Paul Krugman frets (sensibly enough) that Obama is behind the curve with a stimulus package that is too small, then writes this:
Sooner or later the administration will realize that more must be done. But when it comes back for more money, will Congress go along?
My secret spies assure me that Krugman's next paragraph was left on the cutting room floor by Times editors pleading for "the real Paul Krugman. You know, the screamer who always blames Republicans". However, due to my mysterious resources I am able to restore it:
In the last go-around Republicans favored a payroll tax cut, a cut in the corporate tax, more infrastructure spending, and more homeowner relief. That would seem to be more stimulative than whining about a do-nothing Congress that won't indulge every liberal fantasy.
Politically, of course, Krugman is attempting to lay the groundwork for a "Blame the Republicans" strategy. Whether the public can be convinced that Democrats controlling the White House, the Senate, and the House were together unable to overcome Rush Limbaugh is another matter.
Whoa! Robert Samuelson calls Obama 'The Great Pretender' because of the disconnect between his promises and his actions. Hey, this is Newsweek. Find it at RCP.
======================================
Posted by: kim | March 09, 2009 at 08:17 AM
Today, I call a moratorium on all hate filled rants from at least me. The Pogues are here baby, and I'm getting down in a late 80's kinda, besotted way. Cause, that's what Shane would want. And well, me.
Posted by: Donald | March 09, 2009 at 08:19 AM
Bon Voyage, Donald, and see ya' on the rebound.
============================================
Posted by: kim | March 09, 2009 at 08:30 AM
Samuelson's rant isn't hate-filled, but it is dismay-filled. He gets in a crack or two about the oblivious media, too.
=============================================
Posted by: kim | March 09, 2009 at 08:31 AM
Who Pays for Cap and Trade?
It's disproportionately voters in swing states like Ohio. Not sure how that makes political sense.
Posted by: DebinNC | March 09, 2009 at 09:22 AM
This whole climate mess makes little sense, which is one reason it is ripe for paradigm change. See it, feel it, live it. We are cooling, folks, for how long, nobody knows.
===============================================
Posted by: kim | March 09, 2009 at 09:35 AM
Hey Kim
Have you seen any more on the satelite study that was supposed to show that CO 2 wasn't nearly as evenly mixed in the atmosphere as we thought?
Posted by: Pofarmer | March 09, 2009 at 09:38 AM
Deb, Punishing red states is very exciting for blue voters.
Posted by: bad | March 09, 2009 at 09:45 AM
OT, but good news for a change... Prince Charles says we have 100 months left due to climate change. That will get us safely past the end of the Mayan calendar that has me more worried than AGW.
Posted by: Bill in AZ | March 09, 2009 at 09:48 AM
No, Pofarmer, but carbon dioxide levels presently and historically are a huge source of dissenting opinion. Some people think that rising CO2 levels are a consequence of recent general warming and not a cause. I don't think CO2 is a cause of warming, except perhaps minimally, but I do think that burning fossil fuel has raised the level of CO2. From trace gas levels to still trace gas levels.
=============================================
Posted by: kim | March 09, 2009 at 09:50 AM
Bonny Prince Charlie is very badly a loon. There is a reason 'Liz hasn't given up the throne.
=========================================
Posted by: kim | March 09, 2009 at 09:51 AM
From trace gas levels to still trace gas levels.
Yes, anybody with a brain should fail to be excited by a gas that has gone up(maybe) 100 PARTS PER MILLION, from 280 to around 380 in a HUNDRED YEARS.
That's less than 400 PARTS PER MILLION. That leaves 999,600 parts per million left over. If they used a reasonable scale, you wouldn't even notice the blip.
Posted by: Pofarmer | March 09, 2009 at 10:07 AM
And it's enough for the biosphere to notice. Increased CO2 will help the plant kingdom, and derivatively, the animal kingdom. There is little doubt that the action of the sun on the biosphere sequesters carbon faster than it can be produced vulcanically and that we are in a relatively starved CO2 condition. We have, however, recently evolved in that starved condition.
==============================
Posted by: kim | March 09, 2009 at 10:16 AM
Po, the best visual on that was "if a football stadium has 100,000 seats, 3 of them would be occupied by CO2."
Posted by: Old Lurker | March 09, 2009 at 10:21 AM
OK, I dropped a zero I think. Traces, like trillions, are hard to count the digits...
