A group of climate alarmists have concluded that global GDP will be 23 percent lower on the current path. 
I was aware of the ridiculous article when it came out.
I stopped reading when I noted that all countries were all given equal weighting. For example, Nigeria has the same weight as the US.
The authors tried to mitigate this in various ways but it was obvious that the authors would bend the data and the report to match their goals.
Today, I am pleased to present a complete and thorough trashing of the Nature article.
Please consider Global Non-Linear Effect of Temperature on Economic Production: Comment on Burke, Hsiang, and Miguel by David Barker, emphasis mine.
The journal Nature published an influential article in 2015 by Marshall Burke,
Solomon M. Hsiang, and Edward Miguel (hereafter BHM) purporting to show that
higher temperatures will lower economic growth in warm countries.The Web of Science reports that the paper is in the top six one hundredths of one percent of economics and business publications by citations, and Google Scholar shows 2,269 citations. BHM (2015) also received significant attention in the popular press. Hsiang further developed this work and cowrote a chapter of the National Climate Assessment (Hsiang et al. 2023) claiming that higher temperatures would reduce the rate of economic growth.
BHM’s analysis is shallow and misleading. The authors use data with characteristics that are known to create spurious regression results without making proper adjustments or even acknowledging these characteristics. They estimate parameters of a quadratic curve relating temperature to growth, and then cherrypick countries to include in a chart that appears to confirm the shape of this curve. The curve is then used to project growth rates into the distant future using temperature scenarios that a more recent comment in Nature described as either “extremely unlikely” or “unlikely”.
Description of BHM (2015)
BHM (2015) use annual data representing 166 countries from 1961 to 2010 on temperature and economic growth. All countries are equally weighted, and every country is assigned a single average temperature for each year. Because some data are missing, there is a total of 6,584 country/year observations instead of the 8,300 that could be used if data from all years in all countries were available.
The headline result of a 23 percent reduction in GDP comes from taking each country’s projected GDP per capita with and without climate change, then taking the weighted average by population, and then taking the percentage difference between the weighted sum with and without climate change.
The headline result, that warming will reduce global GDP per capita by 23 percent, is more than double the mean estimate of BHM’s bootstrap estimation, which they do not report. BHM claim that their result is “globally representative”, but it does not hold without Greenland and the regions of the Sahara and Central Africa, and it does not hold in large regions of the world. Simulations support the hypothesis that spatial autocorrelation may be the cause of BHM’s results, and robustness checks also suggest that their results may be spurious. BHM has been the subject of methodological criticism (Newell et al. 2021; Tol 2019; Rosen 2019), but my paper is the first to precisely document its deceptive practices.
Thesis Falls Apart
Barker notes that if you remove Greenland and regions of the Sahara and Central Africa from the analysis, the entire BHM thesis falls apart.
He also comments on dummy variables and notes that if the analysis started one year earlier, the BHM thesis also falls apart.
On the geek side, Barker notes “Any data, no matter how noisy, will generate a smooth quadratic curve if one variable is regressed on another and its square and the predicted values of the dependent variable are plotted against possible values of the independent variable.”
Thus, the nice smooth graphs of BHM are automatic by design.
Regarding the lead chart, Barker says “Five countries are cherry-picked to make the relationship appear to be significant. While the figure is not a crucial part of BHM’s analysis, it is indicative of the misleading approach of the paper, and suggests alternative methods of measuring the relationship between growth and temperature.“
Much of his rebuttal is complex and not light reading. I picked some highlights that I thought would be generally understandable.
Optimal Temperature
I am confident there is no such a thing as an optimal global temperature. Such a belief precludes technology advances that can mitigate climate impacts.
At best, an optimal temperature is unknowable and changing. And it’s ridiculous to believe we could or should try to hit the optimal temperature even if it exists.
It’s clear BHM had an agenda and manipulated the dates, the countries, the years included, and the dummy variables to produce the desired result.
