Current Affairs & Politics

How the Telecommunications Act of 1996 Brought Us Donald Trump

Over two years ago I started writing a treatise on the effects of the Internet on music, attempting to debunk the popular theory held among technologists like myself that the Internet is an inherently democratizing force that empowers individuals. I collected charts and graphs, pulled industry data, and created a very compelling storyline.

I even began to compile a global database and build a visualization tool to present all the hundreds (thousands) of “independent” record labels that are actually branches of Sony, Warner, or Universal by tying together the hierarchical structures that are employed to disguise the fact that your favorite cuddly “indie” band is actually just a product squeezed out of a tube or a guy who “sold out to buy in.”

Unfortunately, the deeper down the rabbit hole I fell, the more depressed I became about the situation. I actually became so depressed about it that I abandoned the article, picked it back up a year later, got even more angry and depressed, and put it down again. My research not only caused me to despair and not finish my article, but also made me almost give up on both technology and music as well. It was that bad.

Maybe the truest statement ever made is: “The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off.”

I’ve tried to get it finished several times, but at this point it’s become the Third Rail of Depression and Futility and I can’t bear to look at it. Also, the data collected in 2014 are starting to age, and I have absolutely no desire to re-mine the data again.

This article, therefore, will perforce need to be written at a sprint, because the longer I steep in this reality, the more I despair. I will attempt to annotate as I can, but I’m not here to prove anything, merely to lay out a line of reasoning that others can follow and bolster (or tear down) with facts, and instead of drilling into source data, spreadsheets, and databases, I’ll probably just quote Wikipedia and leave enough links at the bottom that you know I’m not spinning this yarn out of whole cloth.

Instead of laying out irrefutable proofs, I intend merely to connect some dots with a reasonably thick line. Sorry about that, but I got a life too.

In 1990 I graduated from Texas A&M University, aptly described by one of my dearest friends as “a hotbed of conservatism,” from the Lowry Mays School of Business. After graduating, I attended the Red McCombs School of Business at the University of Texas at Austin where I received an MBA in Information Systems Management. As it turns out, those two individuals – Lowry Mays and Red McCombs – will become instrumental in this story.

I was a big fan of Milton Friedman (still am, generally speaking) and a True Believer in capitalism as the engine of enriching the masses (this view has since become more nuanced). I called myself a small-L libertarian, wanting little to do with the quacky Lyndon Larouche party, but finding value in small-L libertarian principles: fiscally limited government, small defensive military, an absolute defense of civil liberty, generally open borders and free trade, and the use of progressive taxation (Friedman’s “negative income tax”) to provide a minimum guaranteed income instead of highly invasive and inefficient government services like public housing and food stamps.

I bring all of this up to share that I am not by birth a radical anti-capitalist, but actually someone who came into this situation with views far different than I have now been beaten by reality into accepting. I am still no radical anti-capitalist, but my eyes are a lot more open than they once were.

First I must dispel a notion:

“The Internet is inherently decentralizing and democratizing.”

As one of the very earliest Internet developers (I started building complex database back-ended web sites in 1995) and a small-L libertarian, I gulped this Kool-aid the moment it was offered. It fit exactly into my ethos. As a technologist, I could see that the Internet had the potential to decentralize everything. And as a musician, I was sure that a New Era of Music was upon us, one where a musician could simply create and distribute music directly to fans without middlemen, and that this empowerment would destabilize and destroy the record label business which had done such terrible disservices to the artists it supposedly represented.

Without getting into the charts, data, spreadsheets, and suicidal ideations from my abandoned article, let me just cut to the chase: this view was balderdash, at least over a two-plus-decade timeframe. In a nutshell, the top 1% artists now 77% of all music revenue, the top 3 labels control roughly 90% of the music you hear, access to the key new music discovery media (radio, satellite, and curated playlists) has narrowed tremendously, and more money than ever before is required to build and maintain an audience. If you doubt all this, write your own article, because I couldn’t finish mine without wanting to drink Drano.

In 1994 nobody as far as I knew was using the term “disruption,” but what I have learned from my work in tech, and from my research, is that disruption is really mostly analogous to a game of 52-pickup: a change comes along that suddenly seems to throw all the playing cards in the air. For a brief moment in time, the former holder of all the cards is destabilized, and everyone in the room has a narrow window in which to grab a few cards while they’re still in the air. Some individuals get lucky, and grab enough cards to empower themselves before the cards are grabbed back up by their original holders. These lucky individuals can then serve as useful anecdotes to the world about how the “disruption” has “empowered people.” Everyone knows the story of the musician that got famous by building a fanbase on MySpace and never signed to a record label. Sadly, far too many of us thought that was a trend not an anecdote.

Even sadder, at least some of these anecdotes were simply propaganda stunts by massive Internet businesses to market their brand. For example a particular Internet giant tried for years to spin the story of how their social network was helping to make a particular “artist” quite famous (3+M social followers!), when really all they did was push this person onto everyone’s social feed and hope for the best while nothing actually happened in that artist’s musical career. Heck, the “artist” never even completed a full album of music. Still, millions of people saw the story and got hope, including me.

Silly, silly me.

I’m not here to bash disruption per se. My view is that disruption, like the technology that enables it, is value-neutral. The point is that it is not inherently value-positive, as so many of us technologists cling to as if it were religion.

So the Internet did not tear down the evil record labels as predicted. In fact the overall market for commercial radio increased 13% in the decade 1998-2008. The Internet also did not destroy radio as predicted. The power of radio has surely diminished somewhat since 1994, but the current and continuing influence of radio on music is almost impossible to overstate. At least as of 2014 (when I collected data for my aborted article), terrestrial radio was still the #1 source of new music discovery.

Let me repeat that: 20+ years after the invention of the modern Internet, FM radio is still the #1 way that people discover music. And the #2 way people discovered music is through word of mouth — in other words from a friend who probably discovered the music where? On radio.

So I will say it again: it is almost impossible to overestimate the influence of terrestrial radio on new music discovery.

Radio is not dead. Not even close.

When researching my previous article, this was where the rabbit hole opened up and swallowed me whole. Because something else had changed in the intervening years since Marc Andressen brought us the Mosaic browser – in fact, this giant change was largely because of that browser.

That change was the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Before we fall down that rabbit hole together, I want to sidestep for a moment, because something else happened in 1996: my rock band from college got its first single played on a top radio station in a top-ten market by one of the nation’s best-known DJs, a man we all call Redbeard. How this happened wasn’t luck or payola: we made a demo, took a CD to the radio station, met Redbeard (cool guy), he listened to the song, liked it, and agreed to give it some spins.

