JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The US Election — spot the numbers mismatch where 50:50 = 2 to 9?

UPDATE: The US Election is being called for Obama on all major outlets. MarketWatch. Telegraph. Real Clear Politics. Mark Steyn’s thoughts: “Life Free… Or Die”.

——————————————————————————-

Voting is now underway in all states of the US including Hawaii and Alaska.

Something very strange is going on with money. Normally bets are a decent indicator, but in the US right now as people roll out to vote, polls are largely at 50:50, but betting odds of 2-9.

The bet-takers own website explains that Obama’s odds of victory fell to a low of 2-9, with 75 percent of the action coming in for the incumbent Obama. CSM explains that given the odds, bettors were only taking in 20 cents for every euro wagered, plus the original stake, meaning Paddy Power wasn’t paying out a longshot. On the flip side, unpaid Romney bets held odds of 7-2.

Follow the odds on Predictwise or Oddschecker.

It’s so strange, one betting site in Ireland (Paddy Power) has already paid out $750,000 to Obama bettors. That was Monday.

Putting a fine point on it: Gallup and Rassmussen are saying Romney 49: Obama 48.  (For more poll results than you could want see the BBC. They can’t all be right.)

What really matters in the land of non-compulsory voting, is who will turn up.

In 2008 Democrats had a feverish enthusiasm for hope and change, and we know how well that worked out. American citizens were so impressed they launched a whole new party to take the Obama-plan and do the opposite.

In final days there were mass crowds of 30,000 for Romney. Obama crowds were large, but in Cincinnati, only half the size of the same one in 2008.

With so much enthusiasm on the not-Obama side of the debate, those betting numbers don’t add up, indeed the mismatch is so large,  it appears to be a rare chance of arbitrage. Could it be the strange end-point of media group-think and confirmation-bias?

The Telegraph’s news roll of the US election. Drudge. Wall Street Journal.

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 6.9/10 (35 votes cast)
The US Election -- spot the numbers mismatch where 50:50 = 2 to 9?, 6.9 out of 10 based on 35 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/ab7nryu

125 comments to The US Election — spot the numbers mismatch where 50:50 = 2 to 9?

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Voting is now underway in all states of the US including Hawaii.

    Why single out Hawaii? Why not Alaska? Is it something in the water? ;-)
    —————-
    Fair point. Alaska too now! Thanks — Jo


    Report this

    20

    • #
      Nice One

      Is it something in the water?

      Do you think the sea ice still being below record levels for this time of year has anything to do with it?

      Don’t worry folks, you can still win the vote on my comment – assuming it’s not still in moderation after I click the post button.

      Yey Obama!


      Report this

      06

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Comparing polls with bookmakers is always a dodgy proposition.

    By definition, polls of this nature, should be designed to include a true cross section of the voting public – at least that is the theory.

    Bookmakers on the other hand, constantly adjust their odds based on what the punters are doing, and the punters are reacting (in part) to the odds being offered.

    The bookmakers win for as long as they can keep control of the betting patterns through the odds they offer. If they loose control, they either stand to loose a lot of money, or they make a huge windfall, but the odds of that happening are only even chance.

    Pollsters have a much less exciting life, but at best can only report the opinions of the sort of people who will answer poll questions (of which, I am not one).


    Report this

    60

  • #
    wes george

    Interesting parable:

    Romney ends most rallies with his story of the Colorado scout troop that in 1986 had an American flag put in the space shuttle Challenger, saw the Challenger blow up as they watched on TV, and then found, through the persistence of their scoutmaster, that the flag had survived the explosion. It was returned to them by NASA officials. When Romney, afterward, was shown the flag, he touched it, and an electric jolt went up his arm. It’s a nice story. He doesn’t make its meaning fully clear. But maybe he means it as a metaphor for America: It can go through a terrible time, a catastrophe, as it has economically the past five years, and still emerge whole, intact, enduring.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/peggynoonan/2012/11/05/monday-morning/


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Jaymez

    Age of ‘Entitlement’ Strangling Economies – the Media Makes Matters Worse

    The expansion of social entitlements has far surpassed the effect of an ageing population. Since 1980, social welfare entitlement spending has risen from 16 per cent to 23 per cent of GDP in the EU and 13 per cent to 20 per cent in the USA. In Australia it has risen from 10 per cent to a more modest 16 per cent.

    This increase has not occurred as a result of hard times but in a period of considerable affluence across the board. Scandinavia has usually been at the frontier of entitlement spending. In Denmark, out of the population of 5.6 million only around 1.8 million are not dependent on the state for their income and even they have considerable benefits in housing, child care and so on.

    Alongside the increasing provision of entitlements is a corresponding revenue shortfall. Taxation increases create incentives for people to avoid tax by reducing or concealing taxable activities. This compounds the inducement that an entitlements mentality legitimises for people to become tax recipients, by reducing the available income and the share of it retained by producers.

    Borrowings have allowed budget deficits to be bridged in the modern era but, as Greece and Spain are demonstrating, debt levels store up even greater future problems.

    The USA’s vastly expanded entitlement spending has been fundamental to its situation whereby revenues now cover only 60 per cent of spending.We often hear about the US Government’s expenditure on defence but out of its annual $3.8 trillion in expenditures, $2.25 trillion is on social security, health and so on. America’s annual budget deficit is $1.5 trillion with its debt now being equivalent to 25 per cent of world income. Such borrowing levels cannot last.

    Mitt Romney, in drawing attention to the “47 per cent” of people who receive income from government transfers, did more than recognise the expenditure and deficit problems the USA faces. He addressed an undermining of self-reliance by a culture of dependency.

    The Democrats and the media depicted Romney’s use of the 47 per cent figure, with its corollary of expenditure cuts to balance budgets, as a “gaffe” that might cost him the election. This underlines a serious problem faced by modern democracies. People will vote for politicians who promise them benefits even if the delivery of the benefits undermines the productive capacity of the economy. The same is happening in Australia.

    The regulatory and tax impositions are now deeply entrenched. Romney’s 47 per cent as the share of people who are beneficiaries might be even higher in other democracies. Ruth Davidson, the Scottish Conservative leader, has demonstrated that only 12 per cent of Scottish households pay more in tax than they receive in public services.

    Persuading the many to forgo benefits they extract from the few may only be achievable if the consequent economic ruin becomes an immediate threat to the availability of plunder. Perhaps this point has been reached in the USA and, together with Romney’s superior political skills, will bring a Republican election win. But even that would be unlikely to result in more than a temporary check to the stultifying outcome of unconstrained democracy. Personally I think Obama will scrape back in because he has had the significant support of a fairly uncritical left-wing media.

    Whatever happens in the WUS, I would prefer Australia does not follow Europe and the US down that path and instead had politicians who were prepared to make policy which is best for Australia and it’s citizens in the long term, rather than for getting themselves re-elected in the short term. Unfortunately I can’t see how that is going to happen without a fundamental change in standards within the Media and particularly within the ABC which is the bastian of entitlement. Rather than being political cheerleaders, who best support their own ideology, and looking for the next gaffe or slip up, journalists should be making a proper analysis of policy and holding politicians to account for their actions.

