< Comment not for diavlog page > I'm really falling out of love with Dayo. She has interesting things to say sometimes, but the last few diavlogs her demeanor has made her difficult to listen to, and impedes an interesting back-and-forth. This one continued the trend.

Quoting jimM47: < Comment not for diavlog page >

I'm really falling out of love with Dayo. She has interesting things to say sometimes, but the last few diavlogs her demeanor has made her difficult to listen to, and impedes an interesting back-and-forth. This one continued the trend.

Sorry to say, I'm inclined to agree. The tendency to jump in and interrupt before letting the other person finish makes it difficult for there to be a true exchange of ideas. And a tendency to interrupt often indicates a lack of genuine listening on the part of the interrupter. Which is unfortunate, because like you, I find that Dayo is intelligent and often has interesting things to say.

Dayo always puts on a good show. I wonder if she is dating Van Jones. That would explain some things.

I always find the debate over different approaches to trim carbon interesting. The first hurdle is whether we ought to do anything about it at all. Personally I have no doomsday expectations based on increased carbon emissions, at least not on the level most people worried about it seem to have, but even without the heightened worry about civilizational catastrophe, I still see a case for trimming carbon emissions. There are billions of people coming out of gross poverty and destitution, My attitude towards their way of life is not one of, stick to the ditches and keep walking around your cities. I want them to be able to have the same amenities we in the west enjoy. For that to happen though means a great deal more pollution will be created based on current ways of producing energy and transportation. For that reason, I think an argument can be made, without appeal to catastrophe, to find ways to trim carbon production so that more people can live better by tapping into more energy while being cleaner to the environment in the process. Hurdle 1 - passed
Hurdle 2 - How do you get there?
Here

Quoting JonIrenicus: Defend yourselves hand of god control freaks!

Happily. The first part of the argument is that an auctioned cap and trade system will have very similar effects to a carbon tax in terms of economic efficiency, i.e. you will have to pay more in order to emit carbon and the government will require some additional bureaucracy in order to monitor carbon emissions in order to make the system work. So to decide between them, we need to know what actually distinguishes the two from each other besides a slightly different and largely immaterial distinction in how you get the market to price carbon. The difference between the two is that we don't really know the price elasticity of carbon, so it's difficult going in to determine how much we need to increase the price. With a carbon tax, it will be easy to figure out how much the tax will effect the price, and therefore how much economic pain the tax will inflict. With cap-and-trade, it's relatively easy to figure out how much it will reduce emissions, but hard to figure out how much

The spill was really caused by criminal negligence on the part of BP employees, not unlike the drunk captain of the Exxon Valdez. To try to make it an issue of America's dependence on oil, as Obama did at one point, was a stretch, to say nothing of blaming it on America's "the addiction to fossil fuels," which is just another way of saying "anthropogenic global warming," a complete non sequitur. If the President were serious about reducing our dependence on oil he would have talked about our newly discovered natural gas reserves, nuclear power, and clean coal technologies, not solar cells and wind turbines, which at best are two drops in the bucket. Clinton could be articulate even when he didn't know what he was talking about. Obama lacks that "gift".

Hard to believe Dayo is so complacent about the "affordability" of CO2 mitigation targets. The only "easily" affordable targets are the ones that will have no meaningful impact.

Quoting badhatharry: What Dayo is taking about regarding the real cost of carbon is external cost or externality.
Since she didn't know about this after doing research for her article it makes me wonder just what she was researching.

yeah, that was pretty annoying. anyone with any interest in environmentalism and/or economics is pretty familiar with the concept of "externalities"

Quoting badhatharry: Maybe some day Dayo will actually be interested in something someone with whom she disagrees is saying...

seems unlikely at best.

Quoting badhatharry: Good for Stephen for keeping relatively silent whilst she blew past every point he tried to make. I think he realized it was hopeless.

actually, i would have really liked him to get assertive and push hard enough that Dayo would either have to engage with him, or be so obnoxiously pushy that she might gain an inkling of self-awareness about how she steamrolls through conversations.

Quoting Don Zeko:
Oh, and Cap-and-Trade is probably slightly politically easier to implement because it's not called a tax, since Republicans have spent the last 30 years making it politically impossible to raise any taxes of any kind.