That song didn’t make us famous. But Redbeard and his peers at the competing station broke a lot of influential North Texas bands during this period of the 1990s: the Nixons, the Toadies, Tripping Daisy, Edie Brickell and New Bohemians, and many others got their start on the radio exactly this way – by taking a demo to a local station and getting spins – in drive-time rotation in a Top 10 music market. That’s a Big Fucking Deal. It’s also a feat that is practically impossible for an unsigned local artist to pull off today, for reasons we shall soon learn.

Spins on radio means fans at shows. More fans at shows means more requests for the song on radio. More requests means more spins, more spins means more fans — then better shows at better venues, etc.. Eventually the effect is spillover onto other stations and into other neighboring markets. It’s an easy to understand, meritocritous, “bottom-up” virtuous cycle that Made Music Great from 1970-1996, the Golden Age of FM Radio for anyone old enough to remember it. It’s a process that played out for years on hundreds of stations across the country, surfacing local talent and exposing it to the wider world.

This Golden Age was made possible only because of the existence of largely independent local radio stations employing independent DJs to curate a playlist for the local demographic and to develop the local market. This was the formula that had served music listeners since the advent of radio, and that, for all intents and purposes, ended after 1996 and has yet to be replaced with anything.

Particularly on the Internet, where “local” goes to die.

As a young technologist in 1996, I was on the front line of Internet hype. A few years prior, the “Internet” was still something for nerds wearing propellor hats like me. Suddenly, the light bulb came on, seemingly for everyone at once. ISPs like UUnet previously thought to serve a tiny potential market of only hackers started doubling in valuation every few months as people realized “everyone’s going to want to get online!” Startups like Amazon and eBay and Google – and – achieved insane levels of hype. The Internet, it was thought, would eat everything. And it probably will, eventually.

It became relatively obvious early on that the Internet as well as other recent disruptive technologies of the time like cellular and cable would radically change telecommunications. In the wake of this sudden disruption, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was passed. This landmark piece of legislation was the most important piece of legislation affecting telecommunication of all kinds since the 1934 Communications Act which created the FCC.

The purpose of the 1996 Act was stated as:

to provide for a pro-competitive, de-regulatory national policy framework designed to accelerate rapidly private sector deployment of advanced information technologies and services to all Americans by opening all telecommunications markets to competition

which, in 1996, sounded like a good idea to a young, small-L libertarian. And in fact I’d guess that there are many aspects of the Act that have been good for the country and its inhabitants. Probably. Maybe.

The Act did many things, mostly oriented around de-regulating the boring communications infrastructure maintained at the time by AT&T and the Baby Bells to try to re-orient it around serving the needs of the coming Internet market. That was the part of the bill that everyone was discussing and arguing about at the time. However, unbeknownst to most, it also significantly de-regulated radio, television, and print media for the first time since 1934.

Under the 1934 Communications Act, radio was held to be a (at least quasi) public good – like clean air, street lighting, or libraries. 1934 was a time where most of the print news in the country was controlled by a small number of political machines, like that of William Randolph Hearst, which used sensationalism and “yellow journalism” to promote political agendas. The goal of the 1934 legislation was to prevent such monopolization from taking hold in the nascent radio market with its limited space on the dial for competition. The mechanism was straightforward: limit the number of stations any entity can hold in any market, and the overall number of stations that any entity can hold. It also limited the ability for media channels to “forward integrate” into radio – to prevent a company like RCA from controlling the distribution channels for its competitors’s music, and to prevent a company like Hearst’s from commandeering the airwaves for political purposes. (Hearst, originally a Roosevelt supporter, would turn strongly against FDR after the passage of this bill).

In other words, radio was kept decentralized with the goal of maximizing local and independent access.

It is important to understand that at the time, it was not unusual for most people to have access to a small number of radio stations. The great 20th century urban migration was not complete, and radio was nascent and capital-intensive. It is for this reason that the FCC was created to ensure that the fledgling technology was deployed in a way that prevented monopolization.

It is from this philosophy – radio as a public good – that later notions like the “Fairness Doctrine” and “Payola” sprang. In the 1940s, the FCC held that radio programming must present opposing views on controversial material instead of only presenting one side. This was the so-called “Fairness Doctrine.” Likewise, rigor was applied to keep record labels from buying access to stations (and crowding out competitors) by rigorously enforcing laws regarding Payola – a law still (theoretically) enforced today. Under Payola laws, a radio station can play a song in exchange for money, but must disclose the song as “sponsored content,” and cannot count the spin in the song’s ratings.

The Fairness Doctrine was struck down in 1987, but the anti-monopoly laws stood until the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which relaxed or removed the restrictions against the number of stations any one entity could own (both in one market and overall), and removed or relaxed restrictions against forward integration, allowing media creators to own networks, and vice versa.

The effect was that the 1996 Act, which was supposed

to provide for a pro-competitive, de-regulatory national policy framework designed to accelerate rapidly private sector deployment of advanced information technologies and services to all Americans by opening all telecommunications markets to competition

actually did no such thing at all, at least not in radio and media. The centralization in media has been dramatic: in 1983, 50 companies controlled 90% of US media – that number is now 5 (Comcast, Walt Disney, News Corp, Time Warner, and National Amusements) with almost all of the consolidation occurring since the passage of the 1996 Act. In 1995, companies were forbidden to hold more than 40 radio stations, total – by 2003, only eight years later, one company owned over 1200 stations, including having outright monopolies in many markets where they own and program every station on the dial. Where once FM radio was a unique place to discover new, unusual, and local music, today 80% of playlists match.

And – even though Payola is purportedly still a crime, these media empires enter into profit sharing agreements with the major record labels (who control 90%+ of the music you will ever hear). Folks, this is Payola writ large. Good luck if you’re actually indie.

The degree of consolidation has been breathtaking. I think this infographic sums it up best.

That the Telecommunications Act of 1996 increased efficiency in radio is undeniable. It is estimated that as many as 10,000 people have lost their jobs in radio broadcasting since the Act was passed – even as the total number of stations broadcasting in the USA has increased. This has happened because there is often absolutely no local “station” at your “local” station, but just a transmitter, broadcasting a program that sounds completely local, but which is programmed by Who Knows from an office in Who Knows Where. This has allowed for massive efficiencies of scale: it now takes approximately 0.5 people to run a “local” radio station.