    A classic example of them not doing that was Monday when Joe Hockey quite rightly said if the RBA lowered the official cash rate on Tuesday it would actually be an indication that Government economic policy was failing. This is because the RBA lowers interest rates to stimulate the economy, encourage spending not saving, and to encourage borrowing not paying off debt. This is what the Government has been trying to do through it’s own massive stimulus spending and massive budget deficits. The fact the economy is flat during what is still a mining boom, demonstrates what Joe Hockey said was correct. In response, and what received more coverage was Julia Gillard’s retort that Joe Hockey was being disgustingly dishonest and she would expect an apology at some time in the future. Not a single journalist challenged her on that. All they had to do was point out that the RBA’s goal is to stimulate the economy which is what the Government has been trying unsuccessfully to do, yet productivity, retail sales, exports, housing have all fallen which is a clear sign the Government has failed.

    The fact is the Government has spent a huge amount of money all in the wrong areas – rather than on nation and economy building infrastructure and incentive producing, job creating, taxation reductions.


    Report this

    130

    • #
      John Brookes

      Taxation increases create incentives for people to avoid tax by reducing or concealing taxable activities

      That doesn’t make sense. Most countries, certainly Australia, have had decreasing income tax over the past 40 years. If we are to apply the logic in that quote, then decreasing rates of tax would result in less tax evasion.

      In Australia, the increased social welfare spending has mainly been by way of middle class welfare, which was used by the Howard government to bolster its electoral support. It is a shame, because we certainly needed to save more during those boom years.

      There is one thing I want from the Australian economy, and that is a continued effort to remove the unproductive distortions that see effort and reward going in less than optimal directions. The chronic shortage of medical specialists is an obvious one. They charge a fortune and have long waiting lists, yet not enough are trained. I don’t know if its still the case, but in NSW only solicitors used to be able to handle property conveyancing – so it would cost more than double what it would in other states.

      We should also ensure that everyone who can do so has an incentive to work. Right now we have too many two income and no income families. The adults in the no income families often face higher effective marginal tax rates than the second income earner in an affluent family.

      There is a lot to fix, and this “Gillard is a witch” campaign is just a peurile distraction.


      Report this

      06

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        Each year your wage will increase by CPI or thereabouts. The tax brackets do not move with CPI. Therefore each year, as peoples wages increase, they move into the next higher tax bracket.

        Most of us when we discover that we are now in a higher tax bracket would say “my tax has gone up”.

        Every several years the government re-adjust the tax brackets and bring taxes down to something more like what they were. Overall tax is winning this race.

        Gillard is a witch.


        Report this

        130

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        decreasing rates of tax would result in less tax evasion.

        Logically, you might think so, but the reality is not the case.

        If a Government, of any stripe, increases the rates of income tax or consumption tax, beyond a certain point, black markets start to form as people swap their time or produce for other goods and services. This is especially so in rural areas where sheep can “disappear” or vegetables can “be eaten by rabbits”.

        Once that alternative economy has formed, and is functioning well, and people are well used to it, any decrease in taxation – income or consumption – is seen more as a windfall than an incentive to start paying more money to the Government again, so the level of evasion remains as a constant.

        Introducing a carbon tax, which is another form of consumption tax, will ultimately result in a deepening of a black market that already exists. People helping out a mate has always be an Australasian tradition, there is just more of it around today.


        Report this

        90

      • #
        cohenite

        John says:

        There is one thing I want from the Australian economy, and that is a continued effort to remove the unproductive distortions that see effort and reward going in less than optimal directions.

        Oh good, you’ll be supporting the removal of the CO2 tax and the RET then, will you?


        Report this

        61

      • #
        Geoff Sherrington

        John,
        If you value quality, you pay for it.
        If you want hospitals staffed by people who can barely speak English, you lower your standards.
        I prefer the higher standard.


        Report this

        20

  • #

    For a number of years I have following Mike Smithson’s politicalbetting.com for a comparison of opinion polls. Whilst noting that Romney odds are significantly higher on US-based betting sites that Non-US, it still leaves Romney as a clear outsider. Furthermore, Romney was not ahead in any of the final polls.
    NB Smithson not only provides commentary, but bets himself. He reckons he will be a net winner no matter who wins.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Mark D.

    What I’ve observed is that the mind of a hard-core gambler is muddled with all kinds of superstitions and “rules” that fly in the face of statistical reason.

    The mind of a hard core bookie is perhaps more rational but probably not.

    In either case I hope they are better judges of character and human nature than the pollsters.

    Anyone in the USA that reads this please get up and out and vote for Romney! Do it twice or more if you live in California. :)


    Report this

    61

  • #

    This in American math. It really adds up if you realize that in America, numbers prove whatever you want them to, add up to any number, as long as you feel good about yourself. (/sarc)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    “Something very strange is going on with money.”

    Maybe this principle is behind it:

    I remember I once asked Robert Strauss, then US ambassador to Russia, whether Boris Yeltsin would be able to catch up with his opponent in a re-election campaign where Yeltsin started out a considerable distance behind. “Well,” said the ambassador in his strong Texan accent, “I know ol’ Boris pretty well, and all he has to do is to get within what we in Texas call ‘stealing distance.’ And I think Boris can do that.”

    Apparently there’s an interesting confrontation going on at several election sites with the Black Panthers and retired Navy Seals. Also Democrats kicked Republican poll watchers out of a lot of eastern election centres – with the Republicans having to go to court to get back in.

    You have to say things are much more civilised here.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    What really matters in the land of non-compulsory voting, is who will turn up.

    In the land of non-compulsory voting those who don’t vote, also vote. They all show up. Fortunately theirs is the default vote that lets the rest of us who have more conviction about our responsibility determine how things will be done.

    Frankly I think that’s a very good thing.

    The poll that really counts is now in progress and tomorrow morning we’ll all see how big a mess we have to clean up. And it will be a mess.


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      It occurs to me to say, even in Australia with compulsory voting you probably have a lot of voters who don’t “show up”.

      Of what benefit is it to have someone voting who is just following the list someone else gave them (same person or group voting multiple times) or just winging it instead of knowing what’s going on (random voting)?

      Since I know we have them and since I know human nature is not any different in Oz, I know you must have them too.


      Report this

      10

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Informal i.e. spoiled vote, around 5%. No shows can only be estimated, but around 20%.

        With compulsory voting you have to be registered for your non attendance to be noticed, hence a lot of people don’t register. I’ve run across several people like that in fairly small samples.

