the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

The Revenge of Lewandowsky

Posted by Jeff Id on November 3, 2013

Sorry to have been gone so long.    It seems impossible to blog with so many other fun things going on.  Still, I read my favorite blogs and occasional climate paper, even if I don’t comment much.   Recently Lewandowsky et Mann (birds of  a feather?) published yet another pro-government rant claiming to be science related.

It is hardly worth reading but read it I did: The Subterranean War on Science.  My willingness to read that is proof that I am literally as dumb as a rock.  Don’t make the same mistake!

The article is one of the most disgusting pieces I have yet read from the “Climate Science™” community.   It is written as though it actually has supporting references but the article is beyond reprehensible in content. It has literally zero scientific value and wouldn’t make the cut at a blog but somehow a “journal” managed to publish it.  I did manage to leave a comment:

I can’t believe the self-righteous tone of these alleged scientists. I also am stunned at the fact that fake work like this continues to be touted as having any foundation in actual science.

Whether you agree with their other work or not, this paper is nothing but government funded pro-government propaganda and they, and their coworkers, should each be ashamed at having their names and institutions associated with it. Completely disgusted.

Of course, I may have been a little to harsh considering the article contains this amazing content:

“According to the World Health Organization, climate change is already claiming more than 150,000 lives annually (Patz, Campbell-Lendrum, Holloway, & Foley, 2005), and estimates of future migrations triggered by unmitigated global warming run as high as 187 million refugees “

For 50 points to those who have the chops – True or False?



Or this:

“For example, mitigation of climate change or public-health legislation threatens people who cherish unregulated free markets because it might entail regulations of businesses ;

FYI – That scientific statement is not possibly, potentially or realistically politically motivated because it IS a well-known “Climate Science™” fact that free markets have destroyed peoples lives across the world.  Especially true for those unregulated ones – very scientific.

As a trap to those like me, they also tried to backhand a point so often made here.  I do love the scientific tone of this psychological observation:

The conspiratorial element of denial explains why contrarians often perceive themselves as heroic dissenters who — in their imagination — are following Galileo’s footsteps by opposing a mainstream scientific “elite” that imposes its views not on the basis of overwhelming evidence but for political reasons.

So Lewandowsky and Mann are the “Elite”  and those who disagree with them are heroes fighting the good war. WOW!  Ok, I’m going to have to step in the Galileo trap!

Now that leads to a few questions! If these mathematical wonders are the elite, why can’t they make a single good paper between them?  Were they actually elite scientific minds, wouldn’t they practice in “actual” science like physics or chemistry? What sort of self-delusional moron would think themselves so above the rest of us because of…..   It is truly shocking that their narcissism has proceeded this far.  A life to easy – methinks.

Sounds like a psychology paper!! 😀

The real elite in the case of modern Climate Science™, is comprised of those who control government money, taken from our hard working hands, and placed in the pockets of often moderately functional scientists and activists who naturally support more of the same.   Such high opinions of themselves they hold eh? e.g. — recently Lewandowsky took fake questions from questionnaire study with descriptive results and applied distribution style statistics to make obviously pre-determined conclusions – it was accepted thorugh peer review!  e.g. #2—- how about Mann throwing out piles of data which doesn’t match his pre-determined intent and averaging the remainder for the result!!  hehehe.

All for the cause I suppose.

Teasing aside, it is only with the most serious heart that we can look at claims such as this:

This article surveys some of the principal techniques by which the authors have been harassed; namely, cyber-bullying and public abuse; harassment by vexatious freedom-of-information (FOI) requests, complaints, and legal threats or actions; and perhaps most troubling, by the intimidation of journal editors who are acting on manuscripts that are considered inconvenient by deniers. The uniformity with which these attacks are pursued across several disciplines suggests that their motivation is not scientific in nature.

The paragraph is another fraud.

Harrassment of Lewandowsky with legal threats is particularly interesting to me.   Considering that he blatantly and on two separate occasions libeled me in print, as a form of intimidation, in an actual (alleged -sorry) scientific journal, and refused to recant any of his false accusations until it escalated to the point where he and the journal were legally threatened,  this comment is disgusting.   All they had to do was fix the problem, yet he refused.