As a small-L libertarian, the notion of efficiency has a certain nice ring to it, until you ask, “what, really, is the product, and how have we saved and benefitted as a society?” The answer to that question is complex, but in a nutshell, the product is simply advertising: advertising for products, sure, but also advertising for big-time-record-label music through these profit-sharing agreements, and – thanks to the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine – advertising for a specific political point of view. The notion of radio as a public good is long gone.

This was basically where my previous attempt to write a similar article about the music business broke down. Because once you, the small-L libertarian technologist-musician, understand that:

  1. Even though the Internet supposedly “changed everything” you still need good old radio to build local markets but
  2. You’re basically cut out of local radio altogether
  3. By the major record labels we said we “disrupted”

you want to just give up and make that nice big Drano cocktail. It’s hopeless.

I remember some of the discussion when the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was passed. As a technologist caught up in the pre-bubble phase of Major Internet Hype, it was “clear” that the future of radio was dead. “Soon” we would be streaming an infinite number of stations digitally. The use of AM and FM waves would “soon” be a dinosaur. With digital, an infinite number of “channels” would be possible, so the idea that radio was a limited “public good” in need of strong mandated decentralization seemed instantly obsolete. So the idea that we should deregulate radio and allow it to blend with media companies had a certain air of logic to it, since radio itself was going away to be replaced by the Internet. And after all, “less regulation equals more competition,” right?

This all might, in fact, happen one day. But satellite radio and streaming have not displaced terrestrial AM and FM radio. Most people still listen to radio in their car – and 25 years in, the Internet still really hasn’t penetrated the vehicle to eliminate broadcast radio. It is displacing it, somewhat – but the number of radio stations in the USA since the 1996 Act was passed has not shrunk – it’s grown. And, since the Act allows conglomerates to own and operate virtually without limit, they’re chewing up space on you satellite dial, too – and have excellent control over the Spotify playlist you’re probably listening to.

And, I’ll add, in much of what we call “flyover country,” far removed from urban culture, AM radio is still the only thing you can reliably find on the dial due to its superior reach.

In the early 1970s, Lowry Mays and Red McCombs formed Clear Channel Communications when they began to acquire failing radio stations and return them to profitability, typically by changing their formats to less operationally-expensive formats like religious programming or talk radio. By the mid-1990s Clear Channel owned 40 radio stations and over a dozen TV stations.

Conversion to religious and talk-only formats was not profitable because they were products with greater demand – they were profitable because they were products with lower cost. As researcher Jackson R. Witherill writes:

Jeffrey Berry and Sarah Sobieraj of Tufts University interviewed a number of radio executives in 2011 and they found common ground on the sentiment that “the surge in talk radio programming was supply driven, not demand driven” (Berry and Sobieraj 2011). This means that as individual stations within national corporations became unprofitable, switching to talk radio programming was an attempt to stay in business through producing inexpensive and nationally broadcast programs.

The rise in the number of talk radio stations has meant that syndicated programs, which have become increasingly common, have gained a higher level of exposure through the creation of more stations airing the same material in new locations. This increased exposure results in higher ratings for the show.

(emphasis mine)

In short, the conversion of radio to talk formats was less about listeners demanding that material, and more about the low costs of production and economy of scale of delivery. In short, they’re saying what we musicians have known for a long time: generally speaking, people like whatever they’re fed by the radio. Therefore the curator – or program director – or talk show host – has a powerful shaping role.

Enter the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which removed the restrictions on station ownership, and suddenly Clear Channel’s acquisition + talk-format conversion strategy can be done at scale. Along with other hungry conglomerates, Clear Channel started gobbling up independent radio stations en masse. In three years the company had grown 10X – to over 400 stations. In five more years, Clear Channel would triple its radio reach again, growing to over 1200 stations – as well as 41 television stations and over 750,000 outdoor advertising displays. Clear Channel is now known as iHeartMedia, which is still the nation’s largest holder of radio stations and, through it’s subsidiary (Premiere Networks) is the largest producer of syndicated talk radio.

Suddenly, giant radio conglomerates like Clear Channel / iHeartMedia were able to push syndicated talk radio formats completely across the country, coast-to-coast. Gone were the local DJs and commentators, in were the preprogrammed music stations and religious and celebrity radio talk show hosts. Premiere even created “Premiere on Call” – a service that offers fake callers to call in shows that fit the story or agenda of the show.

As a by-product of this change to religious and talk radio, this period in history saw the rise of a new kind of syndicated radio personality: the shock jock. As Wikipedia defines it, there are two overlapping species of shock jock:

  1. The radio announcer who deliberately does something outrageous and shocking (to improve ratings).
  2. The political radio announcer who has an emotional outburst in response to a controversial government policy decision.

And who are Premiere’s (iHeartMedia’s) top earning syndicated talk show hosts?

  1. The Rush Limbaugh Show
  2. The Sean Hannity Show
  3. The Glenn Beck Program

Premiere’s top competitor is Westwood One. Who are Westwood One’s top syndicated hosts?

  1. The Mark Levin Show
  2. The Savage Nation

These top 5 syndicated talk shows represent the lion’s share of syndicated commercial talk radio. Of the five, only Limbaugh had a significant following prior to the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The other four are creations of the post-1996 radio consolidation phenomenon.

These sort of political talk shows would have been very difficult if not impossible to justify under the Fairness Doctrine that existed from the late 1940s until 1987. However, it’s important to note that it was not the removal of the Fairness Doctrine that led to the overnight explosion of right-wing shock commentators. The reason for the explosion is clear: these shows are products of vertical integration and economies of scale enabled by the 1996 Telecom Act. The typical pre-1996 local radio station in Average, USA would never be able to afford even one hour of Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, but a giant conglomerate can actually save money by owning both the program and the distribution network and subsequently firing all the local employees of “Average 1310AM.”

And that is exactly what happened, in thousands of stations and communities all around the USA.

In a matter of a few years, this trend pushed high-volume shock-jock national-level syndicated radio right down into Average, USA. Gone were the local farming programs, the state politics talk shows, and Redbeard playing my demo. In came the right-wing talk radio movement, and the rest is history.

And that, my friends, is the direct line from the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to President Donald Trump.


This article would be remiss without its own version of the Fairness Doctrine. Because I think there’s another radio phenomenon that must be mentioned, and that is National Public Radio.

I’ll state here that NPR is overall a left-leaning organization, and has (had) a number of left / center-left talk shows such as Fresh Air, The Diane Rehm Show, The Takeaway, and Latino USA. However, only Fresh Air makes it onto the Top 20 syndicated talk show list.

NPR’s most successful programs are news programs: All Things Considered, Morning Edition, and Marketplace. These shows are also left /center left in focus, but as a rule do not offer editorial commentary.