        I’ve never been in a Tally Room, but I am told that not all the informal votes are due to a lack of intelligence, indeed one remarked that some of the comments indicated a considerable literary, if profane, ability.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Geoff Sherrington

      I have not thought this trhough yet, but one does not have to vote on the Melbourne Cup. But, what an extraordinary gain the bookies made collectively in 2012. Not a favourite in the first 5-6 places.
      Do you think that there is a remote chance of confirmation bias in the USA pre-election forecasts of either bookies or pollsters? I can’t see how you could keep it out.


      Report this

      00

  • #
  • #
    pat

    6 Nov: Washington Post Blog: Colbert I. King: An obscene display of campaign spending
    The Center for Responsive Politics, according to National Public Radio, places the total cost of the 2012 presidential and congressional races at an estimated $6 billion…
    Gain a guaranteed four-year seat in the White House for $2.6 billion (the total presidential portion of that $6 billion). For goodness sake, that $6 billion is more than the gross domestic product of nearly 50 countries in the world…
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/an-obscene-display-of-campaign-spending/2012/11/06/b53708d4-284d-11e2-96b6-8e6a7524553f_blog.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Winston

    I’m afraid my reading of the situation is that the US is doomed no matter who is elected. Romney has actually campaigned very well against an incumbent who has every media personality striving to get him re-elected. He also has to fight against the perception (possibly correct) that he is just another multimillionaire with narcissistic tendencies who is a tool of Wall Street. Of course, Obama and Romney are both tools of Wall Street, and it is hell bent on destroying the wealth of every hard working American (not to mention global) citizen at the most opportune moment, when all their funds are safely removed out of the firing line.

    Economic Armageddon WILL happen, because it is “pre-ordained” to happen by those who wield the power to manipulate. they die was already cast when the Hedge fund bubble was created. The only question now will be whether we die on the end of the spear of excessive socialist entitlements and debt defaults, or are run through by the sword of neo-capitalist theft and manipulation leading to a spectacular stock market crash and subsequent global depression. Or perhaps we might just get lucky and have both. Toss in a war for luck. Either way, the election tomorrow merely determines the “flavour” of the catastrophe, not the reality of its likelihood, IMO. Sorry to be the rain on everyones parade, but a Romney victory is likely to be a temporary euphoria at best- a “sugar hit” for conservatives.


    Report this

    70

    • #
      Winston

      Should read-”The die was already cast….”


      Report this

      10

      • #
        Ross

        Winston –I watched the “Kaiser Report” last night and he had a discussion with a UK financial blogger ( who seemed to be very switched on). They were discussing the UK situation and they were predicting the same as you are saying for the USA.


        Report this

        10

    • #

      Are there no Americans who don’t blame everyone but themselves? The Democrats blame rich people, the Republicans blame Democrats, the banks are in a conspiracy to mess up our country, it’s the fault of Wall Street and on and on and on. These things are the fault of everyone who lives in this country. We voted in the people who hand out “free” money for all, we banked with the evil bankers, we bought insurance from the failing insurance industry, etc. And then we whine that we had no other choice. We are in trouble, as no one will actually stand up and admit this got out of hand because we had our heads in the sands and behinds in the air. There’s a downside to blaming everyone–you end up a fatalist who believes you are doomed by everyone else’s actions. Blaming others takes away your power. If you’re comfortable having signed over your destiny to bankers or whomever, that’s your choice. But it does not change how this happened nor will it fix it. Economic armageddon will occur because when people sign their power over to others and bad things happen, natural law sorts it out for us. I really don’t understand turning your entire life over to the whims of some “enemy” and taking the hard correction natural consequences will hand you.


      Report this

      70

      • #
        Winston

        Unfortunately Sheri, I would agree with you except that the game is rigged, and it’s the only game in town for all but the privileged few. And it is not so much a whinge but an observation. The common man in the street has little or no understanding of the role of the Fed, the incipient creeping death of hedge fund speculation white anting economies, etc, etc. They also have no choices, short of armed revolution, and we all know how that works out. If the country goes to war, they have no choice but to be shot at and killed or thrown in jail: if the country dies an economic death, they die with it unless they are an insider or are dead lucky- and if the globalists succeed there really will be no place to run and nowhere to hide, they will be answerable to no one but themselves- goodbye humanity, it was nice knowing you.


        Report this

        70

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Whoever wins, The US and the western countries who were felled in the GFC may have only one ray of sunshine to look forward to.

      Greater awareness of political skullduggery.

      After the pain may come a clarity of awareness as to what caused the pain; perhaps.

      Perhaps people may be more proactive in finding out how Governments shafted them by clever media

      manipulation, but I don’t have my hopes up.

      Maybe everyone will go onto Social Security and the entire western banking system will collapse in a blinding

      blue flash of light; I don’t know.

      Last night I heard of a Merchant Banker who owns a piece of land out past Bathurst.

      He has 23 gardeners and the property appears to be valued at a rough $100 million.

      I always wondered where the 20 years of my savings went to from the stock market. Now I know.

      It could be depressing if you let it.

      maybe I should get a hobby like analysing global warming.

      KK


      Report this

      30

  • #
    RoHa

    “in the land of non-compulsory voting”

    There are actually many such lands.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Alice Thermopolis

    GARY DORSCH GMT 2 November 2012

    Shades of 1980 election, Reagan 51%, Carter 41%

    “GMT is putting its neck on the chopping block, and is predicting that Romney would score an
    upset victory, winning the popular vote by a 51% to 48% margin, with 1% going to third
    parties. Early voting results so far, show Romney as the favorite to win Colorado, Florida, North
    Carolina, and Virginia. A massive showing of White Evangelical Christians, currently not pickedup
    by pollsters, will determine the winner in Ohio and Iowa, thus flipping both states to
    Romney. Other possible Romney pick-ups include New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and
    Pennsylvania. This forecast is based on the assumption of record Republican turnout for the
    election, combined with a drop of -10% in Democrat turnout. Also, Independents, equaling
    30% of the overall electorate, favor Romney by +14% in national polls, and whenever a
    candidate has won the independent vote by double-digits, he has won the election. In 2008, Mr
    Obama won the independent vote by +8%.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jimmy Haigh

    Well, I had to look up “arbitrage”.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrage

    And I still don’t know what it means. I’ve never been a betting man though.

    If I was my money would be on Romney.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Catamon

    “in the land of non-compulsory voting”

    Where they also turn voting into a standing in line endurance exercise. LoL.

    Sometimes i think that the USA is actually a barley functional democracy.


    Report this

    04

  • #

    Arbitrage: see this article

    “Basically, non-U.S. sites are again underestimating Romney odds when compared to Intrade.

    “As an example, 5dimes (a betting site) is offering Romney at +300 (a 25 percent implied probability) [Monday morning] with Intrade at 34 percent.

    “Betting £500 on 5Dimes gives a £1500 profit if Romney wins and £500 loss if he loses. Betting £1000 on Obama on Intrade gives about a £500 profit if Obama wins or a £1000 loss if he loses. Overall this nets a £500 riskless profit if Romney wins. Let’s call this part of the trade the ‘emotional hedge’: if Romney wins, at least I’ll make some pocket money.”