Many skeptic names are actually on a desmog list that an extreme left-wing activist professor (other than Lewandowsky, Mann, Bauld, Hastings, and  Loftus) had PUBLICLY advocated for our government supported execution and not by private email on a university paid website. No he was not fired – in case you are newborn to left-wing Earth and were actually wondering. Why the desmog list of climate bad-guys even exists at all can only lead to the worst of conclusions. Unlike Lewandowsky’s new friends, I and many readers here, have been ruthlessly attacked by the climate science community for years behind the scenes and in public.  Can you even imagine having your name published in a psychological “science journal” from another country as though you had some kind of mental condition PURELY because you dare to disagree with their scientifically and governmentally unsubstantiable climate agenda?  I never thought it possible – until Lewandowsky did it.

This particular paragraph was troubling because it is dishonest.  Far from harassed, these people are lauded wherever they go and their own self-aggrandized words give the truth of it.  They are so held above the rest of us mortals by their government benefactors at worldwide events and conferences, that they actually publicly claim to be — the elite of the world.   Claims that editors are harassed are cute, but are equally as perverted as the implied censorship.  We have actual emails from the climate community, including at least one of these actual authors, working behind the scenes to ban journals and main-stream papers which didn’t bow to their anti-industrial pro-authoritarian cause.

Obviously, like skeptic big-oil funding, the strategy is to say the opposite of reality often enough that it becomes truth.  In my opinion they are fools, because it will not change reality, nor mark their names in hallowed scientific history, but this is 2013 and they are OUR fools.  We own them because our elected governments support them, and we therefore deserve their perceived successes.

This bit was in the end of the second to last paragraph and it did warm my heart:

Lewandowsky, Oreskes, Risbey, Newell, & Smithson, 2013), and allegations of defamation have led to the re-examination of one of the first author’s papers to eliminate legal risks that is ongoing at the time of this writing (Lewandowsky, Cook, et al., 2013).

I am particularly glad that the paper is STILL being re-examined as I was the guy who claimed defamation.  Because Lewie actually DID commit the offense.  Two times in fact. The first was from an earlier “scientific paper” and could potentially have been held as accidental by a we-don’t-want-trouble biased review board. They board (or editor) did do the right thing though, and removed the false statement in that case.  It was the second paper, which also specifically referenced me inaccurately, where there wasn’t any realistic potential for Lewandowsky to be simply misunderstanding my position.  From my perspective it was intentionally fraudulent science, but that opinion implies understanding the mind of Lewandowsky’s intent, and is therefore scientifically not provable. However if Lewandowsky is being investigated along those lines to any REAL degree, I do have a few emails that the committee would probably be interested in.

I think other climate non-oath takers were likely defamed as well the second time around, and I admit not paying attention enough to know how far anyone else actually went to correct the record.  Perhaps they are the victors keeping the dis-informative rag from publication.

What is abundantly clear is that the “scientists” of this paper, are nothing except political idealists with water-faucet money and big TV cameras who live by an ages long yet never-said mantra which not-so-ironically Galileo in his cell, did well understand:


You must not openly question conclusions of the self-appointed governmental scientific elite.

When things don’t make scientific sense, refer to the first.

Respectfully yours,

THE governmental Elite…..


Some things change with time—– others will never.

57 Responses to “The Revenge of Lewandowsky”

  1. M Simon said

    Funny. I was just reading

    “Then in the eighteenth century came a radical change. The founders of Political Economy discovered regularity in the operation of the market. They discovered that to every state of the market a certain state of prices corresponded and that a tendency to restore this state made itself manifest whenever anything tried to alter it. This insight opened a new chapter in science. People came to realize with astonishment that human actions were open to investigation from other points of view than that of moral judgment. They were compelled to recognize a regularity which they compared to that with which they were already familiar in the field of the natural sciences.”

    News of this natural limit on the efficacy of power was not warmly received in all quarters. It did not sit well with those who found it inconvenient that, as Mises wrote elsewhere, “there is something operative which power and force are unable to alter and to which they must adjust themselves if they hope to achieve success, in precisely the same way as they must take into account the laws of nature.” What did such people do? They denied that those natural market forces operated. The results were tragic.

    And found some links:

    The market is how we discover what people want and how much they want it.

  2. omanuel said

    Jeff, I agree with Steven Goddard and a recent piece in the Washington Times:

    We are now dealing with a tyrannical government.