In fact, only two progressive talk radio programs makes it to the Top 20 – Fresh Air (NPR), and the Thom Hartmann Program broadcast from the (commercial) Westwood One radio network.

As a result, the counterbalance of progressive, left-wing talk radio is dominated by an 800-lb gorilla called NPR, which crowds out other stations with its high-quality, listener-supported, and at least partially federally-subsidized broadcasting.

Now, while Terry Gross and Diane Rehm are surely left-of-center, there can be no comparison between the political slant of these sober NPR commentators and Michael Savage screaming “liberalism is a mental disorder” at the top of his lungs. There are no hyperpolarizing “shock jocks” on NPR stoking anger among their listeners with outbursts of rage. Nobody on NPR is “connecting the dots” Glenn Beck style to hypothesize various absurd yet certainly entertaining conspiracy theories. You will never hear an NPR personality refer to the Republican Party as a “terrorist network operating within our own borders.” And its most popular programs by far are the news shows – again, with next to zero commentary, and less-than-zero raving and pulling of hair.

So consider the polarizing effect of the top 5 syndicated radio programs:

  1. All Things Considered (NPR) – news
  2. Rush Limbaugh (Premiere) – conservative talk
  3. Morning Edition (NPR) – news
  4. Sean Hannity (Premiere) – conservative talk
  5. Marketplace (APM) – news

So NPR pulls the left towards the center, while commercial right-wing talk radio pulls the right to the right. Meanwhile, NPR’s large budget and high-quality commercial-free program sucks much of the air out of the room for any potential left-wing audience to support a more vitriolic, aggressive left-wing talk format (as though that would somehow help the country find balance).

More Reading:

Understanding the Rise of Talk Radio, Cambridge Core

The year that changed radio forever: 1996, Medialife Magazine

Why All The Talk-Radio Stars Are Conservative, Fortune

War of the Words: Political Talk Radio, the Fairness Doctrine, and Political Polarization in America, University of Maine

Nobody Speaks for #OccupyWallStreet

Adbusters occupy wall street

I think it is critical to spread the word of where Occupy Wall Street came from, because as it gains momentum, we are seeing many political groups trying to bend it to their wills.

Occupy Wall Street began as a single-issue protest.  It started when Adbusters posted a message suggesting a protest whose central demand is that President Obama “ordain a Presidential Commission tasked with ending the influence money has over our representatives in Washington.”  This is a broad-based demand that should (and did) unite people on all sides of the political spectrum, from ultra-Liberals to Tea Partiers.  In fact, as many point out, the target of the rage should be Washington as much as Wall Street.

Now, we are seeing lists of “demands” from a variety of parties who claim to speak for the few thousand people participating in the protests.  I am very skeptical of anybody who claims to speak for this group.  The lists of demands – several have been floated, all quite different – range from fairly specific legislative proposals to more whacko rantings of ultra-leftists.

And the groups which have stepped in to participate all have their own unique agendas.  Labor unions, for example, are supporting the cause – which is ironic, since labor unions definitely are part of “the influence that money has over our representatives in Washington.”  What’s next, support from Exxon?

What really got me suspicious was when I found out that was supporting the cause.  In 1998 I joined Wes Boyd and because it claimed to be an issues advocacy group focused on ending the impeachment of Bill Clinton.  I was no big fan of Clinton, but I was furious about the impeachment and its resultant waste and misdirected politics.  But instead of being a single-issue group focused on “moving on” from the impeachment, was instead a PAC raising money for the Democrats.

Lo and behold, I had apparently signed up as a card-carrying member of the left wing of the Democratic party.  That was hardly my intent.  I just wanted the Republicans to get back to the business of the Contract for America and off the stupid and wasteful impeachment proceedings.  I had been co-opted by a so-called “issue group” into a PAC for the Democratic party.  Likewise, I suspect a lot of people occupying Wall Street are probably rather surprised at the demands that “they” are now supposedly advocating.

That’s what happens when a movement gains steam – people get out in front of it and try to use it for their own purposes.

So ask yourself: how can labor unions and be in support of “ending the influence money has over our representatives in Washington” – they _are_ “the influence money has over our representatives in Washington!”

One of two things has happened / is happening.  Either

  1. The entire Occupy Wall Street protest was intentionally organized by Adbusters to tap into the general anger and then co-opt the group into a hard-left movement, or
  2. Seeing the success of the protest, a bunch of hard-left activists are trying to co-opt the original goal of “ending the influence money has over our representatives in Washington.”
So here’s a message to all the souls protesting in Wall Street: don’t become a shill for someone else’s agenda.

Lights Out In The Tunnel

In his new book, “The Lights in the Tunnel,” Martin Ford postulates an interesting (if not novel) thought experiment: what if the Luddites were right?

I have to start by confessing: I have yet to read the book.  I have only read this review of the book.  And looking at my schedule, I may not have time to read the book.  So my comments are not directed at the book, but at the synopsis presented by the reviewer.

The premise (according to the review) is that “the Luddite Fallacy will only remain a fallacy so long as human capability exceeds technological capability” and according to the analysis of his book, once that tipping point is reached, people will be unable to find work, and without jobs or purchasing power, the economic system will collapse.

On the surface, it makes sense.  Only large corporations will be able to invest sufficient resources to fully automate hospitals with robot doctors, produce food entirely without human intervention, or run governments with robot bureaucrats.  Over time, the means of production will be controlled by a small number of people who will aggregate weath, but with no jobs, there will be nobody to purchase products.

Here’s where this thesis falls apart: in a world where all work can be best performed by machines, the cost of a product is, essentially, the cost of the energy used to power the robots that provide the service.

If energy continues to be increasingly scarce, then the cost to automate becomes high relative to the cost of human labor.  For example, people will always be cheaper than machines if oil is the only way we produce electricity and costs $500 a barrel.  So the economics remain much the same as they are now – people will be used where they are cheaper, and robots will be used where they are cheaper – and the economy will move along.

So the premise – that the Luddite tipping-point is reached once machines achieve the technical capability of humans – is incorrect.  For the tipping point to be reached, two things have to hold true:

1. Machines’ technical capability must exceed human capability (Ford’s premise), and

2. The cost to power the machines is low relative to the cost to “power” a human

But, if condition 2 hold true, then Ford’s thesis falls apart again.  Here’s how:

Let’s postulate a world in which energy is so abundant it’s practically free, perhaps by having robots that operate on internal micro nuclear reactors or robotically-built multimillion-acre solar and wind farms.  In this world, the cost to produce something by robots is, basically, free.  After all, the cost of the raw materials in your cars is negligible.  It’s the cost of transforming iron and sand and oil into steel, glass, and rubber that costs money.  And the cost to transform something (raw iron to steel) is equal to the labor cost (the workers) plus the energy cost (the energy used to fire the smelters).  In an all-automated world, the “labor” cost equals the energy cost. If energy is practically free, then the products will be practically free, too.