    The problem with Andre’s strategy thus far, of course, is that he makes nothing if President Obama is reelected. That is, he loses £500 pounds on his Romney bet, wins back £500 on Obama. So he has to put more money on Obama to make money on this “arbitrage.” Accordingly, he continued:

    “What I plan to do Election Day is start using the riskless profit I will make to bet on Obama. So, for example, I’ll bet £370 on Obama to win approximately £123 if he wins. This will make a riskless profit either way: +£123 if Obama wins or +£130 if Romney does (Andre’s £500 Romney winnings minus the £370 he has just bet on Obama).


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Mattb

    Looking like the bookies were right. If bookies were normally wrong there’d be no such thing as bookies I guess.


    Report this

    61

  • #
    pat

    The Paradox of Energy Efficiency
    Why greener technology doesn’t translate into reduced energy consumption
    Ronald Bailey from the November 2012 issue
    In another recent study, reported in the July 2012 issue of the journal Sustainability, Graham Palmer, technical director of an Australian heating and cooling company, looked at trends in space heating efficiency during the last 50 years in Melbourne. Modern houses are up to 10 times more energy efficient, Palmer found, yet Australians are collectively using just as much energy to heat their homes as they did a half-century ago. Why? New houses are much bigger, people heat larger areas for longer, and fewer people live in each dwelling. Of course, modern Australians are much more comfortable in the winter than their grandparents were.
    Similarly, a 2006 study commissioned by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found that homes in Phoenix, Arizona, that qualify for the EPA’s Energy Star designation use 12 percent more energy than homes that don’t…
    This energy “rebound effect” has important implications for efforts to restrain climate change through conservation. Various studies have suggested that improvements in efficiency could reduce energy consumption enough to cut global carbon dioxide emissions by as much as 25 percent during the next four decades. But this is a highly controversial area of scholarship…
    The money saved from driving a fuel-efficient car, for example, may now be spent on flying to a Caribbean beach vacation…
    The upshot of all these studies is that energy efficiency mandates probably will fall far short of expectations for mitigating man-made global warming. “Instead of imposing energy efficiency mandates,” Michaels concludes, “energy policy should embrace market prices and disruptive innovations to guide energy to its most valuable uses.” After all, the point of improved energy efficiency is not to forgo the use of power but to boost its productivity as a way to provide people with more of the goods and services they want.
    http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/31/the-paradox-of-energy-efficiency


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Mattb

      This is why you need a suite of policies, including a price on carbon.


      Report this

      513

      • #
        Bruce of Newcastle

        Matt you realise that if global warming is mild and non-dangerous that pricing carbon would be dishonest?

        You would wish a dishonest tax on us all to not save a world which is not in danger?

        Of course you can advocate pricing carbon as a general revenue raising activity, which I would have no conscientious objection to, but that would be instantly rejected by the electorate.

        And yes, at a measured 2XCO2 around 0.5 C global warming cannot be dangerous.

        The dishonesty coming from your side is what is losing you this argument. And you know well that if you object I will provide much data to prove my case. Since you never stick around to refute the data or peer reviewed journal articles I don’t expect to have to do this. But I will if you want.


        Report this

        51

        • #
        • #
          Bruce of Newcastle

          Hi Matt,

          Here are two graphs.

          Detrended HadCRUT 3v (from this paper)
          Solar cycle length-temperature (from this paper)

          As it happens I have replicated the first correlation (which is easy) and I’ve done a similar plot for HadCRUT 3v as per the second (but without filtering).

          If you look at solar cycle 13 (11.9 yrs) and solar cycle 22 (9.7 yrs) this gives a difference in HadCRUT from 1900 to 2000 of about 0.4 C. Consistent with Rao 2011. Note that Prof Rao is a highly regarded GCR physicist and ex head of the Indian space program.

          If you look at the detrended HadCRUT graph in the first link you will see the 60 year cycle corresponds to about 0.28 C rise from 1900 to 2000.

          The overall rise in HadCRUT 3v from 1900 to 2000 is about 0.82 C as recorded in AR4.

          So lets do some sums:

          0.82 (total) – 0.4 (solar) – 0.25 (cyclic) = 0.17 C left over for CO2 and everything else.

          Lets assume all of the 0.17 C is due to CO2, leaving out UHI and aerosols, black carbon and unicorns.

          CO2 in 1900 was about 295 ppmV
          CO2 in 2000 was about 370 ppmV

          2XCO2 = 0.17 x log(2)/(log(370) – log(295)) = 0.52 C

          Which is at the low end of the range in Lindzen & Choi 2011.

          If you increase pCO2 from 295 to 3000 ppmV this value gives a temperature rise of 1.74 C due to CO2. How much oil and coal do you think would have to be burnt to get us up to 3000 ppmV of CO2?

          You will note that CAGW is therefore disproven and AGW due to CO2 is very mild indeed.

          OK Matt, now tell me why this calculation is wrong, with citations.

          I bet you won’t. Consensus people run away and hide at this point.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Mattb

            so we are taking Scafetta 2010 as gospel are we, and not as Judith Curry would say “On the surface, this significance analysis (e.g. the results) doesn’t seem convincing, in particular the multi-taper analysis seems to be producing too many peaks with 99% confidence, especially given the short length of data record used?”


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Bruce of Newcastle

            Matt – The cyclic signal in HadCRUT comes up in power spectrum determinations (eg link, from here). Scafetta has done a similar spectrum determination in his paper. He hypothesises an explanation for the cycle. I do not agree with his hypothesis as I incline towards a resonance with the double solar cycle. We see a lot of resonance forcing of cyclic behaviour, such as the orbit ratios of the moons of Saturn and Jupiter.

            The point was if you detrend HadCRUT the 60-ish year cycle becomes apparent. This is empirical data. You can see it in untrended data. It explains about a third of 20th C warming. Solar combined effects explain another half, leaving about 1/6th for CO2. Therefore climate sensitivity of CO2 is low.

            There is plenty of evidence for the 60-ish year cycle. Are you saying CO2 causes it?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mattb

            Bruce I’m not aware that “mainstream” climate science is in denial of cycles of non GHG origin that influence climate.

            Look that “untrended data” yes I can see a sine wave and a linearish trend. The linear fit warming trend looks as though it would not be larger or smaller if not for the sine wave unless you were looking at only say 1964 to 2000.

            TO me saying that a cycle we’ve observed in temperature is similar to a cycle of a moon on Jupiter, with no known reason the two would be related, is at least significantly more spurious than linking the rise in CO2 with rise in temps given there is a known reason.

