth mentioning. Both articles tried to pile on with an addendum to the real conclusion (86.9% correlation between AGW skeptics and free market ideology) with another association with a group thought to be looney. That had to be a deliberately misleading interpretation (or a horrendous scientific mistake); but their DATA (like Roy Spencer’s AMSU DATA) stands. If they were honest, GW skepticism correlated with what they called “Problems Solved” in Table 1 to a 58.6% level ("problems solved" was shorthand for belief that other environmental problems were solved [eg ozone layer, acid rain, smog]) . That would have been the second most striking correlation. But that was not tantalizing enough.

-------------------------
ET says:

Keith is the HUGE 9/11 conspiracy guy around here. Actually, I see far more conspiracy folks on the left than the right.

Wrt who is involved in 9/11 truth movement? As one who has gone to about 20 meetings/lectures on the subject, I find the most vocal to be libertarian and even anarchist in viewpoint. Richard Gage and Alex Jones are certainly conservative. Richard told me so himself and having beers with him, it was confirmed. Didn’t know ET was into the movement that much to have a real opinion. Sure there are some liberals (David Ray Griffin comes to mind) and some of varied persuasions (like me). But mostly people who look at fundamental information honestly and do not fall for pre-interpreted propaganda or prone to do a lot of name calling (for lack of substantive info), like we see in green above. The correlation coefficient of only 19.7% rings true to me - slightly more conservatives than liberals.

9/11 was allowed to happen folks, after receipt of many intel sources cumulatively pointing to an airplane attack on NYC by OBL in late summer 2001 (confirmed wrt the FBI in Sibel Edmonds latest book Classified Woman). It was then used as justification for 2 wars and the already written Patriot Act. The attacks were overtaken and augmented with explosives at 3 WTC buildings. Two additional attacks were added - the Pentagon pinpointed to destroy the records of $3.1T in unauthorized DoD spending just admitted to on 9/10/11; and the creation of a hero story with fight 93 (whose crash site was stretched out over 8 miles and people witnessed a white jet in the area that likely shot it down). Don’t pretend to know the whole truth for sure, but a real independent investigation is certainly called for with all the suspicious information, not ridicule of those questioning the Official Conspiracy Story!!!

And btw, http://www.ae911truth.org shows the science of the explosive evidence/ physics of collapse at all three WTC buildings that day. WTC7 was not hit by a plane and fell from a deliberate classical controlled demolition at 5:20pm that day. The videos/testimony of 100’s strongly support WTC#1&2 were brought down by isotropic explosives abruptly starting at 102 minutes and 42 minutes respectively after plane impact and proceeded down the building's outer walls in free fall speed.

I could go on and on about lack of air defense that day, insider trading, ties to the ISI, sham of the 9/11 Commission, Cheney “stand-down”, other coverups, misstatements by Guilani, Bush, Rumsfeld, .................... But unless you mind is open to hard fact it is hard to penetrate (cognitive dissonance in action). A few herein have indicated support via PM.

Take an independent look my friends.

[David Flick]

Interesting study. Free marketeerism correlates with GW/CC skepticism.
1Survey: "Climate Skeptics" More Likely to Embrace "Free Market" Ideology,
Looking at underlying research paper 2Motivated Rejection of Science, the correlation coefficient is 86.6%. Look at Table 1 near back.

1) As ET mentioned above, the so-called "survey" is clearly the stuff of conspiracy theorism. Only a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist could possibly correlate free market economics with climate change. Heck, those two issues aren't even in the same universe.

2 The second article above, which I assume you are purporting to be a "scholarly" article, is just plain stupid. I wonder if there is a reason why you chose not to include the entire title of the article? Could it be that you actually know how off base the article is? The complete title of the paper is: "NASA faked the moon landing --Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science" I would label it as a stupid paper. The so-called scholarly authors who wrote the piece, attempt to correlate AGW climate skepticism with the endorsement of free market economics. The abstract is typical conspiracy theoryism.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Abstract
Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world's climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientific evidence. Internet blogs have become a vocal platform for climate denial, and bloggers have taken a prominent and influential role in questioning climate science. We report a survey (N > 1100) of climate blog users to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Paralleling previous work, we find that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science (r: 80 between latent constructs). Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets. This provides empirical conformation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists.
3) Keith, you're out of you mind if you believe that any of the skeptic climate scientists (anywhere on the face of the earth) believe that the NASA moon landing was faked. Furthermore, you will not find a single climate skeptic who rejects the science behind the facts that HIV causes AIDS. Such a notion is just plain asinine. But the idiocy of it all is the notion that one can correlate free market economics with the climate science. What a crock!