    George Orwell figured out serfdom was our fate in 1946 when he started writing the futuristic novel, “Nineteen Eighty-Four.”

    The first scientist to visit Hiroshima’s ruins in August 1945, Professor P. K. Kuroda, designed a research project to reveal the secret plan in 1960.

    See: “A Journey to the Core of the Sun” (in progress).

    1. A one page synopsis:

    2. Chapter 1: The first scientist to visit Hiroshima’s ruins in August 1945, Professor P. K. Kuroda

    After working on that project for fifty-three years, I now know there is more validity in the conflicting opinions of a dozen skeptical scientists than in the consensus opinions of thousands of text-book authors, well-funded and tenured professors and Nobel Prize winners.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

    Sent from my iPhone

  3. Brian H said

    Falsehood is more useful to and compatible with authoritarian minds and programs than truth. Truth has links with the universe of facts and is thus subject to surprising cross-checks, and goeth where it willeth. Falsehood is more obedient, and less subject to penetration by outside observational connections, paradoxically.

  4. benpal said

    Good to hear from you, Jeff, and well said. Michael Mann, by lending his name to this piece of paper and by whining about his suffering has definitely signed off from the scientific world …

  5. blouis79 said

    Keep up the good fight Jeff. I still think the challenge is to properly duel in the physics lab where good science will determine the real scientific truth from the fantasy world of the global circulation model.

    • Jeff Id said

      Physics will win out the science of the argument in time. In the meantime, we are signing on for a lot more than physics. It is as the leftists say, a two front battle between global centralized authoritarianism and something better. It isn’t hard to see who will win out, the math of human thinking is in favor of central control. The authoritarian concepts are very simple, especially with a controlled media, unfortunately the concepts always lead to dark economically-starved places.

      People never learn. It seems that nothing hinders people’s crazy belief in government wisdom over the personal incentives of those in power. The government abuses in the US have reached new heights in the past 6 years, and without any penalty for the abusers, the behavior shows no sign of slowing.

      • catweazle666 said

        Methinks they’re getting desperate, Jeff.

        Given the now universal acceptance of “the Pause” and the flop that AR5 is turning out to be, they certainly have cause.

        If – as seems likely – the World is set for a decade or more of cooling, their respective geese are just about to be well and truly cooked, not to mention stuffed and put on the serving dish ready for carving, and I think they are painfully aware of the fact.

  6. […] Click here to read the full article […]

  7. Jeff Id said

    The funding for the article is particularly interesting. It is no wonder we cannot quantify the truly massive investment of government into this kind of nonsense:

    Preparation of this paper was facilitated by an Outstanding Researcher Award from the Australian Research Council
    and a Wolfson Research Merit Award from the Royal Society to the first author.
    Linda Bauld and Gerard Hastings are members of the UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies.
    Funding from the British Heart Foundation,
    Cancer Research UK,
    the Economic and Social Research Council,
    the Medical Research Council and
    the National Institute of Health Research, under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, is gratefully acknowledged.

    Big oil my arse!

    • omanuel said


      Rational thought, the serenity prayer and the scientific method help us accept reality.

      Consensus science helps us temporarily avoid unpleasant sides of reality: Human powerlessness over death, global climate change, over-population, tyrannical world governments, and the pulsar at the core of the Sun.

  8. Ben Wouters said


    the best way imo to fight these climaclowns is by blowing their pet theory out of the water and replace it with something sensible.

    First question to answer is why that nice greybody in our sky (Moon), absorbing even more solar radiation than Earth (albedo .11 iso .30) has an average surface temperature of ~197K iso it’s Effective temperature of ~270K.

    Second question could be: given the radiative balance temperature for the Moon of 197K, how can we have liquid water (oceans) on Earth? Is the cold atmosphere with a thermal capacity equal to ~3 meter of water, warming Earths surface AND the deep oceans some 90K above Moons average surface temperature?
    Anybody answering this question with yes is out of his mind imo. (heard 97% of the climate scientist believe this to be true 😉 )

    Maybe, just maybe the fact that Earth consists of molten rock, with a core of molten metal has anything to do with this?
    The mechanism may not be immediately clear, but it is not rocket science, and no, it is NOT the 100 mW/m^2 flux through the oceans crust.