            I’ve linked myself to the following on this site in years gone by:
            http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/02/08/how-hot-should-it-have-really-been-over-the-last-5-years/


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mattb

            Also – if you don’t agree with Scafetta and prefer a different rekationship, then that’s hardly a ringing endorsement is it?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Bruce of Newcastle

            Matt – your creative misunderstanding is disingenuous. You know as well as I do if you have a cyclic forcing of some kind you can get resonance. Like a wine glass fracturing to a certain musical note. Or do you think I mean climate change is due to wine glasses fracturing (/sarc).

            Simple point. Because the cycle was at bottom in 1900 and at top in 2000 there is a 2 x amplitude factor added. Take that out and the trend increase over 100 years was about 0.57 C not 0.82 C.

            Take out the empirical solar influence and the underlying rise is about 0.17 C not 0.57 C.

            We are seeing a plateauing of temperature precisely because both these factors have reversed course.

            IPCC qualified climate models do not reflect this temperature pause. Which will become a fall over the next few years, increasingly hard to hide by the Motley CRU. You will have seen that N American ski resorts are opening already, earlier than ever. Very hard to hide all that snow.

            Matt – Being partisan is one thing, but being a realist is another. If your side continues to ignore empirical science then all you are doing is storing trouble up for yourselves. The US election shows you don’t need climate lies to get ahead. You just need to communicate your advantages. There is no need to be dishonest.

            Or do you want more citations of 60 year cycle papers and solar influences so you can forget to refute them or ad hom their authors?

            Let me know, I have plenty more links.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mattb

            What have I ad hommed?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Bruce of Newcastle

            Scafetta at #19.1.1.2.1

            When you don’t want to look at the data (which I was pointing to) you criticise the author.

            Yes, I’ve seen that post of Judy Curry’s, which you er, forgot to link, and elsewhere she says quite level scientific things about the underlying data. Which you did not mention. Let me see:

            Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology believes that factors other than CO2 are variables in the rising and falling of heat wave incidents, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. “They have insufficiently been appreciated in terms of global climate,” said Judith Curry.

            I’ll add a bit from further down her post where she says:

            How would one go about either falsifying Scafetta’s hypothesis, or garnering further support for it?

            She is referring to the 61.5 yr spike hypothesis in the power spectrum graph that you questioned. To which I would point out the signal occurs in:

            AMO
            PDO
            ENSO
            tree rings & rain data
            sea level

            Especially when you note that the AMO has a very clear signal and is a temperature index you can see why HadCRUT should also have such a signal.

            And note the PDO and AMO are a 1/4 wavelength out of synch as you would expect from an Arctic forced cycle, since the north Pacific is the far end of the great conveyer belt away from the north Atlantic.

            Mate, it is a consistent picture. If you bury your head in the sand you’ll just give yourself silicosis.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mattb

            THat was not an ad hom? I merely demonstrated that the voice of reason herself is not convinced. It could be an appeal to authority? but a soft one.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mattb

            “How would one go about either falsifying Scafetta’s hypothesis, or garnering further support for it?”

            I read that as rhetorical….


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Bruce of Newcastle

            Not rhetorical. Judy Curry often asks things like that on her blog to get discussion going. Its her style. You will note that Craig Loehle was first in. He was probably pre-invited.

            Where we are at with the cycles is where Kepler was at with Copernicus’ data. It was only a few decades later that Newton developed equations for gravity that they worked out why. But Kepler’s equations of orbital motion worked quite well for the dataset. After that the Hockey Team Church got interested. Flaming on comment threads is slightly more civilised nowadays that flaming on large piles of wood was back then.

            The same with this signal. It is present in many climate datasets and corresponds to about 1/3 of the apparent warming across the 20thC. Scafetta hypothesises orbital reasons. I think it might be a resonance. The data however stands ready to be interpreted….but it clearly represents 0.2-0.3 C of temperature increase over the century, and has just passed peak.

            And there’s the 0.4 C which is due to overall solar influence. Not much left for CO2 afterwards.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Bruce of Newcastle

            Looks like Matt has emulated the Black Knight. After one limp link to Barry Brook’s webpage and no evidence against the low sensitivity of CO2 he does a Sir Robin and skedaddles. At least he gives me an excuse to watch the movie again, heh!

            To add a few more metaphors we’ve looked behind your curtain Matt and the emperor of climate is wearing no clothes.

            Ah, skewering hapless climateers is so much fun!

            I remind you Matt: I said a carbon price is dishonest when there is no CO2 driven CAGW. I have shown you data that precludes CAGW, therefore Ms Gillard’s carbon tax is doubly dishonest – she lied before the election and lied that it was to ‘address climate change’. Pure bunkum.

            Why does your side act so dishonestly? You don’t need to. It will bite you in the end as human beings don’t like liars.

            (I suspect he’s gone back under Stirling Bridge to sulk and regenerate his lost limbs)


            Report this

            00

          • #
          • #
            Bruce of Newcastle

            Hi Matt glad to see you feeling better. Want to resume defending your bridge? You can try biting me to death if you like.

            Some data or failing that a few pseudoscientific Hockey Team papers which I could chew up would be nice to see.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Bruce of Newcastle

          Slight typo: “about 0.28 C rise from 1900 to 2000″ should be “0.25 C rise”.

          In short 2XCO2 is nearer to 0.5 C than IPCC’s 3.0 C (or thereabouts) because 5/6ths of the warming last century was due to natural phenomena.

          Which have now reversed course.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    pat

    6 Nov: UK Telegraph: Louise Armistead: Debt crisis: German economic data is a ‘catastrophe’, say economists
    German factory orders recorded their biggest drop for a year according to figures that lead a raft of economic data from Spain, France and Italy, that underscored the advancing debt crisis
    The German finance ministry said factory orders were down 3.3pc in September from the month before shocking economists who had forecast a 0.4pc drop, according to Bloomberg poll.
    Taken with figures showing German business confidence has fallen to the lowest in two-and-a-half years, the data was described as “a catastrophe and very bad news” by Thomas Harjes, European economist at Barclays in Frankfurt. “We have a huge problem in the rest of the euro area that now seems to be reaching Germany and its labour market,” he said. “For the coming quarters, the economic outlook is quite gloomy.”…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9659621/Debt-crisis-German-economic-data-is-a-catastrophe-say-economists.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tristan

    Happy Obama Day!


    Report this

    67

  • #
    Tristan

    With so much enthusiasm on the not-Obama side of the debate, those betting numbers don’t add up, indeed the mismatch is so large, it appears to be a rare chance of arbitrage. Could it be the strange end-point of media group-think and confirmation-bias?

    Nope, it’s a case of ~1000 randomly selected people not reflecting electoral college distribution with the required level of precision to give much information. The bookies algorithms are far more complex.