4) The first paragraph of the article tips me off to the fact that the so-called research is false:
More than 90% of climate scientists agree that the global climate is changing largely due to human CO2 emissions (Anderegg, Prall, Harold, & Schneider, 2010; Doran & Zimmerman, 2009). There are indications that the 2007 assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was conservative rather than \alarmist" (Allison et al., 2009; Freudenburg & Muselli, 2010); however, those scientic indicators of increasing actual risk are accompanied by an apparent decrease in the public's perception of those risks in some countries (Brulle, Carmichael, & Jenkins, 2012; Hanson, 2009; Scruggs & Benegal, 2012).
As I've documented on many occasions, the surveys by Anderegg, Doran & Zimmerman, and Schneider are completely bogus. Also, as I've noted on many occasions on this forum, there has never been, and there never will be, a concensus of 90% or more climate scientists who believe that the global climate is changing largely due to human CO2 emissions. Such a notion is completely false.

5) Table 1 of the article is meaningless because, again, it's impossible to draw a correlation of any kind between free market economics and climate science. The entire article, from the Abstract to the charts, is ridiculous. It's beyond ridiculous

Roy Spencer comes to mind given his books Fundanomics and Great Global Warming Blunder.

Keith, I seriously doubt that you've read either of Spencer's books with any degree of comprehension. Your opinion of Roy Spencer is so jaded by your bent toward GW alarmism that you wouldn't accept anything he writes or says. He (Spencer) is an AGW skeptic and a supporter of the free market. While I am not well read on the topic of economics, I can't speak with authority on the subject of free market economics. However, I am thoroughly knowledgeable about the bogus nature of AGW alarmism. As an AGW skeptic (i.e. a climate realist), I deal only with climate reality. I am not swayed by the absurd fanciful imaginations of climate change alarmism as preached by *the nameless faceless IPCC pseudo scientists & politicians, *James Hansen, *Al Gore, *Joe Romm, *Michael Mann, *Peter Gleick, et. al. Spencer is spot on concerning points he makes in The Great Global Warming Blunder.

David- Are you a free marketeer?

I lean strongly in that direction. As I stated above, I am not well read on economics. I tend to agree with most everything that ET writes. In my opinion, his arguments blow your economic theories out of the water. At least I can comprehend what he writes. I have no clue how the Liberal tax & spend arguments will solve anything. I will say, however, that I believe the US is in far greater danger of going down the tube due to Obamanomics that it ever will be from the threat of imaginary anthropogenic global warming. Multi-trillion dollar deficits are a far greater threat to our country than imaginary man-made climate change will ever be. My granddaughter's future is in no jeopardy from so-called man-made global warming. If things continue as they are economically, her future is greatly threatened...

Matto- I know where you stand on GW/CC. But not sure about free marketeerism.

ET - I know where you stand economically and on GW/CC.

[KeithE]

Interesting study. Free marketeerism correlates with GW/CC skepticism.
1Survey: "Climate Skeptics" More Likely to Embrace "Free Market" Ideology,
Looking at underlying research paper 2Motivated Rejection of Science, the correlation coefficient is 86.6%. Look at Table 1 near back.

1) As ET mentioned above, the so-called "survey" is clearly the stuff of conspiracy theorism. Only a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist could possibly correlate free market economics with climate change. Heck, [color=#FF0000]those two issues aren't even in the same universe.