    • Maybe Arrhenius was wrong. He theorized thus:
      “The selective absorption of the atmosphere is……………..not exerted by the chief mass of the air, but in a high degree by aqueous vapor and carbonic acid, which are present in the air in small quantities.”

      What if Carl Sagan was right? He correctly calculated the surface temperature of Venus in 1967 using thermodynamics even though he did not know whether Nitrogen or CO2 was the dominant component of that planet’s atmosphere.

      Sagan quantified the GHE on Venus without considering radiation below the cloud tops. The results of his calculations are shown here (click the “Send pdf” button):

      • Ben Wouters said

        I’m pretty confident I can explain the deep ocean temperatures since their creation. Their present and past temperature comes from geothermal HEAT (not flux). ~84 mya the deep ocean was ~18K warmer than today, and they have been cooling since then. Compare this to the furore over OHC lately, which is actually about a few thousands of a degree.
        I have been discussing my ideas with “sceptics”, but since they actually believe that you can warm the deep oceans from the surface down I’m getting no where.
        Once you accept that the temperature of the deep oceans is set independently from solar warming, the role of the atmosphere becomes pretty simple.
        Deep ocean temperature currently ~275K, sun warms a shallow surface layer another 15K or so, and this warm surface loses it’s heat via the atmosphere to space. Actually the atmosphere “consumes” energy just to stay “in the air” against gravity. Old fashioned meteorology as existed before radiation madness struck is still very valid. (think Buys Ballot, Hadley etc.)
        I like to discuss my ideas with some open minded people. I you’re interested, I have a short pdf summary.
        email is wouters at multiweb dot nl

      • Ben Wouters said

        Funny you mention Carl Sagan. He also came up with the Faint Young Sun paradox.
        Would be solved with my setup as well.

  9. Anonymous said

    In the USA at the moment, Obama’s left-wing shock troops are spinning furiously in ever more bizarre defenses of his serial lying and gross incompetence. Anyone familiar with Mikey Mann’s hockey team will recognize the plays. After all, the politics, belief systems, and playbooks of both are the same.

    There’s a ground hog day quality to all of it.

  10. Government promotes failure. So Lewandowsky and Mann are lionized by them! It all has to do with intentions, not results.

  11. Jeff,
    Thanks for reading that c**p so the rest of us won’t need to.

    Good to hear from you again.

  12. The main point, that denial of science is most often due to a threat to someone’s worldview, is an old truism couched in different language: i.e., “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” — Upton Sinclair.

    We see this on the subject of evolution, healthcare, climate change, and economics. In all of these cases the basics of the science and empirical evidence say one thing – but deniers simply cannot accept the evidence.

    Take economics as an example: the U.S stimulus package that followed the financial crisis of 2008 was known to be too small to effect a quick recovery by liberal economists, but conservatives claimed that it would drive interest rates higher and create hyperinflation. Standard Keynesian macroeconomics (and simple logic) said that interest rates and inflation would be little affected. We’ve had a real-world economic laboratory experiment and the results are in – interest rates and inflation have not been affected. Do you see any conservative economists discarding their economic models? The science and empirical evidence says one thing, but they simply cannot change their worldviews – hence they ignore the evidence.

    It’s the same process taking place on several different fronts. The one commonality is – at least in the US – they all tend to be grouped into one political party.

    • Jeff Id said

      Kevin, I like you but any brief study of the stimulus work will tell you that when the stimulus stops, you wait a bit before the inflation happens. The “learn-to-fly by picking up your ankles”, stimulus cash, has not stopped or even been somewhat reduced yet.

      My contention is that your suggested conclusion that the “flight plan is good” is unsupported by any evidence as yet. Hypothetically, if someone intelligent were in charge of the policy, and happened to worry about potential inflation and political outcome, how would they react? Were they crafty enough at economics and politics, and they understood the economy, they would likely CONTINUE the “stimulus” in as surreptitious and unpublicized a fashion as possible.

      Perhaps a monthly 80 billion money print to put off any effects? From a leftist paper –

      From your previous writings, my opinion is that you are being faux-naive about the complexity of the game being played by our politicians. Hopefully I am wrong, however, your implied concept that the conservative, libertarian, non-authoritarian people, having literally zero control of anything on this planet is responsible for the ills created by government policy is demonstrably beyond logic.