Actually, it's known as cap and tax in some circles. Here's an argument against cap and trade from none other than Ralph Nader. 1. First, while there is no limit on the downside for missing a hard cap, with a carbon tax you just pay as you go. If a fast-growing country like China accepted an emissions cap and then overshot it, they would have to purchase carbon credits on the international market. If they missed their target by a lot, carbon credits would be scarce, and
purchasing them would suck dry their foreign exchange reserves in one slurp. That’s why a carbon tax is much easier to swallow and, anyway, through the power of the price signal, it would produce the same desired result as a hard cap.
2. Second, administering billions of dollars of carbon credits in a cap-and-trade system in an already chaotic regulatory environment would
invite a civil war between interest groups seeking billions in

Quoting popcorn_karate: actually, i would have really liked him to get assertive and push hard enough that Dayo would either have to engage with him, or be so obnoxiously pushy that she might gain an inkling of self-awareness about how she steamrolls through conversations.

What I see in her is somewhat typical of young females, especially smart and educated ones. I think in their hearts they know they don't know lots of things but to keep afloat, keep your job and grow your creds you have to bullshit. This can cause an attitude of "hey, Mr. WSJ, don't try to make me look like I don't know what I'm talking about. I've read some stuff, too and I even know some big words like abjure and some big ideas like I'm agnostic about this (no shit). She'll probably grow out of it.

That's as well-put an argument for cap-and-trade as I've seen, but there are two problems with it that haven't been mentioned yet.

Quoting Don Zeko: an auctioned cap and trade system will have very similar effects to a carbon tax in terms of economic efficiency

This is true only if the caps are allotted and the offsets are approved with little cost and near-perfect accuracy. Previous climate bills have made this process corrupt by design. Even assuming arguendo a perfect piece of legislation, cap-and-trade favors entrenched interests, rewards rent-seeking, and has great difficulty distinguishing between "carbon offsets" genuinely created by the value of offsets and activity that would have occurred regardless. (Note: while they are related, don't confuse similar effects on consumer cost with similar effects on economic efficiency)

Quoting Don Zeko: Of the various difficult-to-quantify facts you need to properly set up these policies, i figure the emissions reductions necessary to stop the worst effects of global warming is the most knowable

True only for that particular policy goal, which I think is the wrong one. The goal ought not to be stopping particular effects, but to stop as many harmful effects as is

Quoting Don Zeko: ...

Oh, and Cap-and-Trade is probably slightly politically easier to implement because it's not called a tax, since Republicans have spent the last 30 years making it politically impossible to raise any taxes of any kind.

To the last, switch out the word carbon and replace it with "pollution" and see the support increase. Pollution Tax, seems much more tangible and justifiable. And frankly it provides a much broader rationale, especially to people who are not climate Malthusians.
And if it makes you all feel any better, even without any of that, we will still have alternative modes of transportation brought online. At the end of the day, it is new drive trains like this that is going to switch people over. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrtXXrRa5OI

How was the spill caused by 'criminal negligence' on the part of BP employees (presumably trailer living small people when not on the rig)?

Quoting Lyle: How was the spill caused by 'criminal negligence' on the part of BP employees (presumably trailer living small people when not on the rig)?

He may be thinking higher up...managers, directors...the guys from the C suite, definitely not small people living in trailers.

Quoting jimM47:
True only for that particular policy goal, which I think is the wrong one. The goal ought not to be stopping particular effects, but to stop as many harmful effects as is economically rational. Much of the damage of climate change is pretty easy to treat as future loss of value to physical capital. If the present costs of avoidance are small enough and the future loss of value to be avoided are large enough, then it may make sense to stop more than the worst effects of global warming. If the present costs are high enough to outweigh even high future costs, then it may make sense not to stop even the worst effects of global warming, and to use the economic surplus to offset the damage. Therefore "how much economic pain [the policy] will inflict" is the relavent measure, not the absolute amount of carbon reduction.