2 The second article above, which I assume you are purporting to be a "scholarly" article, is just plain stupid. I wonder if there is a reason why you chose not to include the entire title of the article? Could it be that you actually know how off base the article is? The complete title of the paper is: [/color] "NASA faked the moon landing --Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science" I would label it as a stupid paper. The so-called scholarly authors who wrote the piece, attempt to correlate AGW climate skepticism with the endorsement of free market economics. The abstract is typical conspiracy theoryism.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Abstract
Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world's climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientific evidence. Internet blogs have become a vocal platform for climate denial, and bloggers have taken a prominent and influential role in questioning climate science. We report a survey (N > 1100) of climate blog users to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Paralleling previous work, we find that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science (r: 80 between latent constructs). Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets. This provides empirical conformation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists.
3) Keith, you're out of you mind if you believe that any of the skeptic climate scientists (anywhere on the face of the earth) believe that the NASA moon landing was faked. Furthermore, you will not find a single climate skeptic who rejects the science behind the facts that HIV causes AIDS. Such a notion is just plain asinine. But the idiocy of it all is the notion that one can correlate free market economics with the climate science. What a crock!

4) The first paragraph of the article tips me off to the fact that the so-called research is false:
More than 90% of climate scientists agree that the global climate is changing largely due to human CO2 emissions (Anderegg, Prall, Harold, & Schneider, 2010; Doran & Zimmerman, 2009). There are indications that the 2007 assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was conservative rather than \alarmist" (Allison et al., 2009; Freudenburg & Muselli, 2010); however, those scientic indicators of increasing actual risk are accompanied by an apparent decrease in the public's perception of those risks in some countries (Brulle, Carmichael, & Jenkins, 2012; Hanson, 2009; Scruggs & Benegal, 2012).
As I've documented on many occasions, the surveys by Anderegg, Doran & Zimmerman, and Schneider are completely bogus. Also, as I've noted on many occasions on this forum, there has never been, and there never will be, a concensus of 90% or more climate scientists who believe that the global climate is changing largely due to human CO2 emissions. Such a notion is completely false.

5) Table 1 of the article is meaningless because, again, it's impossible to draw a correlation of any kind between free market economics and climate science. The entire article, from the Abstract to the charts, is ridiculous. It's beyond ridiculous

Roy Spencer comes to mind given his books Fundanomics and Great Global Warming Blunder.

Keith, I seriously doubt that you've read either of Spencer's books with any degree of comprehension. Your opinion of Roy Spencer is so jaded by your bent toward GW alarmism that you wouldn't accept anything he writes or says. He (Spencer) is an AGW skeptic and a supporter of the free market. While I am not well read on the topic of economics, I can't speak with authority on the subject of free market economics. However, I am thoroughly knowledgeable about the bogus nature of AGW alarmism. As an AGW skeptic (i.e. a climate realist), I deal only with climate reality. I am not swayed by the absurd fanciful imaginations of climate change alarmism as preached by *the nameless faceless IPCC pseudo scientists & politicians, *James Hansen, *Al Gore, *Joe Romm, *Michael Mann, *Peter Gleick, et. al. Spencer is spot on concerning points he makes in The Great Global Warming Blunder.

David- Are you a free marketeer?

I lean strongly in that direction. As I stated above, I am not well read on economics. I tend to agree with most everything that ET writes. In my opinion, his arguments blow your economic theories out of the water. At least I can comprehend what he writes. I have no clue how the Liberal tax & spend arguments will solve anything. I will say, however, that I believe the US is in far greater danger of going down the tube due to Obamanomics that it ever will be from the threat of imaginary anthropogenic global warming. Multi-trillion dollar deficits are a far greater threat to our country than imaginary man-made climate change will ever be. My granddaughter's future is in no jeopardy from so-called man-made global warming. If things continue as they are economically, her future is greatly threatened...

Matto- I know where you stand on GW/CC. But not sure about free marketeerism.

ET - I know where you stand economically and on GW/CC.

And if you read what I said there is next to no correlation (correlation coefficient of 0.197) of GW skepticism (or alarmism) with tendencies to believe in conspiracies. Once again your lack of data analysis capability is showing.

Now the correlation coefficient between GW skepticism and economic free marketeerism viewpoints is quite high (0.869). Additionally one would expect a true believer in government hands-off business (i.e. a free market fundamentalism, aka a lasse-faire capitalism or Ayn Rand devotees or Chicago School of Economics adherents) would also be hands-off the government installing carbon emission limits. After all, the invisible hand of capitalism always pushes the whole in positive directions (so the theory goes) if gummint would just stay outta of the way. Merely stating those two issues aren't even in the same universe. does not make them unrelated. Logic and DATA say so.