      Ignore the evidence you say?

    • Jeff Id said

      On second thought, this is a logic based blog. We are literally dumping a trillion dollars per year of new cash into the economy for years on end and you write that left-wing drivel here.

      Apologies are in order Sir!

      Take it back!

      • Jeff, where are the skyrocketing interest rates? Where is the predicted HYPERINFLATION?

        The empirical evidence is in. It was in *before* the stimulus package was enacted, but most people weren’t paying attention to Japan’s ‘lost decade.’ An economic model that predicted an increase in interest rates and inflation has been proven wrong. Do you see any of these people changing their tune? I know of one, Minneapolis Fed President Narayana Kocherlakota.

        I realize it is very difficult for people to suddenly admit that they were wrong, wrong, wrong. If one admits to being wrong on something – especially something so fundamental – it can call into question all other beliefs.

        • Jeff Id said


          First, I have seen plenty of price inflation, although our government doesn’t track it properly. Or are you one of those magical people who hasn’t noticed price theh large price increases? Inflation isn’t nearly as low as we are being told on MSNBC.

          The federal government literally sets interest rates, which have climbed a little. In the meantime, we’ve been downgraded as a creditor due to the “printing” glut, and are already being threatened with more of the same. What will happen when the governemnt responds to those pressures, which in time it probably will.

          You can’t print money forever, and that is more than a little obvious. What isn’t obvious is that the new money is not sitting in the US – yet. Heck a pile of it hasn’t even made it into circulation – and we don’t want it here! It will come home someday but when that happens depends on how well the other countries of the world do. If they continue to screw up worse than us over in Europe, our money looks pretty good. In reality, there is just too much money out there for it not to happen at some point. What will you say when it happens?

          Your are premature in your conclusions but I don’t have a clue how that would affect fundamental beliefs anyway. So far, the economy flat stinks. I work with heavy industry and recreational industry, the production of recreational products is still well below anything it was prior to 2008 and there seems to be nothing changing much there. Just a bunch of companies fighting with each other to cut costs in any way possible. Recreational money is a good indicator of the true strength of the economy because it represents GOOD jobs creating extra $$ for people. They aren’t spending on non-essentials because people don’t have the extra cash they used to have.

          If the Keynseians were so right, where is the huge boom in the economy we should have seen? (rhetorical question) Stomping about yelling that you have proof that there is no problem with creating mountains of money from nothing, is completely ridiculous.

          • Jeff Id said

            Oh, and I’m not predicting hyperinflation anyway. Just less money and less control on average for individuals as the left continues to strangle the economy with regulations and taxation. Even that doesn’t preclude people doing reasonably well, just not as well as we otherwise would have.

          • Inflation: conspiracy theories fit right in with the refusal to accept empirical evidence and science. The *evidence* – as opposed to conspiracy theories – says the CPI is right in line with reality.

            There is no delayed trigger for inflation. When markets believe inflation is going to rise the price of bonds drops and interest rates rise. If markets saw inflation anywhere on the horizon we’d see it in the price of bonds. The evidence, again, shows that markets do not believe in this inflation of which you speak.

          • There is no hidden trigger. But you are trying to apply the wrong models. Inflation is being “sequestered” (for want of a better term) by the lack of demand for borrowing. The Feds are pumping trillions of dollars into the economy, but no one is borrowing or using it because there is no demand to push expansion (the “multiplier” has actually gone negative).

            And Jeff is correct about the inflation rate. It is grossly under stated. Anyone who buys staples on a regular basis has but to look at the expenses. While the government was stating “no inflation”, costs of staples (food and fuel) have gone up double digits. The housing market collapse helped suppress inflation (housing costs tumbled), but even that is not being reported correctly any longer. While home prices have started a very small rise, rentals have gone through the roof! Again, not being reported.

            The old rules still work, and the evidence is there. But most are ignoring most of the evidence and so drawing the wrong conclusions.

          • Keynesian: There was a $3Trillion dollar hole in the economy due to the financial crisis. We filled it with a poorly designed $1Trillion fiscal stimulus package. Now, some will say that’s the best we could pass thru congress and that what was necessary wasn’t possible. I personally don’t believe it was fought for hard enough, but nevertheless, the size of the stimulus package was too small for the damage that needed to be remedied. QE probably has done no harm, but no one thought it would do much good, either. Fiscal stimulus was and is needed.