Viewed in this way, it’s much more a Utopian fantasy than a Luddite nightmare.


Hate to say I told you so, but in April 2009 I wrote:

The keyword to watch for now is #doubledip.  Because with the recent uptick in the economy, the investing world is going to start looking for signs of a double-dip recession.

Now this article confirms my prediction:

The prices of single family homes in March dropped to their lowest level since April 2009, confirming a “double dip” because values are now below where they were since the housing market collapsed, according to a closely watched price index released Tuesday.

One Injury, Ten Countries

An interesting concept – author with a bad shoulder travels to 10 countries seeking various solutions, then writes about his experiences with various forms of health care in each country.

Something leapt out at me.  Although the book treats this as tangential, I found it strikingly salient:

In an Ayurvedic hospital in India, a regimen of meditation, rice, lentils and massage paid for entirely out of pocket, $42.85 per night, led to “obvious improvement in my frozen joint,” Mr. Reid writes, adding, “To this day, I don’t know why it happened.”

Well there you go.  Arrogant Western medicine does, in fact, have an awful lot to learn from Eastern.  In most of the countries he visited, surgery and steroid injections are de rigeur.  He had to practically travel to the Third World to learn that an inexpensive and risk-free solution was possible.

For over a decade I struggled with a variety of back problems, rejecting the expensive and very risky surgery for so-called “physical therapy” all based in the best Western science has to offer.  A couple months of hatha yoga (Bikram yoga, to be exact) and my back and other joints are as healthy as they were at age 18.

Go figure.  Maybe after a thousand years, those crafty Indians actually figured something out after all.

I think the author – and the NYT article – miss the whole point.  The NYT writer comments that “the comparative merits of different orthopedic philosophies are secondary here.”  Not so fast, Abby.  I don’t think it’s secondary at all.

Perhaps if Western medicine comprehended – and Western insurance covered – valid and often superior forms of treatment like hatha yoga, the United States wouldn’t be in a health care “crisis”.

My Solution to the Health Care “Crisis”

I have a solution to the purported “crisis” in health care.  Here goes:

  1. We will select one insurance company which we will allow to gain a monopoly over the entire health care system.
  2. We will give that insurance company the right to set whatever premiums it wishes.
  3. We will entitle that insurance company with the power to collect premiums by force.
  4. We will allow that insurance company to allocate health care resources however it sees fit, to whomever it deems most worthy of services.

Oh, wait.  That’s already been proposed.

Sorry, my bad.

A Teachable Moment

I know the rest of the world has moved on, but I thought I might just summarize the whole Gates / Crowley issue.

Clearly, institutionalized racism is still alive and well when an elite black professor at the nation’s most respected college, living in a city with a black mayor, in a state with a black governor, in a country with a black President can’t pop off at a white cop without getting arrested.

Hopefully, we can all learn something from this.

Question for the Class

Does anyone see anything a little wrong in this picture?

  1. The federal government, using our money, takes a 60% stake in GM, one of the world’s largest auto companies.
  2. Then, the federal government, using our money, pays buyers up to $4500 to destroy their used car (removing it from the market and driving up the prices for used cars) provided the buyer replaces the destroyed car with a new car.  Possibly a GM model.

Am I the only one?

Two Scoops

The keyword to watch for now is #doubledip.  Because with the recent uptick in the economy, the investing world is going to start looking for signs of a double-dip recession.

There’s every reason to predict another dip:

  • Profit taking from the current rally causes the market to drop again, possibly below 6500
  • Continued bad news in unemployment
  • Continued bad news in housing
  • Continued falloff in GDP
  • Failing auto companies

The list goes on.  Housing and auto sales are likely to have a double-dip feel to them as well.  Housing and auto sales have fallen far below their historical averages, so we should expect them to pick up, at least briefly.  But we shouldn’t expect strength in either sector as long as unemployment and overall GDP are falling.  That means a brief (1-2 quarter) uptick followed by another drop.

I’m expecting the current rally to end very soon as profit-takers force the market downward.  I don’t think we’ve seen the bottom yet.

The real question is: what is going to happen with the US auto manufacturers?  The government has shown little interest in helping out – about $12B in loans (compared to the trillions given to the financial sector).  The auto executives have gotten a bum rap.  Millions of jobs are at stake. Working class jobs.  Will these be saved?

If not, beware.

Coming Off the Junk

Remember “Change You Can Believe In?”

Remember how we were going to do away with earmarks?  Toss out the lobbyists?  Get away from old-school politics-as-usual?

“Hope” – remember?  Isn’t that why you voted for Obama?

Still feel that way?

Charles Krauthammer sums it up nicely:

It’s not just pages and pages of special-interest tax breaks, giveaways and protections, one of which would set off a ruinous Smoot-Hawley trade war. It’s not just the waste, such as the $88.6 million for new construction for Milwaukee Public Schools, which, reports the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, have shrinking enrollment, 15 vacant schools and, quite logically, no plans for new construction.

It’s the essential fraud of rushing through a bill in which the normal rules (committee hearings, finding revenue to pay for the programs) are suspended on the grounds that a national emergency requires an immediate job-creating stimulus – and then throwing into it hundreds of billions that have nothing to do with stimulus, that Congress’ own budget office says won’t be spent until 2011 and beyond, and that are little more than the back-scratching, special-interest, lobby-driven parochialism that Obama came to Washington to abolish. He said.

Right.  He continues:

After Obama’s miraculous 2008 presidential campaign, it was clear that at some point the magical mystery tour would have to end. The nation would rub its eyes and begin to emerge from its reverie.

The hallucinatory Obama would give way to the mere mortal. The great ethical transformations promised would be seen as a fairy tale that all presidents tell — and that this president told better than anyone.

I thought the awakening would take six months. It took two and a half weeks.

I don’t blame you if you voted for Obama.  He’s young, smart, charming and progressive.  John McCain is old and Republican and uninspiring.

Let’s face it.  Obama’s message was like a shot of smack to a nation full of people junked out on the drug of mass media messages.  We, as a nation, don’t want to deal with our nation’s problems.  Obama promised that, if elected, we wouldn’t have to.  We got high on that message.