There are elements of that scholarly article that are not correct (as I pointed out), but their statistical DATA does make the case for one of their primary points (namely the strong association of free market thinking with GW skepticism). It does not make the case for associating GW viewpoints with tendencies towards conspiracism (e.g. fake moon landing or 9/11 or JFK assassination be they correct or not). That correlation coefficient is 0.197 (way too low to make any association claims) and the sentences added to their abstract:

We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets. This provides empirical conformation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science.

are totally without merit.

Again look at Table 1 on page 25. (It does not copy well as I would copy it here). Then again, David, you really have shown little data analysis understanding (to even understand such simple statistical data as correlation coefficients); so maybe this obvious mistaken conclusion will just fly by you because you will it so. Kinda like the 6 straight years of polls showing somewhere between 95% and 100% of climate scientists are AGW - no David you have not in the slightest provided info that would refute those polls. They surprise me as well - I would expect more like 85%-98% but that is not what the DATA shows.

And David I have read all of Great GW Blunder by Spencer and have even questioned him on some technical details and his inferences- neither he nor Danny Braswell (his cohort that he directs questioners to at the AMSU data site) have responded. Even tried to get Danny's brother David who I know to get his brother to respond. I have only read two chapters in Fundanomics (it’s fiction, literally).

[Matto]

Matto- I know where you stand on GW/CC. But not sure about free marketeerism.

The threats to a free market comes from two sides, Socialism and Laissez faire Capitalism. Socialism is government monopoly, and Laissez faire capitalism is private monopoly allowed by government.

Both socialism and Laissez faire capitalism leads to Big Government, either way big government is needed to protect the interests of the monopoly or cabal.

Companies need to be taken completely out of the political process, and influence and voting power brought back exclusively to the citizen.

It makes a mockery of the political system when candidates are only elected on the basis of massive donations from Corporations and Unions.

Take note of the bail out, where the government stole money from the American people to give to the massive corporations and financial institutions. Only big government kept these giant corporations afloat.

If there was a " free market " there would have been no bailout, and the irresponsible banks and companies would have been let to fail.
The massive " to big to fail " corporations looked to big government to rescue them, and that's not letting the free market take it's course.

There should be no company that reaches a size that is too big to fail. Companies that reach the too big to fail size only reach that size because of big government.

If companies are limited in their size, limited in there activities, limited in their lifespans, limited in there political influence they can cease to be a menace, and allow freer markets to flourish, and big government to diminish.

I am a small business capitalist, I would rather see a thousand smaller businesses work on a project, than one massive business do the whole thing. Real competition and real innovation can then take place.
It's the same idea as the space program where thousands of companies contributed to the lunar landing, not just one or two or five massive companies.
Companies that know they will be bailed out by big government will not innovate or be cost effective and responsible for what they do, compared to small companies that know they won't be bailed out if they don't innovate and perform at their best.

Socialism is not the only threat to freer markets, the massive too big to fail corporation is just as damaging to markets.

[KeithE]

Matto- I know where you stand on GW/CC. But not sure about free marketeerism.

The threats to a free market comes from two sides, Socialism and Laissez faire Capitalism. Socialism is government monopoly, and Laissez faire capitalism is private monopoly allowed by government.

Both socialism and Laissez faire capitalism leads to Big Government, either way big government is needed to protect the interests of the monopoly or cabal.

Companies need to be taken completely out of the political process, and influence and voting power brought back exclusively to the citizen.

It makes a mockery of the political system when candidates are only elected on the basis of massive donations from Corporations and Unions.

Take note of the bail out, where the government stole money from the American people to give to the massive corporations and financial institutions. Only big government kept these giant corporations afloat.

If there was a " free market " there would have been no bailout, and the irresponsible banks and companies would have been let to fail.
The massive " to big to fail " corporations looked to big government to rescue them, and that's not letting the free market take it's course.

There should be no company that reaches a size that is too big to fail. Companies that reach the too big to fail size only reach that size because of big government.