Forcing the Data to Meet the Non-Science
BHM forced the data not to meet the science, but to meet a belief in non-science. I fail to see what they gain by this.
At best, they now look like a pack of incompetent scientists, and at worst a pack of complete liars.
Cheers From the Cult
The people BHM address are in the same cult and need no convincing. OK, BHM got cheers from the cult. If that was the goal, congrats.
But if the goal was to convince the skeptics, they failed miserably.
Some of us saw through the nonsense right from the beginning. And now we have a stellar rebuttal from David Barker to back us up.
March to Madness Continues
The lie of the day is from the EPA: Carbon capture will pay for itself (thanks to IRA subsidies). No, it won’t even with subsidies. Expect blackouts and a higher price for electricity.
In case you missed it, please see Biden’s New Carbon Capture Mandates Will Cause Blackouts, Increases Prices
The march to energy madness continues.
“I am confident there is no such a thing as an optimal global temperature. Such a belief precludes technology advances that can mitigate climate impacts.”
Eh… there is such a thing as the most preferable temperature for human beings, us being warm-blooded and our bodies trying to maintain a nice healthy constant temperature. Sure, we can control the temperature of our homes, but it takes energy to change the temperature of our homes, so ideally, it’s preferable if the outside temperature doesn’t deviate too much from our most preferable temperature. Also, a little colder than ideal is better than a little hotter, because clothes are an easy remedy for cold temperatures but there isn’t such a convenient one for hot temperatures.
To that we could also add the consideration of optimal temperatures for growing crops and such. But in summary, an optimal temperature probably exists and can be estimated.
If technology advances are proposed that actually alter the climate in such a way that it can make large areas of land cooler, that would be relevant. But such proposals, such as creating clouds artificially, are still in an infant stage.
A global average temperature of 13.5 to 14.5 C. Just like the last 10,000 years. All life forms on the planet have adapted well to this temperature, especially mankind. Our population grew from 5 million to 8 billion during the last 10,000 years under these temperatures.
“A group of climate alarmists have concluded that global GDP will be 23 percent lower on the current path.”
Wow! Some arbitrary, nonsensical non-measure “is, like, going, like, in the,like futuuuure, like, down and, like, scayiiii!!”
The horrors, the horrors
Obviously around 70°F.
Why do you think companies spend so much on HVAC?
Cancer is the only thing in nature that grows indefinitely at the same pace as the human economy. It is no surprise then, that there have been a host of consequences from our political leaders’ endless pursuit of growth. Global warming is the best known, least deadly, and most over-hyped of the fallout crises – resource shortages, soil depletion, deforestation, desertification, species extinctions, agricultural run-off, toxic water courses, are just a few of the less publicised environmental crises that threaten to wipe out billions of humans long before the temperature really starts to heat up.
To add to the crisis, we live in a grossly unequal economy in which growth mainly serves a tiny godzillionaire class along with their professional-managerial class lackeys, even as the majority have been pushed ever further into poverty – a process that operates both within countries and across the world as a whole. The result is that a growing majority of the world population sees very little value in a form of growth from which they bear all of the costs while those in charge reap all of the transitory benefits.
The proposed alternatives come in two forms. The first is a claim that something called “green” or “sustainable” growth will become possible with the development of new technologies and the harnessing of new energy sources such as – most notoriously – nuclear fusion. The second – and more realistic – version is of a managed de-growth in which we attempt to maintain the useful elements of an advanced industrial economy while cutting back the vast amounts of waste.
https://consciousnessofsheep.co.uk/2024/04/30/a-world-without-growth/
Actually the article is correct. It just forgot to point out a critical assumption. If one assumes we are ruled by morons who believe in anthropogenic global warming and they implement stupid, counter productive productive policies and the frequency is tied to temperature, then the conclusion follows.
What I find so amazing is how war is never considered when Biden thinks about his green agenda.
The attempt by mankind to limit emissions and slow global warming, will always be usurped by more immediate concerns. When you face a problem today, your effort will be focused on that immediate concern, rather than on a problem that is 10-50 years away.