A couple of questions por favor.... What do you mean by 'the damage of climate change can be treated as future loss'? What does it mean 'to stop as many harmful effects as economically rational'? What does it mean 'to use economic

Quoting Don Zeko: ...With cap-and-trade, it's relatively easy to figure out how much it will reduce emissions, but hard to figure out how much it will increase the price of carbon to do so...

That is a factually incorrect statement given the realities of politics, carve outs, exemptions and the dubious nature of just how much carbon is really cut by allowing the purchase of offsets. Just take a look at the "reductions" that have been achieved in Europe since the introduction of their cap and trade system. Last time I bothered to look their were no European countries meeting there reduction targets, that may have changed somewhat thanks to this downturn, and in fact the US with no such system in place has had smaller increases in carbon production than the majority of those capping and trading. But it has created quite a boom to the wallets of those controlling the credits!

There were warning signs that the well was "coming in" which were apparently ignored by the, now deceased, Tool Pusher as it in the end was his call as replacing mud with salt water and to not use the BOP earlier.

Yeah, of course... I just don't understand how they were "criminally negligent".

Quoting badhatharry: What do you mean by 'the damage of climate change can be treated as future loss'?

Right now there is a lot of land out there employed toward economically productive ends — farmland, cities, rivers used for drinking water and transportation, etc. In other words, it is physical capital. Climate change will change the value of this capital: current land will become less productive for agricultural use, new land will become more productive for agricultural use, some bodies of water will become less useful, others more useful, current beach property will be submerged and new property will become beach property, cities near the water now will be underwater in the future if steps are not taken to mitigate rising sea levels, current infrastructure will be exposed to environmental conditions it was not designed to handle, certain properties will be at greater risk for natural disasters, etc. On net, these changes will reduce the value of existing capital. But even if the gains and losses could balance each other, transition has costs. The point is that climate change has effects that are both mundane and widespread. That situation is a familiar scenario from nearly

Quoting Lyle: Yeah, of course... I just don't understand how they were "criminally negligent".

That will be for some court to decide, I suppose. But before that happens we will be treated to months of Congressional hearings at which our elected will get a chance to blow off steam and show how much they know about the oil industry.

Yep, and phrases like "criminally negligent" will get bandied about.

Quoting jimM47: Right now there is a lot of land out there employed toward economically productive ends....
....Thus, I stand with a number of Cato wonks who have appeared on this site in supporting a revenue-neutral carbon tax on the ground that, whatever the merits of the policy on climate change ground, it is better policy to tax consumption than to tax work and savings.

Wow,thanks. I've got that one saved in Word for future reference. So now I see that sometimes the costs have to be born by industry and sometimes they have to be born by the consumer. The decision to go ahead with a project should take into account the potential hazards of having to internalize costs. If the balance sheet looks good, it would be good to go ahead. This brings to mind BP and whether they were counting the real potential costs of deep water drilling. As you say some of the effects of climate change may be bad and some may be good...some may happen soon and some later. Some say that if we cut carbon emissions this will reverse or slow

Quoting jimM47: Right now there is a lot of land out there employed toward economically productive ends — farmland, cities, rivers used for drinking water and transportation, etc. In other words, it is physical capital.

.

One more thing for now...is this an accurate assessment of cap and trade from Matt Taibi?

Here’s how it works: If the bill passes, there will be limits for coal plants, utilities, natural-gas distributors and numerous other industries on the amount of carbon emissions (a.k.a. greenhouse gases) they can produce per year. If the companies go over their allotment, they will be able to buy “allocations” or credits from other companies that have managed to produce fewer emissions: President Obama conservatively estimates that about $646 billion worth of carbon credits will be auctioned in the first seven years; one of his top economic aides speculates that the real number might be twice or even three times that amount.

The feature of this plan that has special appeal to speculators is that the “cap” on carbon will be continually lowered by the government, which means that carbon credits will become more and more scarce with each passing year. Which means that this

Quoting badhatharry: One more thing for now...is this an accurate assessment of cap and trade from Matt Taibi?

Can't speak to the numbers one way or another, but the description appears to be accurate.

Quoting badhatharry: So now I see that sometimes the costs have to be born by industry and sometimes they have to be born by the consumer.