            There is plenty of economic analysis that shows the correlation between stimulus or austerity as *answers* to the financial meltdown. The data shows that countries that pursued stimulus have fared better economically since the meltdown than countries that pursued austerity. Again, you won’t see any of the conservative or Libertarian minded economists discarding their economic models despite the empirical evidence.

          • Keynesian economics never pushed the porkulus. The whole theory was for short term deficit spending during down turns. Short term being less than 12 months. When was the last time there was a surplus?

            Sorry, again, you are looking at the wrong models – and ignoring most of the data.

          • Taxation: Jeff, in another comment thread you wrote, “Eventually higher taxes result in lower revenue. That’s what makes the concept of paygo such a bad decision. I believe we have already crossed that line.” Have you ever looked at the empirical evidence? The actual evidence places that number not at 25%, or 45% or 65% – but upwards of 80%.

            Again, it’s belief versus evidence.

          • Jeff Id said

            What conspiracy theory? Its simple fact that inflation we experience is higher than is being documented simply by the types of items left out as a matter of standard practice. It makes the economy look better which is better for government and it IS well known. The index was changed years ago. Where the heck do you get a conspiracy theory from fact?

            Inflation occurs when there is a money glut in the market. The US dollars released from QE are released for borrowing or payouts, most of these $ were set for borrowing and have largely stayed at the international level and much of it is stuck under massive new regulations waiting to be borrowed. You can’t force people to borrow, but you can encourage it by keeping interest low. It is a simple fact that when that stuck money starts to flow, which it will, we will see price increases, but this is not the “end-of-the-world” that you are trying to claim for conservatives. It just creates inflation which can be checked by increasing interest rates, which results in high debt payments that are much scarier to me.

            Austerity is hardly at issue when we have the largest government on the planet. How about right-sizing? Perhaps a bit less regulatory load? It’s like we’re advocating for an unregulated market by asking the EPA to settle down a little. Is there nothing inbetween that makes sense to you. Half of the department of education could disappear tomorrow without affect but how about 20%?

            Regarding the throwing out of models, you are promoting elimination of an economic model that hasn’t failed to my knowledge. Which specific model didn’t work right? Which dates were things supposed to happen that didn’t?

            Regarding taxation, you need to take another look at the correct balance. The evidence is substantial for far lower taxation but your keynsian leftists with their rose colored glasses hide it under the numbers as well as any climate sophist. I’ve read the 80% argument, have you read the 20 percent? From my perspective, it is your “belief” vs evidence at stake here.

            I run a business, the government takes about 3 times what I take home in pay for taxes. The rest is re-invested in some form. If the government let us keep even half of our massive tax bill, we would be 2X larger, our employees would be paid better, and would be kicking the crap out of most of the rest of the world. Of course, even at that level, our taxes would still be higher than Tiawan or China. It is completely ignorant to tell me that we should suffer an 80% tax rate – for our own benefit. All you would do is completely STOP our ability to grow. Yet you read your left-wing nonsense and are convinced that theft of 80% of our profits would magically lead to more production.

            Better yet, start your own business and tell me how well it runs by giving away 80% of your profit.

            You don’t make sense Kevin – and that is a fact. I can’t believe that people actually fall for the 80% argument.

          • Jeff, as Upton Sinclair, Lewandowsky and numerous others have pointed out: when faced with belief or facts, belief wins almost every time. You have no evidence to back up your claim. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary. So which do you choose? You choose belief. Fine, but at least admit that you don’t base your beliefs on evidence. It’s faith-based, a religion.

          • Lewandowsky? The guy who distributes imaginary surveys to web sites? The guy who draws conclusions from a sampling size of zero?

            Please! My sides are hurting from the laughter. I thought you were actually being rational until that point.

          • chuckr said

            Roosevelt tried Keynesian fixes for years and actually prolonged the recession. After most of the rest of the worlds economies and manufacturing was destroyed the US was left basically without competition. It didn’t hurt that we had a free market economy ready to take advantage. Government spending is only a very temporary prime to the economy and often causes the opposite reaction shortly after….like cash for clunker did. Progresives are incapable of visualizing this because they make several assumptions that are simply false. I would list them but Kevin already has.