You may want to eliminate coal use, but you also want to keep the lights on. So you will keep burning coal in spite of any commitments to stop.
War is bad for the environment, but when one side attacks the other, the other side responds. The immediate problem pushes the long term problem to the back of the bus.
Got oil?
It would depend upon the comparative impacts of the problems.
Wouldn’t it?
We have a matrix for that.
This is all gonna end badly because nobody can agree to anything ….
Yep.
I’ll bite.
Regarding the question: What is the optimal temperature for GDP growth?
Mish answered: “I am confident there is no such a thing as an optimal global temperature.”
I would argue that there is an optimal temperature range for economic growth.
During “snowball earth”, in the Cryogenian Period, the planet was a frozen ball of ice and the average temperature was -50C. I’m pretty sure that would not be conducive to present life on the planet, let alone economic growth.
There have been several periods when the earth’s average temperature was around 30C. At that temperature, all the ice on the planet had melted, and oceans were over 200 feet higher than today. Probably not the best conditions for economic growth either.
Clearly, those temperatures are not ideal. So, we need to find a level somewhere between those two previous extremes.
Perhaps instead of looking back hundreds of millions of years, we should just look back at the last 1 million years.
In the last 1 million years, earth has experienced ten 100,000 year periods, each of which had roughly 80,000 years of cooling and 20,000 years of warming. During the cooling phases, average temperatures on earth fell to as low as 8C and there would be a mile of ice over New York. I don’t think a mile of ice over New York is good for economic growth. During the warm inter-glacial periods, temperatures average 14C. Which is where we have been for the last 10,000 years (yes, we are in an inter-glacial period)
How about if we look more closely at the last 10,000 years. After all, the life forms that currently exist on the planet have all done reasonably well over the last 10.000 years. Particularly mankind. In those 10k years our population has gone from 5 Million to 8 “Billion”. In this time period we learned to cultivate crops, raise animals, fish the oceans, and develop the modern society we currently enjoy. Whatever that temperature was, must be a decent temperature for economic growth.
What was that temperature? 14C of course.
In the last 10,000 years the earths’s average temperature ranged between 13.5 and 14.5C, with an overall average of 14C.
At least, that was the case up till 1880. Since then, the earth’s average temperature increased from 14C to 15C. The last time it was 15C was during the Pliocene era, 3-5 million years ago. Incidentally, sea levels were 50 feet higher than today during the Pliocene. Which again, is probably not good for economic growth.
Looking forward, the average temperature is going to keep rising because of the GHG emissions we have already put into the atmosphere (CO2 in particular).For the last million years CO2 levels ranged from a low of 170 ppm in the ice age when there was ice over NY and 8C temperatures, to 300 ppm during inter-glacials when temperatures were 14C.
Today, mankind has changed the game. For the last 200 years, we have been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, raising CO2 levels from the normal 300ppm high during inter-glacial periods to 425 ppm today. And we will increase it to 500 ppm by 2050.
Normally, over periods of thousands of years, temperature changes first, then the CO2 feedback loop kicks in and begins to amplify the temperature changes: taking 80,000 years to move CO2 from 300 ppm down to 170 ppm. Then 20,000 years to move it up to 300 ppm again.
Now, for the first time, CO2 is leading temperature. We are increasing CO2 so quickly that temperature is struggling to keep up. It is estimated that temperature is lagging CO2 increases by 10-50 years. Which means we have 10-50 years of more warming built-in already.
Temperature has already increased by 1C (from 14 to 15C) and we have baked in another 1C of warming (from 15 to 16 C). And as we keep adding CO2 we are baking in another 1C of warming (from 16 to 17C).
As the average temperature goes up, so do the extreme conditions and the extreme weather events.
The planet is a bit like the human body. 98.6F is optimal. Add one degree and we don’t feel well. Add another degree and we feel terrible. Each additional degree makes us feel progressively worse. Small changes in temperature can make a big difference. It’s the same for the planet. 14C is great. Almost everything else; not so great.