Not quite, sometimes costs have to be born by parties to a transaction — industry and/or consumers — and sometimes by a third party. Though sometimes the third parties and consumers overlap. For instance, it is a fair bet that some of the people living in the Gulf region were buying BP petroleum products.

This brings to mind BP and whether they were counting the real potential costs of deep water drilling.

Federal law ensured that BP was not counting the real potential costs by capping BP's no-fault liability. Part of the costs of oil drilling are that accidents may happen even when the utmost care is exercised. BP was not legally obligated to pay for such an accident, and thus the cost never reached consumers, but instead remained a risk assigned to third parties.

Are

That's a very fair complaint about Cap-and-Trade in practice. Certainly Waxman-Markley's cap-and-trade scheme is quite far from the ideal version that I discussed in my post. My response would be that these criticism are equally applicable to a carbon tax. After all, it's not like the rest of our tax code is a model of economic efficiency, without carve-outs and deductions for every interest group under the sun. To my mind, you make a very good point about the difficulty of passing effective climate legislation with our existing political system. But it isn't really germane to a discussion of Carbon Tax v. Cap-and-Trade, either in the real world or the ideal one in which my previous post was living.

If Dayo is interested in the historical-political aspect of international (association) football, she should start watching my favourite sport cricket. The entire sport is fuelled by the spectre of colonialism, racism and international politics, and it can get quite nasty.

Respecting BP's potential liability for purely economic losses arising from the Gulf oil spill, why not consider whether and to what extent, under the laws of each of the affected Gulf states, the economic loss doctrine of tort law applies to environmental torts? Isn't that the key question?

Just one more for JimM47

Thanks again. So if I am correct, you would say...given the problem you (big you) are trying to solve, reducing carbon emissions, the best way to accomplish it is a revenue neutral tax. This means that we would pay more for gasoline, etc but also taxes would be cut elsewhere. Is the revenue neutrality an essential bit? and why? How would the mitigation efforts you mentioned earlier be paid for?

Quoting R. Richards: Respecting BP's potential liability for purely economic losses arising from the Gulf oil spill, why not consider whether and to what extent, under the laws of each of the affected Gulf states, the economic loss doctrine of tort law applies to environmental torts? Isn't that the key question?

So are you saying that if the federal liability law were not in place each state would be able to sue? Do you have an opinion about the 20 billion trust fund which was set up? I've been trying to get some information about whether it was legal...I guess since it was voluntary it was. It seems, at least, unprecedented.

1) The revenue neutrality part is not crucial to reducing carbon emissions. But I don't want the government to collect even more money and still spend enough to run the same deficits. Also, as I explain above, there is reason to believe that the damage that will be caused by climate change is not yet large enough or immanent enough to independently justify imposing a carbon tax. But a revenue-neutral carbon tax could be structured so as to be justifiable as a tax reform without reference to climate change. 2) A carbon tax probably doesn't go to mitigation of the damages of climate change. Presumably the losses are far enough in the future and foreseeable enough that the people affected will pay for and decide how to mitigate damages. Mitigation comes out of the resources the private sector is not prevented from creating. Given the global nature of the problem, some mitigation will probably come in the form of foreign aid.

Quoting jimM47: . But I don't want the government to collect even more money and still spend enough to run the same deficits.

Why not? We have a serious medium to long term budget problem, and it's not going to be solved solely through spending cuts. If we need to have new taxes, wouldn't a Pigovian tax on an unpriced externatility be one of the better ways to to increase revenue?

I believe that since the spill happened at sea, the case would go to the federal courts, acting as courts of admiralty, where they would apply federal common law, rather than state common law. Exxon v. Baker.

Quoting Don Zeko: Why not? We have a serious medium to long term budget problem, and it's not going to be solved solely through spending cuts. If we need to have new taxes, wouldn't a Pigovian tax on an unpriced externatility be one of the better ways to to increase revenue?

(Since you mention him, I'll note that what I've written above is a simplified recitation of Coase's critique of Pigou, saying a Pigovian rule is not always optimal.) If we need to have a Pigovian rule, then we need to have it, and that takes policy precedence over revenue neutrality. But otherwise: yes, a carbon tax is still one of the better ways to increase revenue. But I feel about revenue increases before they are necessary much the way that Greg Mankiw feels about deficit-neutral legislation -- I'm afraid that if you do it in advance of the crisis, spending will just increase until acceptable deficit levels are met again, and then when the crisis hits you've already used your best tool to deal with it.