    Report this

    12

  • #
    shirl

    Due to lack of interest the erection was cancelled


    Report this

    30

  • #
    pat

    6 Nov: UK Tele: Louise Armistead: Revealed: Hedge funds betting millions against Britain’s high street
    Hedge funds are betting there will be blood on the high-street this Christmas as Britain’s retail stocks dominate a list of big short positions that has been published for the first time.
    The secretive financiers have bet millions of pounds that companies including WH Smith, Home Retail Group, Ocado, Sainsbury, Tesco and Dixons will fall in value, according to a list published under new rules by the Financial Services Authority (FSA)…
    The list, which is the most comprehensive view of bearish bets ever seen, follows the introduction of European rules that came into force on November 1. Under the regulations, all short positions worth more than 0.2pc of a company’s market capitalisation have to be revealed to the regulator. Positions of more than 0.5pc of the market value have to be published.
    Hedge fund managers, who prove their worth by making money in markets that go down as well as up, are concerned that the disclosures could hamper their efforts.
    Experts in London, where more than 80pc of Europe’s hedge funds are based, argue that short selling improves efficiencies in the markets. But European politicians have held the opaque trading practises responsible for volatility in the markets…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/9659577/Revealed-Hedge-funds-betting-millions-against-Britains-high-street.html

    7 Nov: Australian: Gavin Lower: Harvey Norman first quarter profit tumbles 20pc
    HARVEY Norman reported an unaudited 20 per cent drop in pre-tax profit in the first quarter of its financial year as sales slumped amid weak consumer sentiment…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/companies/harvey-norman-first-quarter-profit-tumbles-20pc/story-fn91v9q3-1226512286557


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    *sigh*
     
    The money has moved,
    now the fix is in,
    the Fox has spoken,
    shouting Obama’s back in.

    It’s just like in 2000,
    when in Florida it was very tight,
    Jeb Bush and Fox called it,
    before all the votes were in sight.

    When the polls close like a casket
    on truth devoured
    silent fraud plays out in
    the shadow of power.

    The votes cannot delay
    the show that must go on.
    There’s citizens to disarm
    and Syrians to bomb.

    All through the land
    the NDAA had been forgotten.
    But the sharpest of people
    knew their Republic was rotten.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    wes george

    The fat lady has sung.

    Ohio for Obama. Game over.

    I’d like to be the first here to congratulate President Obama and the Democrats on their victory. That’s what we do in a free and fair democratic election. Good game, mates.

    *

    Oh, well… At least we were lucky enough to live most of our lives during the Golden Age of modern Western Civilisation.

    It’s the kids I feel sorry for.

    On the bright side: As James Taranto observes…

    At least re-election ensures Obama is “accountable for the mess he inherits from himself.”


    Report this

    81

    • #
      ExWarmist

      Yes – he will have to drink his own champagne and wear the consequences of his actions over the last 4 years.


      Report this

      22

    • #
      Mark D.

      Oh, well… At least we were lucky enough to live most of our lives during the Golden Age of modern Western Civilisation.

      Wes, this would make a nice epitaph. Do you mind If I use it?

      (I will correct the spelling of civilization)


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Bite Back

      At least re-election ensures Obama is “accountable for the mess he inherits from himself.”

      Would you like to bet on that, Wes?

      It’ll still be Bush’s fault for the next 100 years.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        ExWarmist

        BB – I agree,

        The MSM narrative will gloss over any issues that arise and paint George Bush as the cause of all ills.

        Mind you – George Bush was almost as destructive of the US constitution as Barack Obama is – but it is to be expected now from any president – this late in the empire game.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    JMD

    What a shame for all you Reaganouts. Most amusing is that at your age you still haven’t worked out that it makes no difference who is ‘elected’. Both ‘sides’ control your money & both sides will continue to control your money & your ‘money’ will continue to lose its value.


    Report this

    75

    • #
      wes george

      JMD, nobody controls my money but me.

      I live in a global economy and invest globally. I’m fully aware of the impending monetary crisis, impending regulations, the tax environment, etc. and am hedging my portfolio accordingly.

      You sound more like our resident Centerlink client (Johnny Brookes) than a rational human being who takes responsibility for his own actions.

      The problem with the defeatist attitude that democratic elections are meaningless is that is exactly the old Marxist position.

      Is that what they taught you at uni?

      The classic Marxist dialectic sees both Romney and Obama as simply servants of a single oligarchical capitalist status quo.

      There is a grain of truth in that analysis, after all we are all capitalists, even the socialists in our midst, but it is ultimately unrealistic because a diverse nation, like Australia and the US, have hundreds of competing mini-oligarchies, which use the democratic process (rather than internecine violence) to distribute power.

      If you are not part of one of the competing interest groups in our society, then you simply have no dog in the hunt. That’s fine. But don’t imagine that the hunt is not taking place just because you ain’t got a dog.

      The neo-Marxist position of the modern Left is that elections really do matter a great deal, not because they believe in constitutional democracy, but because they know direct revolution won’t succeed.

      Instead, the Left means to achieve its agenda by stealth and patience… by the incremental erosion of the constitutional system… one law, one tax, one regulation, one new entitlement at a time. The Leftist intelligentsia understand the cumulative effect of their erosion of our national cultural identity and the most fundamental civil liberties – the right to property and free expression – will ultimately lead to a system where everyone is dependent upon state approval for any move they make, thus creating the single monolithic oligarchy that JMD imagines already exists.

      We know that has not yet been achieved because we are not yet serfs, but free individuals with every right to express resistance!

      JMD, if you are not with us, then you are against us.


      Report this

      53

      • #
        J.Hansford

        Bloody well said Wes.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        ExWarmist

        Wes – you make some interesting points, and cynicism is definitely a trap for the mind – as it parades itself as wisdom while disempowering the cynic.

        My own position is that the left/right distinction is a wafer thin misinterpretation of political power. I hold that the real spectrum is based on the concentration or dispersal of legalized use of coercive force.

        For example – in a dictatorship, the use of coercive force is concentrated into the hands of a few, and there are few checks and balances in it’s use. At the other pole of the spectrum, there is very little opportunity for anyone to legally use coercive force on another human being and checks and balances are explicit, and very much in evidence.

        Note how the signing into law of the NDAA 2011 on December the 31st by Barack Obama removed many of the checks and balances written into the Bill of Rights for the legal use of coercive force. Based on the spectrum that I propose, it becomes clear that Barack Obama has materially moved the US towards dictatorship.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Instead, the Left means to achieve its agenda by stealth and patience… by the incremental erosion of the constitutional system… one law, one tax, one regulation, one new entitlement at a time. The Leftist intelligentsia understand the cumulative effect of their erosion of our national cultural identity and the most fundamental civil liberties – the right to property and free expression – will ultimately lead to a system where everyone is dependent upon state approval for any move they make, thus creating the single monolithic oligarchy that JMD imagines already exists.

        The scale looks to be tipped mightily in that direction by yesterday’s election.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    ExWarmist

    Looks like Obama will now be in the box seat while the US does the following over the next 4 years.

    [1] Goes into recession.

    [2] Expands the use of Drones over the CONUS, and the rest of the world.

    [3] Expands the number of Americans on food stamps to more than 50 million (while the official unemployment rate will hover around 7.8 to 8.2 %).