In conclusion, there is an optimal temperature for economic growth. 13.5C to 14.5 C. And we have already gone past this optimal level, and we are destined to move further away from it. The further we move away from this optimal level, the greater the cost to economic growth.
Couldn’t some of the temperature change be attributed to the amount of asphalt roads, parking lots and home roofing shingles that hold heat? Even concrete roads, bridges and buildings hold a lot of heat. Those did not exist before 1880, or to any large degree. Shouldn’t those things be taken into consideration before just assuming the extra heat is all due to co2? If the warming is scientifically based, why would reports have to be skewed as Mish pointed out? Fudging the numbers just screams a scam is taking place.
They are taken into consideration. And they are insignificant. The planets surface is 70% water and 30% land. Cities, roads, etc are only 0.15% of the land, or 0.045% of the entire surface. The amount of heat retained by that tiny area is insignificant. What is more significant is the melting of ice all over the planet (which is reflective), exposing the land or ocean beneath, which absorbs more heat. That heat is then further retained in the atmosphere by the additional GHGs we keep adding.
There IS a lot of misinformation out there. Most of it is from climate sceptics who try to deny 200 years of scientific knowledge.
We know that the warming is a result of man’s emissions. Just like we know that smoking is bad for you. Yet people will trot out “experts” who will gladly deny the truth. That’s where the “scams” are.
I also forgot to mention that while the oceans are 70% of the earth’s surface, they retain 90% of the excess heat. Land retains just 10% of the excess heat. Which makes the case for roads and cities, which cover 0.15% of the land even less significant.
“excess heat”
Now there’s an interesting concept.
Is ti like “excess” entropy?
Have you ever had a fever of 1 or 2F over the optimal 98.6F? That higher temperature is the result of excess heat in your body. In addition, heat stroke can kill you. Its is the result of excess heat in your environment.
Would you prefer the word additional, instead of excess?
The oceans have absorbed 90% of the “additional” heat that the planet has retained as a result from global warming since 1880. Ocean temperatures have increased by 1c in that time frame. Without this ocean absorption of heat, land temperatures would have increased quite a bit more.
Liars can figure, but figures don’t lie.
This must be why our GDP is collapsing.
Too many people moving from fair weather in California to hot Texas and Florida. Their productivity must be falling.
Better send them back to California. For the sake of the economy…
You need not worry. There’s been an 7-8 in h sea level rise since 2010 on the gulf coast. Houston, New Orelans and Florida are going to lose population in the mass migration. Northward. This will benefit Austin, Dallas, Birmingham and Atlanta. Once no insurance company touches the gulf coast and Florida that will provide the impetus.
You just made this up right … hahaha…. I like it!
I am 7ft 6 inches tall and currently employed by the Lakers as their centre. They pay me 48 million dollars per year. Life is awesome.
I just made that up…. hahaha… do you like it?
A group of criminals who can’t fix the potholes in local streets should not be making comments about optimizing economic variables.
Sorry Mish. This post is really stupid and off putting.
Government quacks are not scientists, they are politicians pushing an agenda. An agenda that always involves taking from everyone else, and then giving us back 70% (or less) of what we gave them.
I imagine you had the best of intentions posting this, but its fraud.
Which is exactly what Mish said.
I won’t the predict the future but I know that future requires energy.
Got oil ?
I’ve got gas? Does that count? 🤪
And coal!!!
You need lots of coal to charge the EVs….
But not for much longer cuz EVs are going to zero
Wow! I just noticed I have a twin!
Whatever it is due to, there is going to be a mass migration away from the gulf and southeast coast. 7-8 inches of sea level rise in 14 years is not a sustainable path.
Didn’t Al Gore say the sea level was going to be 20ft higher by now?
Two issues:
1. Plunging global population trend lines makes “growth models” increasingly irrelevant over time.
Growth in the face of a population collapse is impossible.