Quoting jimM47: (Since you mention him, I'll note that what I've written above is a simplified recitation of Coase's critique of Pigou, saying a Pigovian rule is not always optimal.)

Sounds like I need to more carefully re-read your previous posts. Suffice it to say that I think Coase's theorem doesn't hold in this case, so we have little alternative to a Pigovian rule (or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that it doesn't apply, as the premises of the theorem, properly constructed property rights, pretty clearly dont' exist. At the very least we don't have the property rights necessary for the future population of Bangledesh to raise a stink over our carbon emissions).

Quoting jimM47: If we need to have a Pigovian rule, then we need to have it, and that takes policy precedence over revenue neutrality. But otherwise: yes, a carbon tax is still one of the better ways to increase revenue. But I feel about revenue increases before they are necessary much the way that Greg Mankiw feels about deficit-neutral legislation -- I'm afraid that if you do it in advance of the crisis, spending will just increase until acceptable deficit

I'm an American soccer fan. And I have to say, what I have just seen from Dayo Olopade is the embodiment of the worst possible kind of pseudo-ambassadorship to America(ns) for the game of soccer: snobbery. Going into a bar and coming away looking down her nose at people for HOW ENTHUSIASTIC they are? Well, if she wasn't simply wrong about the way soccer is watched - people get excited about every little thing all over the world, precisely because scoring is so rare - it would almost be as if she was TRYING to make American soccer fans seem pretentious, insidery and unwelcoming, I don't know, maybe just to keep soccer what it is to her: a way to affirm her comfortable outsider identity as against the mainstream in a hip, social, faux-exclusive way? What if soccer became mainstream in the U.S.? I can tell how much she really and truly wants that to happen...

Quoting Don Zeko: I guess the big question here is to what extent we're having this discussion in wonk-land, as opposed to a world in which we have extremely strong political restraints on policy. Absent political constraints, we might as well start dealing with the revenues/outlays gap as soon as the need for economic stimulus passes (and here I set aside another long and complicated argument). With political constraints, it's hard to see what the point of this conversation is. I think it's basically inconceivable that Congress will pass any kind of cap-and-trade in Obama's first term, much less an auctioned cap-and-trade scheme or a nice elegant carbon tax, so rebating the revenue vs. paying down the debt is a great example of "and a pony" analysis.

So your real world solution is to impose penalties on carbon use and then use those receipts to pay down the debt. But in the real world those revenues won't be used to pay down the debt. I am admittedly not very smart about economics, but it seems to me that any revenue the government gets will be spent in another way. It's usually spent

Quoting badhatharry: So your real world solution is to impose penalties on carbon use and then use those receipts to pay down the debt. But in the real world those revenues won't be used to pay down the debt. I am admittedly not very smart about economics, but it seems to me that any revenue the government gets will be spent in another way. It's usually spent to grow the government. It would seem that if the main goal is to reduce carbon use a targeted tax which penalizes use would work.

And BTW I would very much like a pony.

Maybe I wasn't clear. I don't know how the US Senate can possible pass legislation that is anywhere near sufficient to deal with AGW in a serious way in time for it to make a difference. My real-world solution is to start selling beachfront property and make some trips to see the glaciers while I still can. My issue with people that oppose cap-and-trade in favor of a carbon tax is that they are making waaay too big a deal out of a relatively minor policy difference. In some cases

Quoting Don Zeko:Maybe I wasn't clear. I don't know how the US Senate can possible pass legislation that is anywhere near sufficient to deal with AGW in a serious way in time for it to make a difference.

So you think AWG is a done deal and not to be ameliorated? But you still think it's good to get off fossil fuels?