And now we gotta come down from the high.  Because like any drug, it’s a false reality.  The real one is still out there waiting for us.

Look, don’t get me wrong.  I don’t know that McCain would have been any better.  The ruling class in Washington – Republicans and Democrats alike – are all dead-set on one task: aggregating as much power as possible in the hands of the Federal government.

And they’re using the financial crisis as an excuse for immediate action.  We had choices.  There are other ways we could have stimulated the economy.  There were other alternatives.

None were heard.  There just wasn’t time.

So, from all the possible alternative solutions, we just happened to get the one alternative that most grows the size and scope of the Federal government.

Somehow, this country must wake up.  We’re entering a doomsday scenario:

  • a bankrupt government
  • using borrowed money
  • to bail out bankrupt companies
  • who lent borrowed money
  • to bankrupt borrowers.

It’s positively Escherian.

What $1T Could Buy

The recently passed “Spendulus” package has left me totally aghast.

I’m pretty (small-L) libertarian, so when I hear of the federal government taking on this kind of authority and power I naturally pucker up pretty tight.

A lot of my friends – Obama supporters from the go – are big supporters of the plan.  They see good intentions everywhere.  Helping the poor with increased Medicaid funding.  Helping the middle class with more tax rebates.  Building roads and bridges.

Motherhood.  Apple pie.  Who can argue with that?

Well, me, for one.  Because it isn’t our money we’re spending.  We’re not paying for this.  We don’t have the money.  Remember?  We’re ass-over-head in debt.  No, it’s a big loan from our children to us.  They’re the ones who’ll be footing the bill for this.  It’s stated to be about $800B.  In my experience, most government spending runs wildly overbudget.  I would expect this to cost $2T.  Maybe more.  For the sake of nice round numbers, I’ll say $1T.

I could dispute the wisdom of borrowing $1T to stimulate the economy by pointing out that it is excessive debt that has caused the economic meltdown.  How do we think that a nation that is overwhelmed by debt – personal, corporate, and governmental – can borrow its way to prosperity?  Isn’t that like trying to drink yourself sober?

Or I could tear the plan apart on the merits of its proposals.  Does it really make sense for the government to spend $8B on Healthcare Information Technology?

Instead, I just want to ask the question: what else could we do with this money we’re borrowing?

Here are a few ideas that just come randomly to mind.

  1. Divide the $1T evenly among the approx. 110M households in the US.  That’s about $9K for each one – enough for the poorest households to pay rent for a year and buy a small used car.
  2. Feeling progressive? Divide the $1T among the poorest 20M households in the US.  That’s a one-time payment of $50K for each one – enough to permanently lift them out of poverty, if spent wisely.
  3. Feeling libertarian?  How about a 50% reduction in all federal personal taxes (income, payroll, etc.) for 2009?
  4. Feeling progressively libertarian?  How about eliminating the 2009 tax for the bottom 95% of taxpayers?
  5. Feeling spontaneous?  How about dropping all of it in $20s from the back of a C-17?

You may think I’m being silly, but I’m not.  Even option #5 has something that the Spendulus package doesn’t have: it puts more money into the hands of the people, and it avoids creating Byzantine federal bureaucracies that waste money and take jobs out of the private sector – bureaucarcies that will cost tens of billions to implement and fund.  Money our children will have to cough up.

Realize that the government is already talking about dropping another $500B – $1T next year for additional “stimulus”.  If we spent it using option 2, that means that the poorest class in our society would all receive a $100K income from the government over the next 24 months.

There are various ways we could have chosen to stimulate the economy.  There’s a reason why the proposal looks like a massive increase in government programs.  It is because its proponents are class of people who think that the government can better allocate our nation’s resources than can the people it governs.

Sound familiar?

Dow 1500?

Are we living in a new Depression era?

A few years ago I was working in the IT shop of a national US homebuilder.  Even though the world was chanting “there is no housing bubble” it seemed obvious to me that we were in a major housing bubble.  This company couldn’t build houses fast enough.  Growth was astronomical.  Folks, this is housing we’re talking about.  If housing typically grows at a rate of 2% a year, and you see it growing at 20%+ for several years, you can bet your sweet bippy it’s a bubble.

The burst of a housing bubble set off the Great Depression.  But, like the Depression of the 30s, the burst of a housing bubble is only a symptom of the problem.  It isn’t the problem itself.  The problem was – and is – runaway borrowing and lending.

Check out this chart showing the ratio of consumer debt to GDP.  What was the situation in the late 20s?  People assumed that the market was invincible and bought in ravenously, often going deeply into debt to cover their speculation.  Likewise in the last 10 or so years.

I am not sure what is a healthy, sustained lending rate (expressed as the lending / GDP ratio), but it must be below 100%.  Let’s say that a healthy or stable rate of lending is approximately 50-70% of GDP.  If that’s so, then the banking system is going to have to contract the amount of lending by roughly 30-50% in order to regain a stable aggregate lending rate.

What macroeconomics teaches us is that inreases in lending results in an increased money supply.  And decreases in lending result in a decreased money supply.  When the money supply decreases, we call that deflation. Without aggressive efforts to bolster the money supply, we are going to enter a sustained deflationary period.

Contractions in the money supply from 1929-1933 drove the Dow down 89%.  If the current recession / deflation were to take a similar course, the Dow would bottom out around 1500, roughly erasing the last 25 years of growth.

That doesn’t have to happen.  What is required is twofold:

  1. Banks must be supported by all means necessary.  They must not be allowed to fail.
  2. The money supply must be bolstered through monetary and fiscal policy.

The problem with aggressive monetary policy is that the lowest interest rate available is 0%.  And during a deflation, even a 0% loan is bad for the borrower: deflation causes the money I’m paying back (later in time) to be worth more than it is today.  We already are approaching a 0% federal funds rate.  We can’t be significantly more aggressive than that.

And the problem with fiscal policy is that it’s fiscal policy.  First off, we have to borrow in order to spend aggressively.  Our national debt is already out of control.  It’s inconceivable that we can keep borrowing at an increased rate – especially from other economies who may be even worse off than ours.  Then we have to spend the money internally, which looks like huge inefficient government service programs.

It’s going to get interesting, folks.  We are likely heading into a deflationary spiral – one of the most intractible economic problems that can be faced.  There have only been three significant deflationary spirals in US history: one in the early 1800s, one after the Civil War, and the Great Depression.