          • Jeff, you’re going to run comparisons to China and Taiwan? Is that the type of country you want to live in? Is that what you envision as the future of America? Why not compare to modern, mature countries like the OECD?

          • Jeff Id said


            It is you who cannot back up your claims. You stomp around making bold statements with no evidence, claiming that I suffer from the same. Which claim that I made do you require data for?

          • Jeff, you said that US tax rates are out of whack. You claimed that *current* tax rates are hurting the economy and already on the downward slope of the Laffer curve. This is nonsense and there is no evidence to back it up. All empirical evidence from history show that higher tax rates don’t start affecting growth until the rate is exceedingly large. You don’t believe that, but you show no evidence to support it.

            Here’s a few quotes from economists on the idea that we have already reached the tax/revenue maximizing level.

            David Autor: “Not aware of any evidence in recent history where tax cuts actually raise revenue. Sorry, Laffer.”

            Ed Lazear: “This is the Laffer curve issue. There is little (if any) evidence that rates exceed revenue-maximizing levels. See Mankiw, Feldstein.”

            Kenneth Judd: “That did not happen in the past. No reason to think it would happen now.”

            Anil Kashyup: “May look plausible on a cocktail napkin (or at a cocktail party), but not true empirically in the US.”

            Austan Goolsbee: “Moon landing was real. Evolution exists. Tax cuts lose revenue. The reasearch has shown this a thousand times. Enough already.”

            Where exactly do you get the notion that we have already reached tax/revenue maximation? Faith or empirical evidence?

          • There is plenty of evidence. The evidence is the less money being reported for income (which generates less in taxes). The evidence is in the Job Participation rate. The evidence is in the number on welfare. The evidence is abundant, but you do not recognize it.

          • Jeff Id said

            Now Kevin,

            You said “evidence” and you provide statements from people. Are you saying that you ‘believe’ them?

            Come-on sir. You set the ground rules yourself. Appeals to authority are not evidence.

          • Here’s an NBER paper on the Laffer curve: HOW FAR ARE WE FROM THE SLIPPERY SLOPE? THE LAFFER CURVE REVISITED, by Mathias Trabandt and Harald Uhlig

          • Jeff Id said


            At last you have referenced a paper, but we are talking about ‘evidence’ to support or contradict a statement made by me. You must specify which statement this paper contradicts and in what way. Otherwise we can chuck papers back and forth for months. We have all seen those blogs before and this is not one of those.

            Maybe you will teach me something. You would be far from the first at this blog. But your approach must be logical and consice if you will.

            For instance – here is an NBER paper which contradicts your statment …… that has been bothering me.

      • Here’s a very simple thought experiment: the global economy suffers from high unemployment, high debt, and low inflation. Everyone needs to increase savings and cut spending. What would be the effect of this policy? A contracting global economy. And a contracting economy means less growth. Less growth would result in fewer jobs and even higher debt levels. Repeat ad nauseum.

        The #1 goal of politicians and central bankers *everywhere* should be to get people employed and raise inflation. Monetary policies are basically useless at this point. They can do harm, but they can do little good. Inflation will help the debt deleveraging, but jobs and growth via fiscal policies are the only fruitful way out.

        World War II finally got us permanently out of the Great Depression. I.e., it took the largest government spending program in the history of mankind. Debt levels then make today’s look like nothing. All of the empirical evidence points in one direction. It’s a question of evidence or faith. I’m not a religious person; I have little experience with faith. I go with evidence every time.

        • Jeff Id said

          You go by facts right – “Debt levels then make today’s look like nothing.”

          How about debt as a %gdp:

          Care to change your statement Dr. Facts?

          • Change my statement? I see that US debt was 20% larger as a percentage of GDP in 1945. Doesn’t that support what I said?

            We had no problems moving on economically from that point – in fact, the 1950s are considered some of the best economic years of this country’s history – and with tax rates significantly higher than today.

            And remember, the US is but one country. Let’s look at the UK, Germany, France, Italy, etc.

          • Did it stay there? How long did it stay at that level? And what world war are we exiting this time?

          • Jeff Id said

            The debt as a percentage of GDP is different than inflation corrected debt. You specified neither ant your statement that it makes today’s debt look like “nothing” is completely ridiculous based on any scale you care to argue from. You are fact based right?