Posted by: Old Lurker | March 09, 2009 at 10:24 AM
And yes, we are only 40% of the way to a doubling of CO2. For comparison, the best estimates of doubling CO2 lead to an approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit warming based on radiative(greenhouse gas) effects, whereas Hansen is talking about a 6 degree Centigrade effect. The difference has to do with the feedback effect of water vapor which the alarmists claim is large and positive. This is where the biggest error in the assumptions underlying the climate models lies. Roy Spencer's recent research is indicating that the feedback of water vapor may be small and negative.
Tropospheric humidity is highly controversial. We've not measured it very accurately or consistently, but the indications are that humidity is not following the expectations of the climate models. Big fight about this right now at ClimateAudit.org
=================================
Posted by: kim | March 09, 2009 at 10:24 AM
Do you get the idea that the science isn't settled?
===============================================
Posted by: kim | March 09, 2009 at 10:26 AM
Do you get the idea that the science isn't settled?
The science isn't even close to settled. I keep having the same discussion with a guy on an AG board. He keeps asking for published stuff to refute the warming info. The problem is, there's an awful lot of stuff in the pipeline that isn't published, and that a lot of journals won't publish. It's going to be intersting the next couple years as pissed off scientist find ways to get their data published that disagree's with the conventional series.
BTW, one thing that really PO's me is the use of ice core data for CO2 measurement. NOBODY, and I MEAN NOBODY has been able to show a direct correlation between CO2 in the ice and CO2 in the atmosphere. If it's out there, nobody will quote it, including the dull knives at real climate. It's one of those things that's just assumed.I think that's another thing that will come into focus as we get more years of good data. I think the pro warming scientists(at least some of them) know this, and that's why they are pushing the agenda so hard now.
Posted by: Pofarmer | March 09, 2009 at 11:09 AM
I luuurve CO2 speak - but can we get back to piling on the Keynesian Dunce©?
Posted by: rhodeymark | March 09, 2009 at 11:21 AM
Heh, Cramer's at it again; see RCP.
===================================
Posted by: kim | March 09, 2009 at 11:50 AM
err... back off topic briefly for Pofarmer - speaking of CO2, here is a site that very interestingly ties CO2 (well, C14), climate, and barycenters (uh oh, here comes Leif) together. See the "Angular Momentum versus C14" (top entry right now) article. The comments are pretty interesting too.
Posted by: Bill in AZ | March 09, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Oh, boy, Bill, that just looks like a screaming example of "correlation doesn't imply causation".
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | March 09, 2009 at 12:11 PM
Po, they're measuring air trapped in the ice. There's plenty of evidence, experimental evidence, that air trapped in ice doesn't change much over time. Finding a correlation would be about as interesting as finding out that temperature correlates with when the sun is up.
I'll grant that it would be nice to have longer term measurements; if you have any ideas how to obtain air samples from 10K years ago to check them against the ice, I'd love to hear them.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | March 09, 2009 at 12:15 PM
The correlations are elegant, but absent a mechanism, causation is not proven. Leif Svalgaard is convinced the forces are too small to have any climatic effect, but absent a mechanism, who's to say what the causes are. It is a fascinating problem.
=====================================
Posted by: kim | March 09, 2009 at 12:46 PM
Today has been a bad day for Poor Barry on RCP, kim. Notice today's entries, all critical of Obama or Dem politics:
Obama is a Great Pretender, Robert Samuelson, Newsweek
Crisis Shouldn't Be Used to Revive Socialism, Janet Daley, Daily Telegraph
Obama's Budget Ignores Economic Crisis, Yuval Levin, Weekly Standard
Will Democrats Face a 1994 Repeat in 2010?, Sean Trende, RCP
Obama Betrays Promise to Govern in a New Way, Bruce DePuyt, Politico
The President Starts a War on Business, Kevin Hassett, Bloomberg
Left's Ad Hominem Attacks Aren't Helpful, Jim Cramer, MainStreet
Middle East Reality Check, Roger Cohen, New York Times
Obama's Brit Snit a Diplomatic Disaster, Arthur Herman, New York Post
Obama's Weak Snort at Pork, Christian Science Monitor
Who Pays for Cap and Trade?, Wall Street Journal
The Democrats' Cruel School Move, Chicago Tribune
When we get E.J. Dionne, I'll know we're off the bubble.