2. Why do plants:
Start to die at 350PPM CO2
AND
Grow best at 1250 + PPM CO2?
We are at 400PPM.
Obviously plants evolved with a lot more carbon. And the problem is?
That is all
Historically prosperity (i.e. crops grew really well) happened when the planet was warm.
Cold is the enemy
Lol! You keep trotting out garbage about plants starting to die at 350 ppm CO2 or less. Yet CO2 levels have ranged from 170 ppm to 300 ppm for the last million years. Shouldn’t all the plants have died long ago? Obviously plants evolved over the last million years with far less CO2 than today.
Climatologists are government payroll propagandists, not scientists.
Yes correct:
It’s time again for….
THE THREE PILLARS OF BULLSHIT
Let’s go Big Picture… I will now explain in detail… why EVs…. which are not in any way shape or form ‘Green’…. exist.
Why the Ministry of Truth runs endless hype campaigns on cnnbbc….and why governments subsidize them to the tune of hundreds of billions…
Consider this statement: We are steaming oil out of sand, drilling miles beneath oceans for oil, drilling hundreds of thousands of holes in the ground, dropping in bombs – then sucking up the dregs.
Surely — given we are completely reliant on fossil fuel energy to power our civilization — we should be concerned that these methods of oil extraction … appear to be … shall we say … desperate.
Surely any objective observer would look at this and think…. hmmm…. if there is so much of the easy stuff remaining … why are we doing these things
The thing is … we are desperate… see https://energyskeptic.com/2021/the-end-of-fracked-shale-oil/
So how do EVs fit into this equation … and renewable energy… and how about climate change????
These are what I refer to as The Three Pillars of Bullshit.
It goes like this… the Men Who Run the World need their barnyard animals to remain productive… positive… happy. If the animals were to get wind of the desperate situation with respect to energy … they would get spooked… in fact they would panic.
And panicked barnyard animals are NOT productive. If they conclude that the cheap and easy energy are on the downslope … they fall into despair. They begin to believer there is no future… why breed – why study – why invest — etc… alcoholism and drug abuse would explode higher … etc…
Barnyard animals MUST believe the future is awesome — they must believe their progeny will have the same opportunities to pillage and buy lots of stuff just like they did.
The Men Who Run the World – and their minions … are very much aware of this.
They need to cover up the desperation situation with some fancy PR.
One bright thing in the Ministry of Truth — which was tasked with the coverup … suggested inventing this thing call Global Warming (they changed it to Climate Change cuz some places were cooling .. no problem the barnyard animals will believe whatever cnnbbc tells them).
Notice how fossil fuels are The Enemy? How we Must wean off them? No mention of the fact that they are in deep depletion… that’s a no-no. Instead they are evil — we must ditch them…
Enter renewable energy — transitioning to renewables is IMPOSSIBLE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oil
Doesn’t matter. The Ministry of Truth overcomes this by pounding the barnyard animals with messaging (and catch phrases)… convincing them that we are on the path to a green wonderful future — where everyone gets to buy loads of stuff – HURRAH!!! HURRAH!!!
Let’s insert EVs here… ICE vehicles are EVIL. We must transition to EV’s … Zero Emissions. Well ya they are charged and manufactured with fossil fuels … But..BUT (hat tip to Jeff Green) … eventually we will phase out fossil fuels and go totally green.
Unfortunately… this is impossible http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oil
Governments know this … the bosses of governments (The Men Who Run the World) know this … of course they do — they are not stupid.
But they also know that they MUST ensure that the barnyard animals remain hopeful … positive… productive…
They cannot be allowed to understand that we are f789ed.
THE PERFECT STORM (see p. 59)
The economy is a surplus energy equation, not a monetary one, and growth in output (and in the global population) since the Industrial Revolution has resulted from the harnessing of ever-greater quantities of energy. But the critical relationship between energy production and the energy cost of extraction is now deteriorating so rapidly that the economy as we have known it for more than two centuries is beginning to unravel https://ftalphaville-cdn.ft.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Perfect-Storm-LR.pdf
global elites want us to pay them to micro-manage the entire planet.
how do I get off this ride? i’ve had enough.