            What is also not “nothing” is the fact that America was in a global war for its survival to create that debt level. The plots don’t include 2013 and there appears to be no end in sight. Why is it ok to even approach the biggest emergency borrowing this country has ever seen during times of peace?

            I think you count China and Taiwan far too short. They are bastions of capitalism and while they have plenty of regulation, the government cannot/doesn’t want to afford to enforce all of it. Our biggest competitor is Tiawanese and they just bought out their own biggest customer so that we are fighting a Tiawanese direct to market supplier.

            We had our taxes raised dramatically this year. We have had increased regulatory costs the past 4 years. Now we have massively expanded health care costs. Then we have this literally ridiculous concept from people advocating that we should pay 80% tax on top of everything.

            The 50’s taxes were substantially lower than today do your homework and stop listening to MSNBC. This is a false statement based on an incomplete understanding of 1950 tax policy. The existence of the alternative minimum tax proves my point without any further consideration needed but the overall tax rate as a percent of GDP (apparently your favorite metric) was substantially lower.

            I don’t pay AMT because I pay more than AMT — If you have any rational bone left in this discussion, explain how that works if taxes used to be so much higher.

            Why don’t you like industry?

            What makes the thing which feeds and clothes you so evil?

          • Revenue as % of GDP – Historical Revenues as a percent of GDP are lower today than they were in the 1950s. The past 5 year period is the lowest percentage since WWII. If lower tax rates spurred growth, then we should have seen an explosion in growth.

          • Again, you pick a cherry and ignore the mote. How’s the unemployment rate for you? You cannot pay taxes if you are not working. And check the historical relationship between U3 and U6. Never been greater.

            And finally, GDP INCLUDES government spending. When has it been so high (outside WWII) in the past? Try GNP.

          • Jeff, again and again what we see is that you *don’t* look at the actual evidence. You cite *facts* that are the opposite of what you claim. Not only have we seen revenues as a percentage of GDP at an historically low rate, remember that we have much higher SSI and Medicare taxes today. So our revenues are composed far more today of individual taxes than they were then. The rates that businesses pay today is substantially lower. Regardless who pays them, revenues as a percent of GDP are sharply down. Claiming they are historically high is just flat out wrong and contradicts the data.

            REPLY: Business taxes are very high today as well, unless you are a Democrat protected C corp, but that is a story for after you read my latest reply. There is so much wrong with what you have written here

          • Jeff Id said

            Thanks for the link Kevin, at least we are discussing facts.

            Now I pay federal, state, local and property tax, not just federal as your data shows.

            This is a historic plot of ACTUAL government load on the economy (2nd graph):

            So now we know where the explosion in growth went right?

          • Jeff Id said

            It’s probably shocking to you right now that a successful conservative business owner knows more about taxes than you. .

          • People who have to pay them always are more familiar (painfully so) than those who just spend them.

          • Jeff Id said

            So after all that bluster about conservatives operating on belief only, we get to one single graph proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that taxes are not lower than 1950 and you give up? Are you reconsidering?

        • YOur premise is wrong. Everyone does not need to cut spending. Governments need to. They are the ones inhibiting investment, which is the only real wealth creator. As long as government is suppressing investments, there will be no growth, there will be no recovery, and deficits will only expand.

    • There was no real world test. The test was tainted by the QE which was a major factor in keeping rates low. But rates cannot go negative, and since no one is borrowing, it did nothing for the economy. Just as the Porkulus did not.

  13. omanuel said


    The scientific method, when rigorously followed, allows humans to know and accept reality, despite our emotional instincts. FEAR is the evil and corroding thead that convinced world leaders to take totalitarian control of the world at the end of the Second World War.

    Fortunately, the position of “totalitarian controller” was already taken. So the effort to control the world will fail, whether led by leftists or rightists.

    The next chapter, Chapter 2, of my autobiography will focus on the need to rigorously follow the scientific method to re-establish human contact with reality

  14. timetochooseagain said

    Our belligerent friend here believes that by citing ideological hacks and econometric models he can “prove” how stupid we all are for daring to disagree with him.

    A lot of his claims are real whoppers. The pathologically wrong have gotten quite far these days just by saying what they say is true and everyone who has a valid opinion agrees with them. People actually fall for this bullshit is what I can’t understand.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: