Review: The World Without Us

My very-informative reaction to The World Without Us: ehh. My apologies to Juniper Pearl if she's still coming around here, but I feel the same way about this book as I did with Malcolm Gladwell's Blink - a decent magazine article has been overstretched to book length.

I've always thought it would be kind of cool to watch nature reconquer our civilized spaces, and there's a fun animation showing this at the book's website, but after a while the fascination with the idea fades away. And the book uses that idea mostly to show how badly we've screwed up the planet, which I guess is okay but depressing.

The book isn't bad. The part about the Korean Demilitarized Zone was interesting, as well as the potential danger from microparticles of plastic to ocean life. I think he's got a bit of a Jared Diamond problem though of covering too many subject areas to be completely accurate, without Diamond's high ratio of interesting ideas that makes up for occasional errors.

Worth skimming, I think, but I can't tell people to rush out to get it.

Will Stephen Johnson be rewarded by the fossil fuel industry?

One denialist argument is that scientists face tremendous pressure to support the mainstream view of climate change. The argument goes that those who support the mainstream will get the grants while those with skeptic opinions have no prospects for advancement (see this comment thread for an example).

I don't think that matches history - Einstein did pretty well in the world by overturning Newton, and quantum physicists seem to do well as they refute Einstein. Barry Marshall overturned the common belief that stress caused ulcers (a common belief being something different from a well-proven, established consensus) over a period of ten years, and has been showered with rewards since then.

Stephen Johnson, the US Environmental Protection Agency head doing everything he can stop greenhouse gas regulation, will be the next test of this idea when he steps down in 2009. While it's not scientific work of his that benefits the fossil fuel industries, it should demonstrate in general whether they reward people who help them. Talking Points Memo covers the latest from Johnson, delaying making official a finding that they've already been forced to conclude, in order to get "public comment."

The Bush Administration, which promised in the 2000 campaign to regulate carbon dioxide when Al Gore wasn't ready to go that far, has likely succeeded in stopping anything until a better presidency gets installed. We'll see if the fossil fuel industry rewards Johnson as their point man in this effort.

Putting Greenspan on the financial crisis team is like appointing Osama Bin Laden to 911 Commission*

This has got to be the worst idea Hillary Clinton's come up with:

She'd spoken on financial issues earlier in the day on the Penn campus, and she was pressed about one of her more controversial ideas: Naming Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, to what she called "a high-level emergency group" to deal with the problem of high risk mortgages
.....
But she was especially prodded on the choice of Greenspan. As some critics have pointed out, the former Fed chair was inactive as the housing bubble grew, and in fact seemed to encourage some of the bad practices that blew up in Wall Street's face. As noted here:

He said a Fed study suggested many homeowners could have saved tens of thousands of dollars in the last decade if they had ARMs. Those savings would not have been realized, however, had interest rates shot up.

"American consumers might benefit if lenders provided greater mortgage product alternatives to the traditional fixed-rate mortgage," Greenspan said.

So the Daily News asked, why Greenspan, that wasn't he off-base on the housing bubble, and here was her response:

"Not only that, but the Fed didn't act while he was there. But he has a calming influence still to this day on Wall Street -- don't ask me why because I never understand what he's saying -- but nevertheless people respond to that Delphic oracle approach. I think it would be wise to include him. And recently he's come out and vert smartly so that we have to deal with housing and maybe we need to have some kind of buyout mechanism for mortgages. So he's moved on his understanding and depth of the problem -- but you know you could pick three others. You just have to have some demonstrable involvement of presidential leadership...

So now we have John McCain saying he doesn't know much about the economy, and Hillary Clinton liking Greenspan even though she has no idea what he's saying -- God help the United States of America.

And Clinton tries this just as the mainstream media is finally reevaluating Greenspan's bloated reputation, years after it became obvious, with "Perhaps the Maestro composed some discordant notes after all." This Washington Post article finds the same February 2004 quote, but they need to keep working on the journalism thing. The article gives Greenspan the chance to claim he took back the "Yeah ARMs!" quote in March 2004. But that's not quite the whole story.

In an interview last year, Greenspan said he continued to support ARMs in March 2004, but for people buying homes for two to three years. This is different from saying he reverted to supporting fixed mortgages. More importantly, the only way that short-term purchases could make sense, given a double set of closing costs in a three year period, is if prices are continually going up. Greenspan's endorsement was an endorsement of a housing bubble.

Finally, in the Post article, Greenspan says "protection of property rights, so critical to a market economy, requires a critical mass of owners to sustain political support." Political manipulation wasn't his job, and shouldn't have been his job.

Adding, just one more thing - while Bernanke is far better than Greenspan, he was on the Federal Reserve Board before becoming chair, and was also Bush's former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors. Bernanke would make a list of the Top 100 People Most Responsible for our current crisis. Let's hope he does a better job of getting us out of it.


*Turns out that Dean Baker has a similar view of Clinton's idea.

Apples and oranges comparison of sacrificing today for a better future climate

One of the many silly arguments made by the climate delayers is that we shouldn't undertake financial costs today to improve the physical climate in 2050 or 2100, because those future societies will be richer than us. Climate change mitigation is taking from the poor present to give to wealthy future when really we should pollute, pollute, pollute, and be happy.

An interesting concept if applied across the board, and somewhat at odds with other moral precepts holding that we, the present, create future generations and have a moral obligation to improve their lot. Still, there's another reply that Felix Salmon came up with a while back:

the $400 billion cost will not be borne by all present citizens equally – it will be borne much more by the rich, who are the major consumers of energy. If you compare the wealth of the rich today to the wealth of future generations in general tomorrow, then the increase looks much smaller.

I'd add that the benefits, to the extent that it involves technology transfers to developing countries, can help present-day poor people (yes, I know the $400b could help today's poorest even more effectively than through clean tech, but that's a purely rhetorical argument since it won't actually be used for that purpose.)

The rest of Salmon's post is also good.

Via Brad DeLong.

They pay a price for being right about Iraq and the economy

Via Ezra, Jim Henley offers his musings on why he was right about Iraq five years ago. Henley could've helped out by linking to exactly when he gave the right arguments, but I scrolled through much of his March 2003 archive and he appears to be right for the right reasons (cost of occupation mainly, a little about doubts over WMDs).

I was thinking of writing my own little piece about how and why I went wrong and sat on the fence over Iraq in 2003, but linking to Henley is better. It's interesting that people who were wrong continue to get featured prominently, and people like Chris Hitchens who insanely insist they're not wrong also get prominence, but the people who were right are ignored. Dean Baker has made a similar point about the experts warning against the housing bubble and how they're still being ignored.

Anyway, I'm adding Henley to my blogroll, as the least I can do.

The Peak Oil hyperlink to watch (and I'm finally a believer)

Courtesy of the always-informative Peak Oil site, The Oil Drum, is this quarterly-updated link to liquid fuels production figures. Oil production is virtually unchanged since mid-2004, even though oil prices have quadrupled since 2002.

I finally found somewhat long-term comparison figures for oil prices and production, also at The Oil Drum (scroll to slides 12 and 13). Basically, production rose about 2% annually from 1983 to 2004 while price stayed the same in nominal terms and declined in real terms (the one exception is flat production from 1990-1994, but prices declined 30% then). It's very hard to look at those figures and not conclude that something different is happening to production now. I think we've hit the peak and I doubt we'll ever exceed these recent figures, barring some amazing technological breakthrough.

This doesn't necessarily mean a Mad-Max style future in a year or two though. If I owned oil reserves, which I unfortunately don't, I might look at this same info and conclude I could earn more money but slowly extracting my oil and letting most of it appreciate in the ground, than I could earn by opening the spigots and seeing what investment return rate I could get from the sale value of the oil. In other words, peak oil might be right about the end of increasing production, while being wrong about an immediate and accelerating dropoff in production. This scenario could still be painful though.

Peak oil could pose real risk to climate change solutions if coal-to-liquids gets off the ground. So far that seems like a pipe dream (pipe nightmare?), but we'll see.

UPDATE: Good comments attached to this post. In particular, Troy found a more current production update. It seems to show some recent production response to higher prices. I may have overstated things by saying production has already peaked, but I still think we're at least close to the peak, and consistent 2% increases in oil supply are part of the past.

So much for employee ownership

I used to think that employees owning the corporations they worked for was the potential solution to the problems of modern capitalism. This solution fails though when employee-owned (or partially-owned) companies go bankrupt, like Enron, or nearly bankrupt, like Bear Stearns, and the inevitable layoffs mean the employees lose both their assets and their income stream. Solving the Marxist problem of alienation between labor and capital isn't a feature, it's a bug.

The one exception might be when employees buy their company to keep it from going under. In this case the employees' capital is different from everyone else's, in that their investment can keep them employed. On the other hand, they may still lose their jobs in the end while also losing all the assets they plowed into a dying enterprise. So I'm not sure whether even this exception is a good idea.

Anyway, I'm watching the capital market implosion pretty closely. It's not looking good when the lefty economic blogs I read argue that it might not be possible to punish corporate managers who kill their financial enterprises because our financial system is so fragile right now.

California enviro justice groups should do some self-examination on climate change

One aspect of environmental justice theory is that environmental burdens fall disproportionately on poor minorities, and that environmental solutions designed by more powerful groups often fail to address or even exacerbate this disproportionality.

The classic examples is air pollution and trading pollution permits. Air pollution can affect powerful middle and upper class communities. Enviromental justice theory posits that here in the US, at least, politically powerful constituencies react to this problem by reducing pollution while reducing costs born by industries (and costs to the classes who have a stake in those industries) through trading pollution permits, so a polluting plant can continue operating while buying permits from cleaner operators. The effect: encouraging, or at least allowing, hot spots where permit-buying, polluting industries are located, usually next to poor minority communities. While this hot spot problem can be addressed, the usual failure to do so supports environmental justice's validity.

But then we've got The California Environmental Justice Movement’s Declaration on Use of Carbon Trading Schemes to Address Climate Change. The "California" part of the declaration should be in quotes - while I recognize a few of the signatory groups, many are new to me or aren't even from California. Basically it says that carbon trading hasn't worked well, that creating a "right to pollute" is immoral, and that carbon trading can create hot spots, so they oppose a carbon trading system in California.

Two problems with the declaration. First, nowhere does it acknowledge that there are no "hot spot" problems with CO2 emissions themselves - they diffuse quickly and cause warming on a global scale. All they can claim is that CO2 trading will not by itself help control copolluntants that are supposed to be controlled by other processes (and even that's not completely true - ratcheting down CO2 will inevitably help with other emissions, the only question is how fast it'll help).

The other problem is they haven't examined the environmental justice implications of their own proposals. Climate change is a classic environmental justice problem for people outside of developed regions like California. Subsistence farmers in developing nations are far poorer than the communities served by these groups in California (and also produce fewer emissions). Delaying a carbon trading program to address co-pollutants that are subject to separate regulations anyway could provide significant harm to people these groups have ignored, in favor of their better-off constituencies.

I suppose the groups would deny that argument by saying that carbon-trading just doesn't work, period. Fine, but that's a separate argument (one that I don't think they'll win) and not an enviro justice argument.

Too bad Communities for a Better Environment signed the declaration - they're a good group otherwise.

Geraldine Ferraro on wikipedia

I thought I'd look up Geraldine Ferraro on wikipedia to see what she's done since her unsuccessful vice-presidential run in 1984. Turns out it's running unsuccessfully for office and making boatloads of money.

Also found this:

Mondale's campaign was already far behind the Republican ticket when Ferraro joined the ticket, and one issue that hurt her credibility was her disclosure of her husband's tax returns. In July 1984, she said she would release both her and her husband's tax returns. Yet a month later she backtracked and said she would release only her returns. Then she backtracked again, saying her husband would release "a financial — a tax statement" on August 20. But she must not have consulted her husband, because Zaccaro initially refused.^[13]

Reminds me of a current controversy. Let's find out what the Clintons have in their returns before we get a similar problem.

UPDATE: Media Matters makes the excellent point that McCain hasn't released his returns either, while receiving much less scrutiny. Obama would be well-advised to go after both of them at the same time over this issue.

Scientists leaned towards warming in the 1970s

The climate denier argument, that scientists predicted massive cooling in the 1970s and therefore can't be trusted now, contradicted actual scientific opinion of the time. The National Academy of Sciences said in 1975 that "we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate."

Despite some hysterical media reports to the contrary at the time, it turns out that scientists were actually leaning toward warming. RealClimate reports that a survey of abstracts discussing future climate change from 1965 to 1979 found 7 abstracts predicting cooling, 42 predicting warming,* and 20 that were neutral. The 20 that were neutral probably doesn't add much information unless they expressly stated something like "we cannot make an accurate prediction as to climate change." The key issue is that for every one scientific paper predicting cooling, there were six that predicted the exact opposite.

These results should encourage us, in that climatology headed in the right direction from its infancy, without the massive modern research investment, much of a pre-existing scientific base, or even an instrumental record showing warming (temperatures slightly cooled from the 1940s to the early 1970s). It would be useful to confirm that the warming predictions were right for the right reasons - that the cumulative increase in greenhouse gas emissions would overcome the transitory and declining effect of aerosol pollution. That was likely the case though (page 4): "By 1978, the question of the relative role of aerosol cooling and greenhouse warming had been sorted out. Greenhouse warming, the researchers concluded, was the dominant forcing."

Andrew Dessler has raised an objection to research based on reviewing large number of abstracts, however. He points to an abstract he helped write as an example of one that only an expert in that climate subfield could understand as supporting or opposing the climate change consensus. Dessler argues that the best way to understand the science is to read the IPCC, an "expert synthesis" of the scientific viewpoint.

So is Dessler right? While the 1975 National Academy of Sciences report doesn't reach anything like the IPCC's depth, it still was an "expert synthesis," and its studied neutrality differs somewhat from the conclusion reached by reviewing abstracts (even after acknowledging the abstract review also covers a post-1975 period).

To a limited extent, Dessler has a point. People active in the field of work who can synthesize expert opinion can go into far greater depth than a review of abstracts. Despite that fact, the abstract review adds value. To the extent that the NAS report attempts to synthesize a consensus, I don't think the abstract review necessarily disagrees with it. The abstract review shows how the science was leaning, not a consensus. Being able to know that is valuable.

Reviewing abstracts may not be as fraught with error as Dessler fears. As a non-scientist reading Dessler's abstract, I miss a lot of it but still understand it to validate existing models for simulating water vapor in the atmosphere, and therefore supporting the consensus. A climate scientist, even one not an expert in that field, could follow much of the rest.

Finally, an abstract will clearly lay out the major conclusion of the research. Research that provides the umpteenth support for the widely-held consensus view is not a major conclusion, but a finding that contradicts the consensus will be a major conclusion, spelled out clearly in the abstract. An honest review of abstracts will likely detect deviations from consensus (some of the work on current abstracts haven't been honest), as well as all but the most-arcane implications. I'd guess that this review of abstracts from 1965-1979 will stand the test of time.

What hasn't stood the test of time on this issue is Newsweek's reporting in 1975, or its reporting on itself in 2006. The magazine claimed in 1975 that scientists were "almost unanimous" in a continuing trend towards cooling, and then claimed in 2006 that the science of the time was wrong but its own depiction of the state of science was accurate. Time for Newsweek to do another update.

More info on the abstract review is available here.


*RealClimate misstates the number as 44.

Obama should offer to help fund the MI and FL do-overs

As part of his keeping a moral high ground against HRC,* Obama should offer to help pay for the as yet uncertain, do-over mail-in primary/caucus in Florida and Michigan. His campaign should offer to help along with the help of the state and national Democratic parties, and help from Clinton. When Clinton refuses, Obama can offer to help pay anyway and look that much better.

Even if Hillary ultimately wins those states, and Michigan would be difficult for her, her margin couldn't possibly be enough to make a difference, and it's a better gamble than dealing with the damage she'll cause as she tries to push through delegates from uncontested elections. And of course there's always the "it's the right thing to do" argument.

I noticed James Carville likes this idea too, which makes me wary. I'll stick with it anyway.


*At least he's mostly followed the high road. I hate those Fear-of-a-Health-Mandate mailers his campaign keeps sending out, but still he's done a better job.

Hot Sox versus the Cold Sox: the baseball analogy for climate communication

Some people have trouble understanding the low signal-to-noise ratio over the short term period of a decade or so during the current climate change. While the loudest ones shouting about the currently-cold January likely already understand the issue but don't care about the truth, some people can be persuaded. For these people, baseball is a good analogy - even a casual baseball fan understands in a single game, the worse team sometimes beats the better one, and only in the long run do you get to know the truth.

So comparing a recent time period to an older one is like looking at a matchup between two baseball teams, the Hot Sox and the Cold Sox. The Global Warming Baseball Analogy is that the Hot Sox has been gradually improving the quality of its players relative to the Cold Sox, so Hot is tending to win against Cold. Comparing a single matchup of a recent year to an older one is just like looking at a single baseball game - one game alone has only a slight chance of reflecting which is the better team. And to compare one month like January to the past is like judging two baseball teams based on a single inning. It doesn't prove anything.

And anyway, as Deltoid points out in the link above, January 2007 was the warmest January ever. The same people screaming about the drop relative to January 2008 usually scream about 1998 being warmer than recent years (according to some instrumental records). However, January 2007 was warmer than January 1998. If the skeptics deny this is important, then it can only be because comparing two January months is insufficient to prove anything.

I'd agree with them, so then we can quit the useless comparison to January 2008, and I'd extend it to saying comparing 1998 to 2008 is almost as useless. Multiyear averaging gives the validity of longer-term stats that a baseball fan would understand. Five-year averaging (graph at the Deltoid link) has been going upward with only slight interruptions ever since the 1970s, and 1998 didn't change that upward trend.

Bay Area local: Spocko collects Melanie Morgan's scalp

No one's giving Spocko credit for the firing of third-tier wingnut Melanie Morgan from right-wing talk radio station KSFO here in the Bay Area, but he's done more to track the dreck coming out of there than anyone else I know of, and he fed it to the bigger media-tracking outlets. Maybe the firing was primarily for financial reasons, but her nonsense (some of it mentioned at the second link) may also have made her more trouble than she was worth. Good work - she's now much less likely to follow Michael Savage as a local export poisoning the rest of the country.

The funny thing about KSFO is on weekend mornings they have great radio shows about gardening and home repair. They should do that stuff all the time, I genuinely like it.

Via Atrios.

Time to Goeglein the climate denialists?

Tim Goeglein, a fairly-important Bush White House aide, committed at least 20 acts of plagiarism over the last 8 years, only to lose his job several hours after one blogger caught one act of plagiarism (synopsis here, the post that started it with a fascinating comment thread is here).

I think many climate denialists don't believe what they're saying or at least are willing to be deceptive to push their opinion. If their ethics allow deception, they might have taken the next step of intellectual theft. We need to check them out for plagiarism. I think Steve Milloy is the most likely, although I don't have any proof of it, just a feeling.

How to check denialists out in a coordinated fashion so we don't re-cover old ground is a bit of a problem. All I can think of is to put a notice on their Wikipedia Talk page about what articles have been checked. Any other suggestions would be welcome.

Apparently Doonesbury had a cartoon during Watergate where investigators wished that Nixon would just rob a bank, as that was the only way to get him. I kind of feel like this idea is the same thing. But they may have actually done it, like Goeglein.

UPDATE: Walter Williams provides hilarious comments in defense of Goeglein at the link above. Turns out he's a climate denialist. The circle is complete.

UPDATE 2: In comments, John Mashey points to Tim Lambert's discovery that Klaus-Martin Schulte plagiarized Benny Peiser (of all people) and Chris Monckton. It doesn't seem to have made enough of a splash, but hopefully will make any reputable journal steer clear of Schulte.

What the Clinton campaign should have done (it's not what everyone says)

I mostly agree with this Ezra Klein post that beyond the issue of the Clinton campaign and its tactics is the issue of Clinton the Senator, who worked only on small-bore legislation instead of leading high-profile fights that would have made her the candidate of change.

Still, tactics also play their role, and I disagree with the conventional wisdom that the campaign's mistake was in its failure to put sufficient resources and time into the post-February 5th contests, where Obama has picked up unstoppable momentum. This argument seems to believe the money and time spent on the later contests would have come out of thin air, when in fact it would have reduced her position in the earlier contests and give Obama more momentum and "hope" in the later fights.

You don't beat a phenomenon by outlasting it, your only chance is to snuff it in the bud. The Clinton campaign's mistake was in not diverting more resources to the pre-February 5th campaigns, especially Iowa. Had she gone all-out there and won, combined with her New Hampshire win, it could have been different. African-Americans only switched to Obama when he had proven himself viable, so in this scenario she might have kept South Carolina and the campaign would have been over.

It probably wouldn't have worked, and then everyone would say it was stupid not to plan for a long campaign and I'd have no effective response, but I think the odds are better than the odds Clinton now faces.

As for why I posted on February 7th that Obama would win when most of analyses I read seemed to think Clinton had done well - Obama fought her to a draw when people knew her the best and him the least. I thought people tended to like Obama more as they heard him more and got used to him as presidential material. The average voters in later contests have more time to get exposed to him, so I felt he would keep doing better. I'm not sure that this is the right reason, but it does seem like the right prediction.

Grass-fed versus irrigated-pasture cattle

There are important climate-related reasons to eat less meat, as well as other environmental reasons for cutting back. My somewhat-defensive, omnivore's response is that grass-fed cattle can be comparable or even superior to plants as a food source since it doesn't necessarily involve changing land from a closer-to-natural state. (Yes, the vast majority of cattle in the US and much of the cattle in other developed countries are grain-fed.)

There's a complication to my argument. Grass-fed cattle could also be grazing in irrigated pasture. Here in Santa Clara County, there are thousands of acres of irrigated pasture. That type of pasture is only somewhat more valuable as habitat than lawns or farms, and water use could be significant (I'm not sure how it compares to typical farm use).

So the ideal beef is from grass-fed, non-irrigated pasture cattle. When can we get the labeling for that?

John McCain also loaned money to his campaign (in 1982)

Turns out that McCain also delved into murky area of loaning money to his campaign, albeit in 1982. He loaned $167,000 from his wife's fortune to break into politics and win a contested Republican primary in an open seat. That's $376,000 in today's dollars, and has the same ethical problem of subsequent campaign donations repaying the loan and going directly into his pocket. Arizona Democrats looking to dig up some dirt on McCain might research who donated money to his campaign after he won the primary - the district was heavily Republican, so any donations from that point on until the debt was paid, had the sole effect of going into McCain's bank account.

McCain had no other tough Congressional or Senate contests, so I doubt he loaned money again. I was able to check FEC records for his 2000 and 2008 presidential campaigns, and no personal loans are listed.

I suppose it's also worthwhile to ask whether Obama loaned money to any of his early campaigns.

Recognizing Kosovo's independence was a bad idea

So many organizations are called "Friends of __", but I've wanted to start something called "Enemies of Symbolism." People commit so much stupidity with heartbreaking results for no other reason than the symbolism of the act. The current case in point is Kosovo.

Kosovo already had de facto independence, or could acquire any other aspect of sovereignty short of de jure independence simply by threatening to declare independence. But instead they wanted the symbolism of declared independence. It doesn't make sense, and even if it did, it would make more sense to wait another five, ten, fifteen years to let the fact of actual independence sink in less painfully.

I can't blame the Kosovars too much, given the brutal oppression they experienced, but we foreigners had to then take the next symbolic step of recognizing their independence. The price so far is only one person dead in the Belgrade riots, but the real flash point is northern, Serb-majority portion of Kosovo.

I can't see any justification for Kosovo independence that doesn't also justify reuniting the Serb-majority part of Kosovo with Serbia.

Meanwhile, Jonathan Kulick at SameFacts has two mistaken posts in a row about this issue. The second post attempts to make an argument, denying that recognizing Kosovo provides supports to the approximately one billion other separatist movements on the planet, and labels this comment as "apposite":

"The problem is after granting independence to Kosova (which is possibly an economically unsustainable unit as a state in any case) what do you say tomorrow to Rspblika Srpska in Bosnia?"

Go f*** yourselves.

Recent history matters in terms of international sympathy.

Well, that's just great. Next step in our moral evolution after having people die for symbolic reasons is to impose collective punishment. I'd expect that over 70% of the Bosnian Serbs weren't military-age males and well over 95% of the population is innocent of war crimes. Very apposite.

If Exxon can lie, then so can I

Not much climate blogging out there on this issue: Exxon-Mobil did a significant blogger outreach over a year ago, promising to stop lying about climate change by funding climate denialists. I had some doubts about it. Turns out I wasn't doubtful enough. Environmental Law Prof Susan Smith has the goods (and she's not happy at being taken in herself). Exxon gave $180,000 to Frontiers of Freedom, a denialist astroturf group in 2006, when they said they stopped doing that. Smith lays out the denialist nonsense that FoF comes up with.

To be generous to Exxon, maybe they decided to stop lying through funding in the middle of 2006 after giving away the money, and were just inexact in their January 2007 discussion. We'll see what they disclose for 2007 donations, then.

Enough with Exxon's lies, what about mine? I said I'd stop writing about Hillary Clinton's $5m loan. Ha! Via emailer Jeff, Matt Yglesias and Ben Smith are still on the issue. Smith found out that Clinton's charging 1.26% interest on her loan, apparently unheard of even in the murky world of candidates loaning money to their campaigns (UPDATE: turns out it's not unheard of, Kerry charged a far higher rate to his own campaign in 2004). I posted this comment at Yglesias' site:

What's interesting to me though is that [the interest] may set up HRC to treat non-payment of the loan, should she decide to forget about getting repaid, as a capital loss to set off against her other capital gains.

In other words, if she just gave $5m to her campaign, she's $5m poorer. But instead, if she loans the money following IRS regs for arms-length below-interest loans, and decides later to not get paid, she writes off $5m against any capital gains she and Bill make in the tax year. Bill's cashing out of a partnership, so he'll have a lot of capital gains. Not a bad way to get $1m-plus tax benefit off her donation. The rest of us get no tax writeoffs from political donations.

I'm just speculating though. A tax specialist/accountant should really look into this.

Obama winning the space race

I've got no idea who will win the primary race today in Wisconsin, but I definitely agree with Matt Yglesias and disagree with Chris Bowers that Obama is winning the space race against Clinton by de-emphasizing the human spaceflight program.

Specifically, Obama has called for delaying the over-budget Constellation mission to return to the moon (with a vague pretense of eventually going to Mars), in order to fund math and science education. As Yglesias correctly points out, Bowers' counter-argument points to the science benefits of the useful, unmanned space program to argue for human spaceflight which has almost no science value (doing it an additional time here, too). In fact the budget overruns from manned spaceflight meant "we took a couple of billion out of [unmanned space] science" in the words of NASA Administrator Mike Griffin. So if you like the science results that Bowers points to, you should support Obama.

Bowers tries to come up with non-science reasons for human spaceflight, and it's just the same vague nothings that I see all the time on the space websites. Yglesias tries to give developing countries reasons to put people in space, but I think resource-constrained societies have much better things to do with money than throw it away. If they want to spend money on high-tech, do clean energy. Or, get involved in aviation. China could have built a competitor to Boeing with the money they burned to put a couple guys into orbit. Was that a good expense?

Meanwhile, Obama has taken a lot heat from the space nuts who like our useless human spaceflight program. Not the hugest possible difference in the world, but it does take some guts to take on the political patronage involved in NASA.