THE most important point made in intro to statistics class was CO-RELATION IS NOT CAUSATION! Not only does BHM look bad for overlooking this basic concept of statistics; but also EVERYONE PERFORMING THE PEER REVIEW.
I love the “carbon capture will pay for itself” after subsidies are factored in. Who does the EPA think pays for the subsidies? A cost is a cost regardless of who pays.
Sell Free Range Carbon at Whole Foods?
Im not a worry wart about the climate thing but the data is pretty clear. 2023 was the hottest year on record … and 2024 so far is HOTTER than 2023. I think something is happening. Chicago may become to new south 🙂 and all that property south of the Mason Dixon will become too hot to live in and worthless. Invest accordingly.
I am a chicagoian – live in merida most of time – 100+ most of year – we are fine.
The last few months I am in our veracruz office – 89-102 range – life is thriving. How is this possible?
Apparently last summer’s 95 in Miami and 110 in Houston for three months were not conducive to getting much done — work or play or otherwise.
The last few years have seen a big jump, hopefully it’s just a bit of noise and will return to trend.
And maybe next year I’ll be younger! 🙂
You have absolutely no perspective on climate history. There has been no big jump only big propaganda
Also energetic particles from the Sun play a big role in the formation of cooling clouds.
Do not fear carbon at this level.
Instead?
Fear the people who peddle blatant lies.
Oh you nut you! Don’t ever change.
You can even show a green groopie a visual that demonstrates it’s business as usual with the climate… (a little up a little down)…
And still they will bleat on…
That is because you cannot cure stupidity. Although the Covid vaccines are trying to
If you only use temperature reading from places that have not changed in the last 100 years – such as all the Ag. stations in the Midwest surrounded by farmland you’ll see little to nothing has changed.
Water filled trees and plants sucking up water from inside the earth cool the local atmosphere while concrete, roads and buildings hold heat. Heat Sinks.
It’s really pretty simple.
NASA SVS | Global Temperature Graph 1880-Present
There were massive fires 100-125 years ago known as the BIG Burn. Smoke covered most of the western states for months. Today if the same happened people would go crazy claiming climate armageddon, governments would call for huge unnecessary emergency plans into place costing hundreds of billions of dollars and the sheeple would voluntarily believe whatever the uneducated idiot government cubicle workers and “fake know nothing climate scientist” proclaimed. The masses today remind me of the cavemen who feared any natural phenomenon
The oil companies did all the denial/hard work of poo-poohing warming for 10+ years but they are starting to run out of explanations. And now the insurance companies who cannot afford to deny for very long are increasing rates for home insurance (to rebuild hurricane and tornado-destroyed homes) WAY more than the inflation rate.
…and the stupids are blaming illegal immigration and trans people for the resulting woes.
“It’s clear BHM had an agenda and manipulated the dates, the countries, the years included, and the dummy variables to produce the desired result.”
That is the problem with science. Agenda. As Dr. Robert Malone said, “at the top, science is about money and power.”
Dr. Fiona Godlee, 16 years as editor-in-chief of The BMJ – “It’s estimated that 70 per cent of the retractions are based on some form of scientific misconduct. I think we have to call it what it is. It is the corruption of the scientific process.”
“Science”, defined as research funded by others, IS a bit like any other business. And yes it is vulnerable to corruption.
However, “science”, defined as a method or set of practices that wring out error through trial and error, reproducibility, and so on, thus leading to better understanding of reality, is free to everyone to practice and benefit from. “science” doesn’t need a sponsor because it pays for itself – practitioners save more and earn more by using “science” to avoid mistakes. “science” is alive and well, and always will be, no matter how much powerful interests try to suppress it.
Powerful interests shut down the global economy despite science.
That article should have been published in the National Lampoon magazine.