If companies are limited in their size, limited in there activities, limited in their lifespans, limited in there political influence they can cease to be a menace, and allow freer markets to flourish, and big government to diminish.

I am a small business capitalist, I would rather see a thousand smaller businesses work on a project, than one massive business do the whole thing. Real competition and real innovation can then take place.
It's the same idea as the space program where thousands of companies contributed to the lunar landing, not just one or two or five massive companies.
Companies that know they will be bailed out by big government will not innovate or be cost effective and responsible for what they do, compared to small companies that know they won't be bailed out if they don't innovate and perform at their best.

Socialism is not the only threat to freer markets, the massive too big to fail corporation is just as damaging to markets.

Agree with much of what you say Matto especially lines in red.

I see it all the time when two large companies are viable for a large effort (say DELTA rockets), they form alliances (in this case Lockheed-Martin and Boeing formed United Launch Alliance and the cost has escalated to $50-60M for each launch system). Once more they built large new plants and it would be ashamed to not use that. They also put onerous systems engineering onto the program with endless “quality control” costs called MAP and PMAP. Now a new company comes along SpaceX who starts building equally good (if not better) systems for $10M each but they do so with their own quality control system that they believe are superior to MAP/PMAP. But by now the government “requirements demand MAP/PMAP therefore SpaceX is not eligible.

Where I disagree is the absoluteness of your statements. Big business has on occasions done great things. And what is derogatorily called “socialism” also has done great things for its people. Both are capable of great harm to people as well. To handle this situation independent ACCOUNTABILITY which constantly tracks government or business towards the originally agreed upon goals is essential. When that accountability becomes “paid off” or “corrupt”, the system breaks down. But I’m not so jaded as to believe that is inevitable.

[Matto]

Where I disagree is the absoluteness of your statements. Big business has on occasions done great things. And what is derogatorily called “socialism” also has done great things for its people.

The fact that some good happened under these systems is irrelevant, their ultimate effect was very negative. Socialism and devil may care capitalism, are monopolistic systems.

That's why I believe in a system that puts as much productive property into as many private hands as possible.

Devil may care capitalism puts productive property in the hands of the top 10%, and socialism puts productive property in the hands of even less. Both systems use big government to maintain them.

Government contracts should be awarded to the smallest businesses that are capable of doing the job. It is better for many smaller companies to have heavy competion, than one company take all profits without effort.

It's a freer market when there are many stalls competing for business, not just one or two stalls selling everything in the market.
The problem with this kind of Capitalism is that there are too few Capitalists. More people need to be owners of more capital.
Socialists see all capitalists as pickpockets, and their solution to save everyone from the capitalist pickpocket, is to remove everyones pockets altogether, so no one has private capital, all ownership goes to the state.

Whilst the pickpocket is the champion of free entiprize, he is no respector of private property.

So the solution is to have a capitalism where private property is sacred, and private property and the means of production are in as many hands as possible.
90% of people owning 75% of the capital and the means of production is better than 10% of people owning 90% of the capital and means of production.
Encourage ownership of business by the workers in the business, and give every owner worker equal voting power. If workers have skin in the game, and their wealth increases with the businesses success, they are no longer just wage slaves that show up each day for scraps off the table.
They all are incentivized capitalists, and they work together for the advancement of the business and themselves.

[KeithE]

Socialists see all capitalists as pickpockets, and their solution to save everyone from the capitalist pickpocket, is to remove everyones pockets altogether, so no one has private capital, all ownership goes to the state.

Whilst the pickpocket is the champion of free entiprize, he is no respector of private property.

Just for the record, that is not the socialism I had in mind. The socialism I have in mind is like the Scandinavian countries that attempt to do great things collectively to the benefit of the “commons” (e.g. transportation, utilities, law enforcement, defense, universal healthcare, retirement, education, childcare, and employment options for all who need it) in ways that cannot be efficiently attained individually -try building roads yourself to all the places you would need/want to go. They recognize private property and reward individual effort and as a region, they happier than any other region.

In a sense I advocate both socialism (my style) and capitalism (with private property/capital, and the motivation to attain as much of that as is possible in a setting that assures law/order[in your terms a respector of private property], fair taxation, limits exploitation of workers, and demands all “externalities” be paid by the “motivated" person or corporation).