My issue with people that oppose cap-and-trade in favor of a carbon tax is that they are making waaay too big a deal out of a relatively minor policy difference. In some cases (but obviously none of the fine people on this forum are included) I think that a carbon tax is basically a way to appear to care about Climate Change while in effect advocating nothing at all. I think we need to recognize that we have to take what we can get in this depressing political situation, and that means getting behind the policy that has already been developed and popularized by the intellectual infrastructure in the environmental movement, not scrapping everything for a policy that may or may not be marginally

Quoting MikeDrew: I'm an American soccer fan. And I have to say, what I have just seen from Dayo Olopade is the embodiment of the worst possible kind of pseudo-ambassadorship to America(ns) for the game of soccer: snobbery. Going into a bar and coming away looking down her nose at people for HOW ENTHUSIASTIC they are? Well, if she wasn't simply wrong about the way soccer is watched - people get excited about every little thing all over the world, precisely because scoring is so rare - it would almost be as if she was TRYING to make American soccer fans seem pretentious, insidery and unwelcoming, I don't know, maybe just to keep soccer what it is to her: a way to affirm her comfortable outsider identity as against the mainstream in a hip, social, faux-exclusive way? What if soccer became mainstream in the U.S.? I can tell how much she really and truly wants that to happen...

she'd start professing about the greatness of cricket, i assume...

Dayo-- The reason that no North Koreans defected is that the (lucky few) North Koreans who get to travel abroad are forced to leave their families behind. Their families are held hostage until the traveler returns. Your glib speculation was ... depressing in its ignorance.

I think I was unnecessarily unclear in my previous post, so let me try again. #1: In a perfect world, I think auctioned cap-and-trade (C&T, from here on out) is marginally better than a carbon tax, but that both would be good ideas. Also, both would produce revenue, which I wouldn't mind seeing rebated completely, used to pay down the debt, used to fund R&D in clean energy, or some mix of the above. #2: In our imperfect world, I think that C&T and a carbon tax are about equally vulnerable to special-interest carve-outs and corruption, but are both still worth doing. We even have real-world examples of successful C&T systems that dealt very effectively with air pollution in the eastern US at a minimal cost to the economy. #3: Either C&T or a carbon tax could be imposed on a national or international level effectively. #4: Unfortunately, the political obstacles to either policy are huge, and the time-frame in which we have to work is far too short. This is where my frustration with carbon tax advocates sets in. We already have a lot of people working on C&T, we have interest group buy-in, we have an actual bill that passed the House of Representatives. Even so, the odds

What a great comment on saving gas at Nascar - give em electric hybrids and let em go for 50 miles and thats it. Plug in Time. I have placed soccer almost all of my 54 years of life and for a female in St. Louis Missouri in the USA that is saying soccer has been popular in my hood for quite some time. I am white and lived in a conservative low income neighborhood and we played soccer in the winter because there there were no specific soccer fields. When baseball and softball were over the soccer nets went up. So playing in the snow was a regular thing. I played all through high school and then after for a bar who sponsored our team. We were awesome and our soccer coach is in the Soccer Hall of Fame. Soccer has been big in my town in the USA my whole life. I can say this, if you have never played it, you think its boring. I used to think golf was boring watching it until I began to play and then watched it all the time. Try watching indoor if you think its

The following is not legal advice or legal representation: I was not suggesting "that if the federal liability law were not in place each state would be able to sue." I was speaking of recovery by non-governmental individuals and organizations, not by state governments. I was referring to the speakers' discussion of whether and how those incurring purely economic losses caused by the Gulf oil spill could be compensated by some legal process, and, if so, how liability for those losses could be determined. I was speaking in terms of what seems economically optimal. The basic principle in U.S. law seems to be that an injured person should be compensated only once; this principle often goes by the name "no double recovery." That seems economically efficient, because it's designed to avoid waste. Many laws seem potentially applicable to the Gulf oil spill (U.S. federal law, maritime law, the laws of individual U.S. states; Cozen O'Connor has a great client memo describing the details: http://j.mp/9Nk0Wt ). The question is then, in light of the "no double recovery" rule, with which type of law might one begin one's inquiry? I was suggesting that one begin with state tort law, because it is old, well established, and

Man, they make a very comely pair. Is it out of line to point out that bloggingheaders are good-looking?

Quoting Mattfugazi: Man, they make a very comely pair. Is it out of line to point out that bloggingheaders are good-looking?

Possibly...if you were talking about only one of them with that comment.