“The Web of Science reports that the paper is in the top six one hundredths of one percent of economics and business publications by citations.”
Now, that is a intelligent statement, clearly put.
Global average temperature is increasing at a rate of 0.5 degrees Celsius per decade now. That means we will be at 3 degrees above pre-industrial by 2050. Pretty sure global agriculture fails. Could impact GDP I’m thinking? Boomers like Mish dont take climate change seriously because THEY KNOW they wont be around to see things really hit the fan.
I will let the above ridiculous comment slide.
I don’t take climate change seriously because idiots overstate the case continually (my post was a prime example) and they want tens of trillions of dollars to fix it, preaching for decades the world will end in 10 years. Time is up.
And this has nothing to do with boomers.
Ask someone struggling to pay rent and put food on the table if we should fix inflation or spend trillions on climate change causing more inflation what they want. I will tell you right now they would rather feed their family.
Let’s assume you think it’s a problem. What the hell are you going to do about it when China is still building coal plants?
The idea that governments will do anything sensible about climate change is enough to give pause even if you believe in it.
Trash scientific studies are very prevalent these days and everyone, especially academia, are aware of the problem but don’t have the means or perhaps the balls to correct the problem. Lots of people talk about fake science but the root cause comes not from the population falling for it but from those who actually should be the gatekeepers and yet have promoted or let be promoted substandard science because of their fear of being cancelled and fired. Being a university professor is probably the most unsecure job you can have these days. If you lose your job your prospects of finding work are grim and almost nul if you want something in your field. Even in STEM, if you have spent too much time in the university, you are no longer seen as being corporate material. Once they realize their vulnerability, they will kiss every butt that presents itself and adopt the latest thing because outside it is very cold.
The power of The Mortgage. The American Dream has always come with the caveat “Fall in line or lose it all.”
Excellent comment. When a scientist’s entire field of research becomes a big federally funded club, they have little choice but to stay in the club, even if it means compromising principles. There are older retired scientists willing to point out the absurdities that result, but the publication gatekeepers are trapped in the club so the dissenting voices get suppressed.
I swear it’s not a joke.
Scientific American magazine has published an article called “Why the Term ‘JEDI’ Is Problematic for Describing Programs That Promote Justice, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion”.
This is now the BIG problem in Ivy League colleges. You know, Yoda is a green supremacist, jedis fight with phallic swords, and the Millenial Falcon in not an EV vehicle.
Five “scientists” were required to write that study…
98.6 F
It’s not the temperature, so much as the flooding, fires, and tornadoes it brings with it. I could easily see destruction from climate disasters increasing GDP because all that stuff has to be rebuilt.
Unfortunately, the real estate insurance industry seems to be floating tits up in the bowl. Gonna have to be FEMA money.
FEMA money = people’s money.
Insurance money = people’s money.
There is no magic pot of money, it ALL comes out of your pocket and mine. That’s why it’s important to get your cut first and why I’m buying insurance company stock and collecting the dividends.
There certainly is a magic pot of money. It’s called the Federal Reserve.
lol, let’s break some windows to spur economic growth.
I suggest that you read Bastiat’s Broken Window Fallacy. Destroying something and then rebuilding it is not a net benefit to an economy.
Doesn’t matter if it is or not…. it matters whether people think it is.
Approx. 475F.
Is that a trick question?
The political climate is a much bigger impediment to growth than the actual climate.
NetZero == Genocide
What does the world do with people complicit in a Genocide?
What should the world do with people complicit in a Genocide?
I cannot begin to comment on what I would LIKE to see done to the people involved in this on this forum as the comment would be immediately deleted.
All I need to know is whether the authors have degrees in economics…
No we don’t. For one economists are not licensed by the State as we are. Heck, even the woman that cuts my hair has a license. Economics is not a science or body of knowledge that can be tested on a state exam, so no license.
These are people who can’t even explain where inflation comes from, and they say they can predict economic growth out 50 to 100 years? Based on fitting exponential curves to random data? It’s complete bullshit.