    [4] Expands the Federal deficit to more than 24 trillion dollars.

    [5] Increasingly monetizes government debt with unsterilized printing by the Federal Reserve.

    [6] Watches the US dollar lose purchasing power hurting people on fixed incomes, retirees, and basically the 99% of the US population without any substantial real wealth.

    [7] Gets the US into a shooting war kinetic action in the middle east.

    [8] Protects the profits of the Wall Street Banksters by massive bailouts of Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, HSBC, Citibank, BoA, et al when GFC Mk II hits while transferring the costs of the bailouts to the American taxpayers – some of whom are yet to be born.

    [9] Expands the operations and remit of the Department of Homeland Security and ramps up actions against “homegrown terrorists” who happen to be US citizens under the remit of the NDAA of 2012, which allows for the unconstitutional apprehension, and indefinite internment of US citizens without the due process of law.

    [10] Watch as social security literally runs out of money – (more fed printing to fill the hole).

    [11] Watch as the MSM glosses over the issues, and put’s all the blame at the feet of George Bush…

    [12] (One for the Alarmists) Nothing will be done about Climate Change, and the US will continue to exploit cheap natural gas within the CONUS as this shift in energy use has enough momentum to be unaffected by politics (fingers crossed).

    and finally – the doozy…

    [13] Expands the operations of the Department of Justice to prosecute Bankers who evaporated more than 1.5 billion dollars of customers funds in the MF Global collapse (Nah just kidding – that will never happen, Obama bundler Jon Corzine is safe from any prosecution for another 4 years).

    There is nothing like having to drink your own champagne.


    Report this

    51

  • #
    pat

    watch your Super:

    7 Nov: Climate Spectator: John Wasik: Why you need a climate change portfolio
    Whether you believe in man-made global warming or not, it’s undeniable that trillions of dollars will be spent on technologies to address the collateral damage of climate change.
    Superstorm Sandy has just provided a tragic and devastating exclamation mark to the ongoing discussion of climate change and its link to extreme weather.
    There are a number of ways to invest in industries that are seeking solutions to climate-caused problems. Several global companies, insurers and institutional investors accepted the idea some time ago and are investing for the future. Even investors who haven’t signed on to the idea of man-made global warning may find some sectors or companies to like…
    Higher global temperatures translate into a greater intensity of hurricanes, floods, ocean storm surges and thunderstorms in certain regions while other areas will be hurt by droughts, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an international research group…
    Want to concentrate on a specialised strategy such as water delivery and reclamation? The PowerShares Global Water ETF holds water-oriented giants like Veolia Environnement and Waters Corp.
    For a broader approach that combines a global warming orientation with clean energy, consider the Market Vectors Alternative Energy ETF, which holds a variety of energy, water and utility companies…
    The Market Vectors Agribusiness ETF offers a sampling of agri-tech, fertilizer and processing companies like Archer-Daniels Midland…
    Clean technology includes solar panel makers like First Solar, while energy management includes giant engineering firms like Siemens AG and ABB Ltd…
    Companies like Roper Industries and ESCO Technologies are working on a new generation of electrical delivery systems that will make distributed power more reliable.
    Don’t expect any quick profits from any of these stocks or funds…
    http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/why-you-need-climate-change-portfolio


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    7 Nov: Climate Spectator: Tristan Edis: Obama and the loss of hope
    Even before the 2008 US Presidential election had concluded it seemed the US had turned the corner from the dark days of George W Bush on climate change issues.
    On one side you had John McCain who was not just in favour of pricing carbon, he’d actually co-drafted and introduced emissions cap and trade legislation into the Senate (The McCain-Lieberman Bill)…
    But then around mid-2006 it was just like a light switch was flicked-on and everything I’d been working towards was coming to fruition.
    State governments, like a wall of dominoes, had implemented renewable energy targets and then, just as we’d planned, John Howard’s hand was forced and this was converted to an enlarged national scheme. Solar PV was about to take off with an $8000 rebate, and prospects for solar hot water were also good with Malcolm Turnbull unveiling a $1000 rebate. We’d finally managed to get residential five star energy efficiency standards implemented and Victoria was going to introduce an energy efficiency target…
    And the crowning achievement of it all was that Prime Minister John Howard had finally rolled over and agreed to implementing a price on carbon (or as Tony Abbott refers to it – a carbon tax)…
    With economies across the developed world stuck in a rut, politicians are reluctant to make the kind of changes required for a carbon price to represent a credible signal for investors to shift towards low carbon assets. Instead it will be down to other measures like renewable energy and energy efficiency support policies to fill the breach…
    http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/obama-and-loss-hope

    tristan needs to read ronald bailey’s Reason Magazine article posted earlier:

    Reason: The Paradox of Energy Efficiency
    Why greener technology doesn’t translate into reduced energy consumption
    http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/31/the-paradox-of-energy-efficiency


    Report this

    20

  • #
  • #
    Huub Bakker

    The reason the betting odds are different from the popular vote numbers has to do with the crazy US electoral college system. It goes like this:

    There are 541 ‘seats’ distributed among the various States. Each State counts up the seats and declares a winner and then CASTS ALL THEIR SEATS FOR THAT PERSON. So if Obama won 9 seats out of 15 (say), all 15 seats would be counted for Obama. Only two States have constitutions that allow them to ‘split’ the votes.

    This means that the actual chances of winning the election depend heavily on particular States; in this case Ohio is pivotal. The popular vote, showing a 50:50 split, is a very poor indicator of the outcome.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    prepare to be scared and shocked over and over again in Hannam’s latest attempt to get the “carbon dioxide economy” up and running:

    7 Nov: SMH: Peter Hannam, Carbon Economy Editor:: Former UN official says climate report will shock nations into action
    THE next United Nations climate report will ”scare the wits out of everyone” and should provide the impetus needed for the world to finally sign an agreement to tackle global warming, the former head of the UN negotiations said.
    Yvo de Boer, the UN climate chief during the 2009 Copenhagen climate change talks, said his conversations with scientists working on the next report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggested the findings would be shocking.
    “That report is going to scare the wits out of everyone,” Mr de Boer said in the only scheduled interview of his visit to Australia. “I’m confident those scientific findings will create new political momentum.”…
    Mr de Boer, who is now special global advisor on climate change for KPMG, said the best prospect may be for nations to settle on targets that they write into their national laws, rather than a binding international deal…
    He said superstorm Sandy may spur more Americans, and people elsewhere, to consider the risks of climate change, but warned: “It’s a bit like being shocked into stopping smoking when you’ve been told you’ve got terminal cancer.”
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/former-un-official-says-climate-report-will-shock-nations-into-action-20121106-28w5c.html

    Wikipedia: Yvo de Boer
    In 2011, he was appointed to chair the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on Climate Change.
    Alongside his work for KPMG, de Boer is currently Professional Fellow at the University of Maastricht and is a certified mediator. He is a Member of the Board of the Centre for Clean Air Policy, a Council Member of the World Business Council on Sustainable Development (and co-chair of the taskforce on Climate and Energy), a member of the Green Growth Leaders, a member of the Capital Markets Climate Initiative steering group (established by UK Climate Minister Greg Barker), a Board Member of the Carbon Markets International Association, a member of the International Advisory Group of the Rotterdam Climate Initiative, as well as a Board member of the Carbon Markets International Association. Mr. de Boer received a knighthood from her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands in 2009 and the Dutch Climate Award in 2010…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yvo_de_Boer


    Report this

    10

  • #
    AndyG55

    Good luck , America.. Another 4 years of Obama.. you is gunna need it !!!!!