Deflationary spirals are economic contractions caught in a self-reinforcing feedback loop.  The logic is this: people believe that times are going to get tougher, so it makes sense to contract (spend less).  Decreased spending causes times to get tougher:  prices drop, and, facing dropping prices and scarce revenue, it makes sense to spend less.

Andrew Muse agrees, and points out

I think the important thing to realize is that people are saying things like “capitalism as we know it may be over” and “the DOW might drop to 3,500? – it doesn’t matter if they are true, it only matters that some people believe they might be true.

I hope 3500 is the floor, Andrew.  If 1933 repeats itself, we’ll all be wishing for 3500.

More Than 650 Scientists Protest Global Warming Claims

A new Senate report is poised to present a major challenge to the dogma of global warming.  The preview, made available today, provides some tasty hints as to what the full report will contain.  Here’s my favorite quote:

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

My favorite part of the quote: “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly.”  The unspoken implication is deafening.

The article made another interesting point: since 1980, almost half of the land temperature monitoring points have vanished as the old Soviet Union’s science infrastructure has been dismantled.  Their location?  Siberia.  Hmmmm…

Meanwhile, the National Snow and Ice Data Center presents an interesting picture: arctic ice buildup is rapidly increasing to its 30-year average level, while Antarctic ice is ahead of its 30 year average.  I thought that the Antarctic was a goner?   Hmmmm…

And the voices of reason are raising in unison.  The fact is that the IPCC, the organization most responsible for elevating the climate change issue, bases its conclusions not on historic data but on computer models that, among other flaws, do not take into account solar activity. This alone should be sufficient to completely disregard their findings since solar activity vastly overwhelms any man-made factors in determining global climate.  Solar activity is a greater issue because data are showing that we are at a historic low for sunspot activity.  Fewer sunspots means a hotter solar output.

Climate models wildly disagree with one another as well and do not agree on extraordinarily powerful factors such as clouds.  When data are presented which challenge the model, the data are adjusted to fit the model, not the other way around.

I was Googling to find the original NASA report regarding ocean cooling, and learned that NASA has changed its report so that now the oceans aren’t cooling.  Perhaps an improvement in the methodology, perhaps political conformism.  Who can say?

In the meantime I found this article by Lorne Gunter that deserves a little homage:

In fact, “there has been a very slight cooling,” according to a U.S. National Public Radio (NPR) interview with Josh Willis at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a scientist who keeps close watch on the Argo findings.

Willis was reporting on his findings that have since been adjusted.  Gunter goes on to add:

Just look how tenaciously some scientists are prepared to cling to the climate change dogma. “It may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming,” Dr. Willis told NPR.

Yeah, you know, like when you put your car into reverse you are causing it to enter a period of less rapid forward motion. Or when I gain a few pounds I am in a period of less rapid weight loss.

The big problem with the Argo findings is that all the major climate computer models postulate that as much as 80-90% of global warming will result from the oceans warming rapidly then releasing their heat into the atmosphere.

Keep looking, guys.  I’m sure that the evidence is out there.

Global Warming, R.I.P.

Is global warming dead?

Last March, NASA reported the oceans have been cooling for the last five years. Sea level has stopped rising, and Northern Hemisphere cyclone and hurricane activity is at a 24-year low.

Environmental extremists and global warming alarmists are in denial and running for cover. Their rationale for continuing a lost cause is that weather events in the short term are not necessarily related to long-term climatic trends. But these are the same people who screamed at us each year that ordinary weather events such as high temperatures or hurricanes were undeniable evidence of imminent doom.

I wonder how long it will be before this guy gets shot?

To the extent global warming was ever valid, it is now officially over. It is time to file this theory in the dustbin of history, next to Aristotelean physics, Neptunism, the geocentric universe, phlogiston, and a plethora of other incorrect scientific theories, all of which had vocal and dogmatic supporters who cited incontrovertible evidence.

Couldn’t agree more.


image I’m not particularly interested in reviewing Malcolm Gladwell’s latest pop-sociology treatise, Outliers.  Who needs another review when such outstanding writers as Stephen Kotkin, Michiko Kakutani, and our buddy Joel Spolsky have all weighed in?

Instead, I thought I might critique the critics.

In order to critique the critics, however, I will have to at least briefly review the book.  So, here goes.

I read Outliers.  It was a fun and insightful read.  The author’s thesis is that innate talent isn’t sufficient to create success, but instead hard work and good fortune are also required.  Gladwell points out and refutes two common misconceptions: that the gifted rise effortlessly to the top, and that if you aren’t the very best and brightest you have no chance of success.

Through anecdotes and some simple statistics, Gladwell demonstrates that the Beatles and Bill Gates weren’t just born lucky and brilliant, but had to work really hard as well; that the best educated and “most likely to succeed” attorneys in New York didn’t rise to the top; and that the most intelligent man in the world couldn’t finish college and worked for years as a bouncer.

Outliers didn’t purport to be a piece of scientific research.  However, reading the reviews, you’d think that Gladwell had published this work in the Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society.  Kotkin, Kakutani, and Spolsky all tear the book to shreds for failing to scientifically prove its thesis, and for relying overmuch on anecdote.

Kakutani concludes that Gladwell is postulating a “theory of social predestination” which turns “individuals into pawns of their cultural heritage” when he describes the failure of Columbian airline pilots to challenge the air traffic control in New York or a Korean pilot to challenge his captain.  But Gladwell didn’t arrive at that conclusion.  He merely quotes the exhaustive research done by airline safety professionals who arrived at precisely that conclusion.

Kotkin writes:

If some points border on the obvious, others seem a stretch. Asian children’s high scores at math, Mr. Gladwell would have us believe, derive from work in rice paddies. Never mind that few of the test takers or their urban parents in Hong Kong, Singapore or Tokyo have ever practiced wet-rice agriculture. Noting that math test scores correlate with how long students will sit for any kind of exam, Mr. Gladwell points to an Asian culture of doggedness, which he attributes to cultural legacies of rice cultivation.

Having grown up close to a couple of Asian families, I can assure the reader and Mr. Kotkin that there is indeed a “culture of doggedness” to be found in many Asian families.  I found Gladwell’s arguments very compelling: rice farming, unlike all other forms of farming or hunting / gathering, requires a stupendous amount of work, encouraging a work ethic that, after thousands of years, has permeated the culture even though “few of the test takers or their urban parents in Hong Kong, Singapore or Tokyo have ever practiced wet-rice agriculture”.

Is such a thesis even provable?  Is proof even the point of a book like Outliers?