The US and I believe Australia (correct if I’m wrong) do the things in red above collectively and support private property/capital. Thus we are both capitalistic and socialistic. Best of both worlds - use of motivation to better society and lifetime help/safety net when we need it.

The arguments about heath care, etc are just arguments about the degree of socialism to employ. I favor moving more socialistic because it is working around the world. I also favor helping the poor, the sick, the helpless as Jesus commands and to do so collectively since it can be done more thoroughly/equitably than if individuals do it in an uncoordinated fashion.

You have created a bogeyman when you say “Socialists......remove everyone’s pockets altogether”. There may have been instances like that around the world (USSR, North Korea today), where that has been/is the case, but there are other brands of “socialism” as well. Even Cuban Law has private property.

Matto:So the solution is to have a capitalism where private property is sacred, and private property and the means of production are in as many hands as possible.
90% of people owning 75% of the capital and the means of production is better than 10% of people owning 90% of the capital and means of production.
Encourage ownership of business by the workers in the business, and give every owner worker equal voting power. If workers have skin in the game, and their wealth increases with the businesses success, they are no longer just wage slaves that show up each day for scraps off the table.

They all are incentivized capitalists, and they work together for the advancement of the business and themselves.

Couldn’t agree more. How can we make that happen? Here are the trends.

Again both private enterprise and government need watchdogs and ACCOUNTABILITY. One item that needs to be ACCOUNTED is wage distribution. My solution: no more than 100:1 difference in salary from CEO to lowest paid employee. If the CEO wants more, he has to pull along his workers. Another item that needs to be ACCOUNTED for and LIMITED is effluents (CO2, ghgs, hazardous material, air/water pollution). Workplace safety is another area to be watched. And, btw, this ACCOUNTABILITY needs paid workers and is one example of a job governments should make available. Today “regulators” are being laid off and those that remain are being neutered in the Great Deregulation that is Reagan’s and Bush, Jr's legacy (Obama continuing in that mode as well).

And government needs watchdogs as well. Right now unethical (if not illegal) campaign financing and lobbying to buy off policies (ala ALEC) has to be eliminated ( I saw it again in action yesterday as a large competitive procurement was stopped before it happened and handed to a large contractor and a division of which has shown they are ill-equiped to perform the tasks according to cohorts that know).

[KeithE]

A couple of timely USA Today articles today. Headline story is about the Happiness Index as a replacement for GDP.

And the happiest countries are Scandinavian “socialist” countries that tax their citizens 45-50%, but in return receive free health care, child day care, free education up to and including PHDs, government jobs (or unemployment), and free retirement. In short life's worry spots are covered by the collective whole. God is smiling. Here are the rankings (Gallup Word Poll) similar to the Forbes (hardly bastion of socialism) list “happier” linked above.
1. Denmark
2. Finland
3. Norway
4. Netherlands
5. Canada
6. Switzerland
7. Sweden
8. New Zealand
9. Australia
10. Ireland
11. United States
12. Costa Rica
13. Austria
14. Israel
15. Belgium
Source: Gallup World Poll

I’ll put the story on another post.

[Matto]

free health care, child day care, free education up to and including PHDs, government jobs (or unemployment), and free retirement

Keith, it's not really free healthcare, free education, and free retirement, the money doesn't just come from nowhere.

With up to 50% taxation it doesn't sound like free anything to me Keith.

Half of your working day taken up paying the government so it can inefficiently and wastefully hand out free stuff, isn't a good system at all.

[Matto]

I see a mans income is his private property, the government should have no automatic right to take any of it.

The government can raise taxes without touching peoples incomes.

[KeithE]

free health care, child day care, free education up to and including PHDs, government jobs (or unemployment), and free retirement

Keith, it's not really free healthcare, free education, and free retirement, the money doesn't just come from nowhere.

With up to 50% taxation it doesn't sound like free anything to me Keith.

Half of your working day taken up paying the government so it can inefficiently and wastefully hand out free stuff, isn't a good system at all.

The Scandinavian countries prove that is wrong, they are efficient enough and the people are happy with their government and their lives.