    Report this

    43

  • #
    P Dragone

    President Obama can now tackle climate change with vigour. He only has to look to Australia to see how it is done, although individual USA states have already have their own carbon trading schemes. Thank goodness the sensible people in the USA rejected the anti-science ideas of people incapable of understanding complex issues.

    Fear did not win today.


    Report this

    27

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Well said P

      It’s great to be on the winning team and it’s a compliment to your intelligence that you are able to recognise

      other like-minded people who are also capable of understanding complex issues.

      Go team!

      KK :)


      Report this

      12

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        For those who gave me a thumbs down.

        I agree fully with the 6 red thumbs above.

        As P says: “Fear did not win today”.

        No, it was Group Think that won, the wonderful green feeling of togetherness, even while you are heading to

        financial and social catastrophe.

        KK :)


        Report this

        00

  • #
    RoHa

    The election’s over.
    The incompetent beat the insane.
    Hooray.


    Report this

    41

  • #
    Juliar

    What I think this US Election shows is that Governments who create dream policies that can not be implemented get relected. Governments that don’t deliver at all and create a bigger mess get reelected. Governments who have leaders who are complete spin doctors, who make good speeches and who have a decent personality win elections. Countries that have overall media bias certainly do win elections. These issues take precedent over fiscal management and good policy. I am not endorsing the Republicans and their platform but Obama should have lost in a landslide today. This has worrying signs and parallels with Australian politics and the Coalition. Very worrying. There are so many parallels to Australia.


    Report this

    30

    • #
      inedible hyperbowl

      Agree with what you say Juliar, but with congress being republican, you can expect the worst of both for the next four years.
      Hopefully it will have taught the republicans that you cannot win presidential elections with junk candidates and you cannot win without some support from the MSM. They need to address both issues.
      In this election they assumed that Obama had done enough to lose.


      Report this

      10

    • #
      John Brookes

      Honestly, I think it was mainly “better the devil you know”.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Bite Back

    Bill O’Reily said it best on Fox News Channel even before the final vote could be known — people now feel entitled, they want stuff and they are voting for the one who promised them stuff. When 50 + percent want stuff they’re going to get stuff.

    We drank the Kool-Aid yesterday and are now going to have a hangover that will last a lot longer than the next 4 years.

    The country has taken a giant step away from its constitutional roots into uncharted territory where, if the constitution, the law or the courts are in your way, simply ignore the constitution, the law and the courts. This has been Obama’s course for his whole presidency and he will certainly continue it even more stridently. He will claim a mandate to do so. He will claim that his policies have been vindicated by the voters — and indeed they have been.

    The implications for the future are simply terrible.

    BB


    Report this

    20

    • #
      ExWarmist

      Free $hit army rules…


      Report this

      10

    • #
      ExWarmist

      Actually the corruption of the US constitution can be traced back to 1913 with the creation of the US Federal Reserve system. A system owned by a private banking cartel gains control of the creation of the US Currency in direct opposition to the US Constitution which requires that Congress be responsible for the currency,

      To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

      To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

      In the same year the US Federal government instituted personal income tax.

      A year later the first world war started, and the centre of world banking power shifted from London to New York, then in 1916 Woodrow Wilson campaigned for re-election on a no US involvement in WWI policy, and a month after being elected he had the US in the war.

      The period of time from 1913 to 1918 was a turning point for the US Republic as it shifted fully in to Empire mode later consolidated with triumph in the 2nd WW.

      The empire peaked in the 1950s, with imperial over-reach and the beginnings of the debt death spiral taking root with the Vietnam war during the 1960s.

      Nixon closed the Gold window in 1971 due to the drain of physical metal from US Vaults caused by the excessive spending required to keep the Vietnam war going, instituting the current full fiat monetary system that is now falling apart based on it’s own logical contradictions.

      Everyone with a life expectancy that reaches into 2030 will be in the path of this whirlwind.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    ExWarmist

    At 4:22 AM EST the markets are very much in the red. here

    The red will probably still be there when Aussies wake up to the day after the election of Mr Barack Obama for a 2nd term.

    I’m thinking of opening a book on how long it takes before the US Federal Reserve starts buying shares with freshly printed fiat – to raise asset prices for the 1% stimulate the economy…


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Adam Smith

    Obama wins and everyone here absolutely fucking loses their shit!

    [I've let this one go through just to show the erudite wisdom that we'd usually censor.
    Thanks Adam. How many years did it take you to get that PhD? - Jo]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    If Obama is a socialist, that means a majority of Americans just voted in favour of socialism.


    Report this

    11

    • #
      Jaymez

      See response to your comment at #41 Adam.

      In addition, it has been well known that a flaw in democracy occurs when the people realise they can vote for those who will give them the most benefits. Politicians love to give away stuff because that gets votes,they hate to make cuts. That isn’t socialism, it is stupid, short sighted fiscal management which will only end up badly for everyone and worse for the poor.


      Report this

      11

  • #
    Adam Smith

    It’s good to know that most Americans voted for a president who takes climate change seriously.


    Report this

    11

    • #
      Jaymez

      I assume you are being sarcastic Adam.

      Firstly because most eligible Americans didn’t vote. Roughly only about half the eligible voters voted and of those Obama got (based on today’s numbers) about 50.4% of the vote. So he got half of half the voters. That means about 25% of all voters supported Obama.

      Then you would have to subtract a huge proportion of the African American vote which had northing at all to do with policies, they voted for him entirely based on the colour of his skin! – something Dr Martin Luther King would be abhorred to have observed. Obama could have promised to bring in apartheid and they would have voted for him. Basically Obama got 94% – (5% of the black vote, Romney got zero. The balance presumably being informal!

      Finally you would have to question whether any Obama supporters voted for him based on any expectations about Climate Change since Obama failed to mention Climate Change in any of the three Presidential debates. But he has committed to developing the US oil and gas fields to help move towards energy independancy and has declared he won’t be signing up the US to Kyoto Mk II. So if you are saying Obama is taking Climate Change seriously, you are going to be terribly disappointed.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Mattb

    Worth a read
    “http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/11/trying-to-shoot-the-messenger/#more-13366″


    Report this

    00