Posted by: Soylent Red | March 09, 2009 at 01:09 PM
Po--
There have got be published articles. Our own Charlie (Colo.) published a piece at American Thinker on the basis of published research that demolished the Mann Hockey Stick.
Posted by: Fresh Air | March 09, 2009 at 01:13 PM
link to Real Clear Markets
Posted by: DebinNC | March 09, 2009 at 01:54 PM
FA,
It wasn't science to begin with and it cannot be "cured" through factual rebuttal. Wegman demolished Mann. A thorough discussion of Wegman's analysis can be found here. It didn't muss a hair on Mann or Hansen's pinheads.
The Nitwit in Chief has put himself behind Lysenkoism for a New Millenia and only Gaia herself can stop the arrogant stupidity from continuing. OTOH - had the Goracle won in 2000 we would all be singing hosannas in 2009 because he had killed the CO2 Monster. Instead we get to watch Zero and Chu trying to sell ice cream in a blizzard.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | March 09, 2009 at 01:55 PM
Rick--
Of course they will always have an out. With 40 percent year-over-year increases in coal-fired generation in China and India, poor little us could cool ourselves with Scopes Monkey Trial hand fans and power ourselves with bicycles and the amount of CO2 emitted by smokestacks would still rise. I like "Nitwit in Chief," though there are som many "In-Chiefs" that it's hard to choose one.
How long before it becomes obvious to everyone that he's not just a commie but a dull-witted one who should have been lucky to get into Wisconsin-Whitewater and Thomas Cooley School of Law?
Posted by: Fresh Air | March 09, 2009 at 02:01 PM
Charlie, the thing that bugs me the most about the ice core data, is that when they came out they had to "adjust" the timeline 80 yrs to make the measurments in the ice jive somewhat with the date and the current air measurements. There is something being missed there, I think. I've seen it argued pretty effectively that the numbers recorded in the ice are too low for any number of reasons. I still wonder about the experience of "glacier gal" as well, who was buried many times deeper than what the climatologists would suggest. Wonder if they did any CO2 studies with those cores?
Posted by: Pofarmer | March 09, 2009 at 02:11 PM
I'll grant that it would be nice to have longer term measurements;
Give it 30 or 40 years, when we'll have an intersection of pretty modern CO2 measurements and a time frame to get to be able to do some ice coring. That's what should have been done in the first place, before getting all apocalyptic.
Posted by: Pofarmer | March 09, 2009 at 02:15 PM
one of the fundamental issues that my father used to talk about is how the sensor technology is now so refined we can measure down to parts per billion or less. At these infinitesimal levels, it really doesn't matter in @ 99.99% of all measuring metrologies.
The problem we have is that governments and bureaucrats and activists can then seize on these numbers and make broad declarations. Funding is approved and they can perpetuate their mythologies.
So many of the solutions the environmentalists propose are much worse than the original problem. plastic vs paper? Plastic wins ecologically. Using lead in electronics versus lead free? The environmental costs of extracting more tin, bismuth, etc is much higher and the electrical properties of any product produced is lower, causing even more e waste. There are 100 other examples. The best solution is efficiency and recycling. Resource management is a new science but offers the best hope for sustainability. It's a daffy world we live in.
Posted by: Matt | March 09, 2009 at 02:51 PM
NYT says no bank plan before April
Posted by: DebinNC | March 09, 2009 at 03:05 PM
Deb,
Thank you for all the pertinent links. Looks like Turbo is going to lead from the rear - prepare a carefully balanced explanation for whatever happens 'cause he hasn't a clue concerning how to go about making things happen.
He's a perfect sidekick for Buck Zero - Progressive Hero whose superpower, the ability to make wealth vanish, is unquestionable. When is he going to start shouting Buck's battle cry? I'd be interested in hearing what To Insolvency.. and beyond!! sounds like in weasel shriek.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | March 09, 2009 at 03:16 PM
EXTRA EXTRA EXTRA
MY MOM IS PISSED AT O!!!!!!
SAYS HE WANTS TO TURN US INTO RUSSIA!!!!
Posted by: bad | March 09, 2009 at 03:30 PM
WOW! That's great news. My mother refuses to talk about him.
Posted by: Jane | March 09, 2009 at 03:33 PM
If he's losing bad's mom, he's losing the country!
Posted by: Thomas Collins | March 09, 2009 at 03:36 PM
Oh, that's wunnerful news, bad. I've little doubt she's a bellweather. But tell her it's worse than that; he wants to turn us into Chicago.
