In the general sense, this applies equally well to Venezuela. (Even though I don’t know the salary comparisons for cabbies and doctors there.)
Here’s an entertaining column by Mark Steyn about climate change and some reactions to his new book “A Disgrace To The Profession,” which is about what other climate scientists think of Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph of temperatures.
The defamation suit against Steyn by Michael Mann, inventor of the global-warming “hockey stick”, is about to enter its fourth year at the DC Superior Court.
Nine years ago self-proclaimed “climate hawk” David Roberts was contemplating Nuremberg trials for deniers:
When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards — some sort of climate Nuremberg.
But in his latest piece, at Vox.com, he’s singing a rather different tune:
Basically, it’s difficult to predict anything, especially regarding sprawling systems like the global economy and atmosphere, because everything depends on everything else. There’s no fixed point of reference.
Now he tells us. […]
Read the whole thing; it’s brief.
More about those uncertainties; here’s an interesting article from the Christian Science Monitor.
A new NASA study found that Antarctica has been adding more ice than it’s been losing, challenging other research, including that of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that concludes that Earth’s southern continent is losing land ice overall.
In a paper published in the Journal of Glaciology on Friday, researchers from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, the University of Maryland in College Park, and the engineering firm Sigma Space Corporation offer a new analysis of satellite data that show a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001 in the Antarctic ice sheet.
That gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008. […]
Here’s a pretty grim report about what the Khmer Rouge did to Cambodians.
Wikipedia has this to say about the Khmer Rouge:
The organization is remembered especially for orchestrating the Cambodian genocide, which resulted from the enforcement of its social engineering policies. Its attempts at agricultural reform led to widespread famine, while its insistence on absolute self-sufficiency, even in the supply of medicine, led to the death of thousands from treatable diseases such as malaria. Arbitrary executions and torture carried out by its cadres against perceived subversive elements, or during purges of its own ranks between 1975 and 1978, are considered to have constituted genocide.
It was all the usual communist agrarian nonsense again, as though the world hasn’t seen that tragedy played out enough yet.
The narrator wonders whether Hitler or Pol Pot would have pursued their policies had they witnessed the results first-hand.
But the question that interests me is this: Where do all the eager gunmen and thugs come from? Murderous dictators don’t kill people personally – instead they always have lots of other people who’re ready to kill and torture at their command.
I want to know why there are always so many people willing to do that. Why is there never a lack of people who enable murderous sociopaths by doing their dirty work? Are many of our fellow citizens ready to do the same, given the chance?
Could Hitler have pursued his racial purity nonsense without the assistance of many Germans? Could Stalin have waged his war against the Ukranian kulaks without the active help of a lot of Russians? Could the Kim family have impoverished North Korea in its pursuit of Juche without all the North Koreans who enforce its policies? Could Pol Pot have committed the Cambodian genocide without a group of Cambodians ready to smash babies against trees?
And why do the people never collectively say, "F**k a bunch of this nonsense!"? Are we collectively suicidal?
Sometimes I think humanity deserves to suffer – for its sins against itself.
Matt Ridley writes about the (northern hemisphere) harvest season, both globally and on his own piece of land.
This week’s autumn equinox is traditionally the time for the harvest festival. I have just taken a ride on the combine harvester cutting wheat on my farm. It is such a sophisticated threshing machine that long gone are the days when I could be trusted to take the controls during the lunch break. A screen showed how the GPS was steering it, inch-perfect and hands-free, along the edge of the unharvested crop; another screen gave an instant readout of the yield. It was averaging over five tonnes per acre (or 12 tonnes per hectare) — a record. […]
Last week, my fields were yielding 60 or 70 grains (seeds) of wheat for every grain that had been planted a year before. This would astonish our ancestors. A farmer in England in the 1300s was lucky to get four grains for every grain he planted. One of those four had to be saved for next year’s planting, leaving a precarious three to feed not only his own family but the various chiefs, priests and thieves who fed off him.
The truly surprising thing about this bounty is that not only are yields going up and up, in Britain as in the rest of the world, but that the amount of land required to produce that food is going down; and so is the amount of pesticide and fertiliser. Not just in relative terms, but in absolute terms. […]
At Mark Perry’s Carpe Diem blog, he links Ridley’s article and includes this image.
(Paul Ehrlich, please call your office.)
I’m not a farmer but I know a few. My guess is that one big factor driving this trend is the adoption of man-made fertilizers after World War II.
One fellow I know, who in his spare time helps his dad farm, told me that his dad recalls the days before anhydrous ammonia became available. Back then the only choice was to fertilize with manure and supplies of that were limited.
One of the most concise statements I’ve seen recently of anti-prohibitionist arguments.
Being of a practical turn of mind, I can imagine all manner of horror stories from full legalization: parents neglecting their children, people bankrupting their families, victims killed by stoned drivers – or worse, by stoned doctors(!) – all the typical appeals to fear that prohibitionists like to make.
And I’ve seen some tragedies first hand. I once lost a contract employee due to his crystal meth habit. He was fired from the best gig he’d ever had and he ended up serving some time. Luckily he had no children.
But all those evils happen today due to other factors. I had an alcoholic uncle who was found shot dead in an alley. It was a nasty death but I don’t believe he was ever involved with drugs.
More importantly, all those evils happen today due to drug abuse and that’s in spite of the current drug laws.
And others evils happen because of drug laws. Can you say roadside cavity search? What if that happened to one of your relatives or close friends?
So live free or die, even if living free means that some will die from bad habits. Ain’t nobody’s business but their own.
Via Carpe Diem
So why have borders for anyone, regardless of his or her occupation? That’s the gist of this article by Alex Tabarrok at The Atlantic. (My emphasis below.)
The Case for Getting Rid of Borders—Completely
No defensible moral framework regards foreigners as less deserving of rights than people born in the right place at the right time.
To paraphrase Rousseau, man is born free, yet everywhere he is caged. Barbed-wire, concrete walls, and gun-toting guards confine people to the nation-state of their birth. But why? The argument for open borders is both economic and moral. All people should be free to move about the earth, uncaged by the arbitrary lines known as borders. […]
Even relatively small increases in immigration flows can have enormous benefits. If the developed world were to take in enough immigrants to enlarge its labor force by a mere one percent, it is estimated that the additional economic value created would be worth more to the migrants than all of the world’s official foreign aid combined. Immigration is the greatest anti-poverty program ever devised. […]
Kudos, Mr. Tabarrok. Well said.
And while we’re on the topic of immigration here’s a map of North America before all the illegal immigrants began pouring in (courtesy of Steve F, whose timing was perfect).
I’m still trying to figure out how this works. I mean the part where descendants of some European immigrants on the north side of a river demand that descendants of other European immigrants on the south side stay on the south side of the river. And what makes it especially puzzling is that the northern group was gifted with a statue of Liberty Enlightening the World.
I don’t know why, but I got a couple of links from Paul B this week related to rights when dealing with police officers in the US. (I hope this doesn’t mean that someone he knows has been busted.)
First he sent a link to this Fifth Amendment Flowchart by Nathaniel Burney. I’d never thought a lot about the topic — I haven’t needed to, luckily — but it surprised me how complicated dealing with the police could get when Miranda warnings and the Fifth Amendment are involved.
Then yesterday Paul sent a link to some podcasts made by folks at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. They’re a surprising resource to find. I hope their legal accuracy is as good as their convenience.
Continuing the 5th Amendment bit, I listened to the podcast titled Self Incrimination Roadmap. Not to take anything away from Mr. Burney’s excellent flowchart but I found the podcast a little easier to follow.