You are just not open to that approach to government.

[Matto]

free health care, child day care, free education up to and including PHDs, government jobs (or unemployment), and free retirement

Keith, it's not really free healthcare, free education, and free retirement, the money doesn't just come from nowhere.

With up to 50% taxation it doesn't sound like free anything to me Keith.

Half of your working day taken up paying the government so it can inefficiently and wastefully hand out free stuff, isn't a good system at all.

The Scandinavian countries prove that is wrong, they are efficient enough and the people are happy with their government and their lives.

You are just not open to that approach to government.

Keith honestly mate, I have seen horrific waste by government of hard working tax payers money, the public purse is trash to governments. Members of government treat their own money like gold, but will waste tax payers money like water.

Government is absolutely the worse vehicle for distributing services, and many hard working families have to go short each week because of income taxation.

In business we deliver exactly what we say, or we lose customers, when the government is in charge it has a captured market that accepts the low quality, wasteful service and has no other place to go.

The scandinavian countries will have huge amounts of waste in big fat bureaucracies, that don't fit well with utopian image you have of them.
Why not let everyone keep their own money so they can pay for their own education directly, their own health care directly, and their own retirement directly.
The government wastes huge amounts of tax money in handling charges for their fat bureaucracies, then what piddlly bits are left are spent on services.

It's a false reality Keith when people say free education, free health and free retirement, because that money is taken from you in the first place to pay for the "free" services.
The government provided services have absolutely the worst cost benefit numbers out of all the possible systems out there.
Ron Paul made the point about healthcare, that it should be all left to the free market. Businesses have to offer better service at the least price to keep customers. It's like the cell phone market, phones get better and better, and price plans get cheaper and cheaper, because businesses are competing like crazy to keep market share.

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Again Keith I believe you paint with far too wide a brush, in you condemnation of "Government waste" If I where a betting man, I would bet that most of the waste you have seen firsthand has been by private contractors and cost over runs. That my friend is the sector that feeds you and yours. It is true that our country is in need of Government reforms but alarmism and conspiracy theories are not the answer. Neither are term limits but a tight cap on congressional salaries might help and greater control of lobbyist starting with jail time for both those who give and take Kickbacks. And yes we have a problem because the wolf is guarding the hen house door. Ralph Nader IMO had the right idea but he failed to build in adequate safeguards in his own organization.

[Matto]

Ed: Again Keith I believe you paint with far too wide a brush, in you condemnation of "Government waste"

I don't think it was Keith making this point Ed, it was me.

Neither are term limits but a tight cap on congressional salaries might help and greater control of lobbyist starting with jail time for both those who give and take Kickbacks. And yes we have a problem because the wolf is guarding the hen house door. Ralph Nader IMO had the right idea but he failed to build in adequate safeguards in his own organization.

Members of Government should only be paid the same salary as the lowest paid workers in the country. Not only will they say " I feel your pain " , they will actually feel your pain.

If I where a betting man, I would bet that most of the waste you have seen firsthand has been by private contractors and cost over runs.

If the system is properly administered contractors that don't complete the job at the agreed price, have to complete the job out of their own pockets and then they are never given another contract again.

[KeithE]

Ed: Again Keith I believe you paint with far too wide a brush, in you condemnation of "Government waste"

I don't think it was Keith making this point Ed, it was me.

Neither are term limits but a tight cap on congressional salaries might help and greater control of lobbyist starting with jail time for both those who give and take Kickbacks. And yes we have a problem because the wolf is guarding the hen house door. Ralph Nader IMO had the right idea but he failed to build in adequate safeguards in his own organization.

Members of Government should only be paid the same salary as the lowest paid workers in the country. Not only will they say " I feel your pain " , they will actually feel your pain.

If I where a betting man, I would bet that most of the waste you have seen firsthand has been by private contractors and cost over runs.

If the system is properly administered contractors that don't complete the job at the agreed price, have to complete the job out of their own pockets and then they are never given another contract again.

There is government waste and big business waste. When they collude it is the biggest waste of all and often illegal. ACCOUNTABILITY of both is sorely needed yet deregulation has been on the rise fermented by Fox News and their corporate sponsors. Ed has it right about jail time.