Quoting Don Zeko: I think I was unnecessarily unclear in my previous post, so let me try again.

thx zeke. i appreciate the effort.

Quoting badhatharry: What I see in her is somewhat typical of young females, especially smart and educated ones. I think in their hearts they know they don't know lots of things but to keep afloat, keep your job and grow your creds you have to bullshit. This can cause an attitude of "hey, Mr. WSJ, don't try to make me look like I don't know what I'm talking about. I've read some stuff, too and I even know some big words like abjure and some big ideas like I'm agnostic about this (no shit).

She'll probably grow out of it.

It has not appeared to happen in your case. But maybe you still consider yourself young, as well?

Quoting Lyle: Yep, and phrases like "criminally negligent" will get bandied about.

Your prediction looks increasingly correct.

Quoting Mattfugazi: Man, they make a very comely pair. Is it out of line to point out that bloggingheaders are good-looking?

Perhaps not. But too often, especially if it's guys making comments about female diavloggers, things head quickly to undesirable places. I think it's best, therefore, to resist the urge, no matter how well-meant it is. Besides, there's a good chance a woman who's appearing in a setting where what she's offering has nothing to do with her looks is going to be put off by comments on her looks, however appreciative the comments may be. Not always, but there's a good chance this will happen. And since most good-looking people generally know they're good-looking, why take the chance of irritating them by saying so in a context they might consider inappropriate? Especially when you're hardly pointing out something that others would be unable to notice on their own.

I guess I am abit of a late arrival to this one. Still, here is an interesting read from Jim Manzi that somewhat pertains to the issue at hand.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: I guess I am abit of a late arrival to this one. Still, here is an interesting read from Jim Manzi that somewhat pertains to the issue at hand.

You might be interested to know that I've posted a bit of a response to this same article in another thread.

I don't have a problem with anything in your response, and would like to add I thought his whole analysis discounting anything past the arbitrary date of 2100 was a little strange. Regardless, as someone who has read most of the IPCC 4AR, I like Manzi. He is one of the few dittoheads that gives the impression he has done the basic reading. The common tactic of quoting some small snippet of one of the reports that admits doubt in even the primary data and then using that to cast broad doubt is irritating. I'm always like "Dude, the whole damn thing is written like that". Manzi doesn't strike me as one who would do that. ...I hope my approval doesn't lead to rcocean labeling Manzi as "Not a real conservative"...

Quoting Starwatcher162536: I don't have a problem with anything in your response, and would like to add I thought his whole analysis discounting anything past the arbitrary date of 2100 was a little strange. Regardless, as someone who has read most of the IPCC 4AR, I like Manzi. He is one of the few dittoheads that gives the impression he has done the basic reading. The common tactic of quoting some small snippet of one of the reports that admits doubt in even the primary data and then using that to cast broad doubt is irritating. I'm always like "Dude, the whole damn thing is written like that". Manzi doesn't strike me as one who would do that.

For the record, I wouldn't call Manzi a dittohead, at least not on this issue. I think he's wrong, but at least he's reasonably wrong.

...I hope my approval doesn't lead to rcocean labeling Manzi as "Not a real conservative"...

Probably way too late for that, if not from rc, then certainly from many others among the Conservative Purity Police.

Perhaps I should have used a different designator. For me dittohead is synonymous with public speaker.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: Perhaps I should have used a different designator. For me dittohead is synonymous with public speaker.

For most people, dittohead is synonymous with "Rush Limbaugh fan." Did you mean, perhaps, "talking head?"

Quoting Starwatcher162536: Perhaps I should have used a different designator. For me dittohead is synonymous with public speaker.

This does mean of course that you can never say anything derogatory about Rush Limbaugh because you now have let your total ignorance in that area out of the bag. Speaking of...my MOL received her "Please send money" note from Paul Begala and the Democrats today. Their headliner is Rush with the warm-up band being...you guessed it...George Bush. Three pages of rants about the horrible Republicans including the same talking points from not just 2 years ago but 6 and ...funny...pretty much NOTHING about accomplishments of the current administration. Go figure. [added] "NOTHING" also means not a word about the great accomplishment of Obamacare.