Joel Spolsky seems to think so.  Even though he admits that

I am not one to throw stones. Heck, I practically invented the formula of ‘tell a funny story and then get all serious and show how this is [sic] amusing anecdote just goes to show that (one thing|the other) is a universal truth’

Spolsky can’t help himself, and throws a handful of stones anyway, calling Gladwell’s theories “weak”, “crazy”, and “utterly lunatic.”  He calls Gladwell’s book “anecdotes disguised as science”.  But Gladwell isn’t trying to position his book as science at all.  It’s informational entertainment.  Like Discovery Channel or Mythbusters.

For that matter, what has science to tell us about the way that human culture works anyway?  Have you read any compendia on sociology?  Do I really care that it can be shown that the Mayan style of basket weaving began in Guatemala and progressed into South America?  Will it help me one iota in my day-to-day experience to learn about the parenting style of Ugandan peasants?  Probably not.

Outliers isn’t science.  It doesn’t purport to be science.  Which is why it wasn’t presented as a Ph. D. thesis or published in a scientific journal.  I found it stimulating and thought provoking.  It isn’t supposed to form the basis of my beliefs.  It’s supposed to cause me to challenge beliefs I might mistakenly hold.  And, yes, Joel, the world needs more of these books.

My suspicion is that the reviewers failed to read the book with sufficient thoroughness to actually understand how Gladwell makes his arguments.  Sure, on the surface, the idea that a person’s cultural heritage makes him more likely to run a plane into the ground is potentially insulting.  But years of analysis by experts in flight safety points to precisely that explanation.  Yeah, to say that Chinese are better at math because seventy generations of Chinese farmed rice paddies sounds absurd.  On the other hand, to say that they’re better at math because their cerebral cortex is so much more “mathematical” (the typical reason) is pretty unscientific as well.  Gladwell is able to draw a line between the kind of dogged determination a society needs in order to be really good at farming rice and demonstrates how exactly that sort of determination and patience alone is sufficient to explain the difference in math test scores.  That’s some good thinking as far as I’m concerned.  Kudos, not criticism, is in order.

I didn’t criticize Joel on Software for being “unscientific” because I recognized that his charming collection of more-or-less well-informed anecdotes paints a good picture of how a good software manager ought to think.  Never mind the fact that he never – not once – conducted any rigorous testing of any of his management hypotheses.  It wasn’t supposed to be science.  It was supposed to make me think about software product management, and it succeeded.  I’ve recommended or gifted that book to dozens of people.

Likewise, Outliers is a great book with big ideas – ideas which may not be scientifically provable, but which nevertheless deserve consideration and examination.  If Gladwell has chosen a fluffy, tasty, digestible medium for his ideas instead of the cardboard-dry, unpalatable forms preferred by hard science and academia, well, who can blame him?  Someone else can earn their Ph. D. proving – or disproving – one of his points.  He’s content to just rake in the profits.

As well he should be.

The Science is Unsettled

Last night, Joe Biden said of global warming, “I think it’s clearly man-made,” while his opponent, Sarah Palin, said that she believes that the evidence shows that both human and cyclical changes account for climate change.

So, which one is the scientist, and which is the religious fanatic?

But before I get into the question of climate change orthodoxy, the exchange between the two caused me to reflect on my observations of pollution in Europe.  It seems to me that many in this country think that Europe must lead the way in cleaning the planet, and the the US is lagging hopelessly behind.


Over There

I witnessed a lot of industrial pollution going on over there – a lot more than one sees in America.  Here in the USA, you see a lot of tailpipe pollution – a problem that needs to be solved – but almost never do you see smokestack pollution – a problem that seemed to abound in France, Spain, and Italy.  Europe also abounds with automobiles that couldn’t pass American emissions standards (much less California standards).

Qualitatively, I also saw quite a bit more waste pollution – trash and graffiti – in Europe than in almost any American city, specifically in France and Italy.  Several stops reminded me of Brooklyn circa 1988.

Of course, Europe is pristine compared to developing areas in Africa and the Pacific.  And, don’t get me wrong – I love Europe.  It’s beautiful.  But it ain’t perfect.  And it should remind us, when questioning why we didn’t sign the Kyoto protocol, that we don’t need to sign an agreement in order to clean up the planet.  We just need to do it.  Apparently, we are.

Climate Change

I’ve posted about this many times on CWSS.  The key article is Global Warming, which summarizes the five key points that must be addressed before we can agree to take action to combat climate change.  In addition are several other supporting articles:

Are Sea Levels Really Rising? discusses the fact that although experts “agree” that sea levels are rising, in fact, they are not rising worldwide, and the data require “adjustment” in order to show a trend.  The raw data do not show a rising trend.

More on Sea Level Change explains how a longer view of sea level shows that the Earth has periodically experienced far more radical changes in sea level than the current 30 year “trend” and asks the question: what are we going to do the next time the Earth goes on a cooling binge?

Climate Change: it Just Gets Better points out that the IPCC (the agency responsible for much of the current science on climate change) does not make predictions nor takes into account many obvious scenarios when it presents the doomsday what-if dramas that have made it famous.

Global Warming (on Mars) posits that the increase in surface temperature on Mars could only be caused by some kind of interspatial leakage of carbon emissions from Earth to Mars, since clearly, climate change is always man-made.  The article then goes on to discuss the climate change orthodoxy which resists debate.

The Science is Settled (or Not) links to an outstanding article listing some of the key detractors to the climate change orthodoxy.

Science vs. Orthodoxy

And that gets to the topic of orthodoxy.  Don’t get me wrong.  I think it’s quite conceivable that the Earth is warming.  I think it’s even plausible that there’s a human component.  But I don’t think the science is settled.  Not by a long shot.  Science is never settled.

Recalling last night’s debate, Palin gave a much more reasoned scientific answer to the climate change question than did Biden.  Where she demonstrated rationality, Biden demonstrated a knee-jerk towards the politically correct viewpoint that climate change is simply due to human carbon emission.

Political correctness.


I’m cringing already, because people I know are going to read this article and know that (1) I don’t automatically think that Sarah Palin is a raving lunatic, and (2) I’m totally unconvinced of the theory of man-made climate change.

That’s a very unpopular pair of views in my crowd.  A crowd that prides itself on openmindedness, while at the same time rejecting out of hand any dispute on the views they hold dear.  The Science is Settled.  Nothing To See Here, Please Move Along.  I’M NOT LISTENING LA LA LA LA LA.

Orthodoxy: how to turn any science into a religion.  For more information on how to use orthodoxy to turn the science of the day into a religion, see Leviticus.

Orthodoxy: Good enough for Moses.  Good enough for Al Gore.  Good enough for you.