==================================
Posted by: kim | March 09, 2009 at 03:39 PM
Jane, after she said he wanted to turn us into Russia, then she said she didn't want to be a socialist. I let it gooooooo.
She also said people in her community are boycotting cars from the companies that took auto bailouts. The Ford dealership must be ecstatic.
Posted by: bad | March 09, 2009 at 03:40 PM
I expect full scale revolution by April 15th.
Posted by: Jane | March 09, 2009 at 03:45 PM
MY MOM IS PISSED AT O!!!!!!
Can we trade moms?
Posted by: Jim Ryan | March 09, 2009 at 03:48 PM
Germany says "No"
Posted by: DebinNC | March 09, 2009 at 03:54 PM
Revolt of the Matriarchs.
Posted by: PeterUK | March 09, 2009 at 03:55 PM
Good grief Things are getting desperate in FL. When things get bad enough, people will accept the unacceptable...BO hopes.
Posted by: DebinNC | March 09, 2009 at 04:07 PM
Deb - they're pooh-poohing our stool!
Posted by: bgates | March 09, 2009 at 04:07 PM
My mother refuses to talk about him.
My mom, too, Jane. But her defensiveness on the subject tells me she is unhappy with him. If she was happy, she'd say so.
Great news, bad. We are getting there.
Posted by: Porchlight | March 09, 2009 at 04:10 PM
Deb--
Did you scroll down the page of that German website? Headline: "First School for Muslim Imams Opens in Germany." Look at that picture and complete the caption of the students:
"Hmmm, that's a stumper...I can't remember...is it acceptable to stone an adulterer to death if she's only buried up to the waist?"
Posted by: Fresh Air | March 09, 2009 at 04:12 PM
woo hoo! Obama lost Bad's mom! Surely, there are more like her.
Posted by: centralcal | March 09, 2009 at 04:22 PM
Mom's sister and brother-in-law probably swung first. None of them tune in until the last couple of weeks before an election. O was quite moderate at that point.
Mom is feeling betrayed. The others are likely on the same page.
She is furious about the mortgage bailout, TARP and the Auto bailouts. She sees it as O giving money to CEO's. (I SWEAR I don't encourage those ideas that push her buttons -- much.)
Posted by: bad | March 09, 2009 at 04:30 PM
Opps. Forgot the stimulus bill and the as yet unvoted on budget bills.
The spending pile-up was too much.
She's also against national healthcare.
At first, she blamed congress for everything but as O was always on TV pushing all of this stuff she changed her mind. That part really cracks me up.
But now we're stuck with him.
Posted by: bad | March 09, 2009 at 04:42 PM
"But now we're stuck with him."
We're not stuck with him. The Dems are stuck with this pretentious toad. I think we'll see some ups as well as these pretty downs but if Axeltoad keeps him on camera then I believe that the sight of Zero will trigger a gag reflex by June. He's actually pretty repulsive, once you get past the shock of the initial ugliness.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | March 09, 2009 at 04:48 PM
I think part of the problem with folks her age (and my mom's) is that they give way too much credence to the media. At least way more than we do.
Especially since they don't access the IT, they tend to listen more to the alphabet news.
Posted by: clarice | March 09, 2009 at 04:49 PM
Maybe the German imam trainees will learn about this one, FA:
Saudi court sentences 75-year-old woman to lashes
Four months in jail, too, for allowing her nephew and a friend to deliver her five loaves of bread.
Posted by: Extraneus | March 09, 2009 at 05:01 PM
Heh, and any day now we may hear from Fitz with more details of Obama's criminal laden past.
===================================
Posted by: kim | March 09, 2009 at 05:10 PM
Must have been some bread.
Posted by: Fresh Air | March 09, 2009 at 05:31 PM
Moderate Taleban. Even Larry Johnson has notice that Obama is a wazzock.
Posted by: PeterUK | March 09, 2009 at 06:16 PM
Fitz has until April 7 to get an indictment from the Grand Jury.
Posted by: Matt | March 09, 2009 at 06:20 PM
Mr Ballard,
"He's actually pretty repulsive, once you get past the shock of the initial ugliness."
The picture has disappeared from this site,but a more apt word is "smugliness". Obama hasn't a modest or humble bone in his body.That picture alone is enough to induce terminal projectile vomit.
Posted by: PeterUK | March 09, 2009 at 06:21 PM