A Romney win: 53 to 47 in the popular vote; 295 to 243 in the Electoral College.
I give Romney the obvious states plus Colorado, Ohio, New Hampshire, Iowa, and Wisconsin.
I’m a reluctant Romney supporter: I favored Ron Paul in the primaries, and I am doubtful that Romney and Ryan understand the magnitude of the task they face – an unsound monetary system, a “dependency society” that cannot possibly survive long-term, an over-extended system of global military and geopolitical commitments, a culture vehemently opposed to serious learning, a chattering class committed to fads ranging from “Waiting for Superman” to catastrophic climate change (yes, as a physicist, I know that the globe has warmed, but it is an open scientific question as to how large future warming will be), etc.
I’m not sure the Governor and the Congressman have the courage and insight to turn this around, much less the political skill to bring the country with them.
I do wish Romney the best, if he wins, just as I sincerely wished Obama the best when he won.
So, if I am not a fierce Romney partisan, why do I think he will dramatically outperform the polls?
Four reasons:
Turnout and the polls: the most important reason. I’ve followed the debates from Fox to MSNBC, and, as a guy who loves the number-crunching game (I had a great time in 2000 running the numerical extrapolations in my head and seeing that the networks were clearly wrong both when they called the election for Gore and when they called it for Bush – this really is my idea of fun!), I think that the skeptics have the better case: I.e., the polls seem to be substantially over-weighting Democrats.
Enthusiasm. Both the polls and the anecdotal reportage from journalists, along with my own personal observations, show a lot more enthusiasm for the GOP. It’s hugely different from ’08: I only talked to one acquaintance in ’08 who was enthusiastic for McCain.
Late deciders. When an incumbent has trouble getting to fifty percent in the polls, common sense and historical experience suggest that late deciders (who are these people?) are not likely to discover that they really do like the incumbent after being unable to decide for four years.
The Bradley effect. For some reason, a small number of voters seem to like to tell pollsters that they are going to vote for a black guy and then do the opposite (the “effect” is named for what happened to the black Democratic candidate for governor out here in California, Tom Bradley, back in the ’80s). This seems bizarre to me, but it does seem to happen.
The last two effects are no doubt pretty small this year – there are, after all, few late deciders. And, enthusiasm can be grossly misleading: after all, McGovern had lots of enthusiasm and “Tricky Dick” Nixon had very little – I remember it well.
So, in the end, it is the issue of turn-out models, as assumed in the polls, versus who really turns out tomorrow.
And, while those who are skeptical of the polls seem, to me, to have the stronger statistical arguments, no one really knows.
A lot of people will turn out to be really wrong, including, perhaps, me.
(However, if I am right, I wonder if the New York Times will fire Nate Silver and hire me!)
I predict the GOP will pick up three seats in the Senate, which will tie the upper house, with the new Vice-President holding the tie-breaking vote. I.e., I think Romney will have short coattails.
And, I think the GOP will lose five seats in the House – the blowout election in 2010 blew in some weak winners, a few of whom are likely to lose tomorrow.
After we find out whose predictions are right and whose are wrong, we will face the real problems: Bernanke has printed a huge amount of money that should ignite a firestorm of inflation when the recovery really starts moving. A robust recovery will help the deficit situation a bit, but there are structural problems that are pushing the federal government towards bankruptcy – and, unfortunately, the entire world monetary, financial, and economic systems are closely tied to the securities (i.e., debt) issued by the United States government.
And, underlying it all, the culture: a century of frivolity, irresponsibility, and unbelievable mendacity not just in the popular culture but especially among the intellectuals – the “serious” media, the universities, the “social scientists,” etc.
If Romney wins, he has not only my best wishes but also my condolences. He may have taken on an impossible task.
I hope he will prove me wrong.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
The End of American Hegemony?
Bye-Bye, Copenhagen and Obama; Hello, Beijing!
Much of the discussion of the collapse of the Copenhagen Climate Summit has missed the real story: the collapse of the climate conference symbolizes a significant turning point in world history, not simply because of the issue of global warming, but rather because it represents the collapse of American leadership in the world.
I pointed out shortly before the conference began that the Chinese had clearly determined beforehand to reject the proposals of the United States and its allies (“a major offensive on rich nations at the Copenhagen conference on climate change,” to quote the exact words used by The Times of India ) and that the Chinese had put together an international coalition able and willing to advance their goals.
The course of the Conference was indeed controlled by the Chinese: the UK Prime Minister whined that the Western powers were “held to ransom by only a handful of countries” led by China.
And, the President of the United States was treated with contempt.
In a report by NBC News environmental correspondent Anne Thomspon on the final day of the Conference, December 18, 2009, President Obama referred to the Chinese proposal by saying, “That doesn’t make sense. It would be a hollow victory.”
Changhua Wu, China Director for the Climate Group, brusquely dismissed Obama’s statement by sharply declaring, “It’s not only an attack; it’s humiliating to a certain level.”
The full extent of the humiliation suffered by the American President was described by Ms. Thompson:
Thompson summed up the President’s experience by declaring:
What does this have to do with homeschooling?
As I pointed out recently, we Westerners view and teach history as if the ascendancy of the West during the last several centuries was natural and inevitable.
The perspective from much of Asia is rather different: the period of Western ascendancy seems a peculiar but brief historical anomaly that is ending now that Asia is reasserting its natural supremacy.
The real issue here is not partisan politics, Barack Obama’s personal political skills, or even global climate. What we observed in Copenhagen is a reassertion of Asia’s sense of its natural superiority over the West, and the collapse of the United States’ position as the natural, and generally acknowledged, leader of the world.
Twenty years from now, the whole Copenhagen fiasco, possibly the whole issue of “global warming,” will be a distant memory, rather like earlier environmentalist frauds such as the supposedly disastrous “population explosion”: try reading the 1968 best-seller The Population Bomb by Stanford Professor Paul Ehrlich and his wife, and have a laugh over how ludicrously wrong their prophecies turned out to be (I myself actually read Ehrlich’s book a year after it was published at the urge of my high-school history teacher, so I can remember how serious people once took Ehrlich seriously).
However, while the Copenhagen conference may strike our grandchildren as ancient history, the collapse of American preeminence and the rise of Asia will strike our grandchildren as very real. At some level, this is no doubt inevitable: the physical size of Asia and the fact that the majority of the human race lives in Asia means that Asia was always destined to be of key historical importance.
Of course, the foolishly irresponsible financial, educational, political, and environmental decisions pursued by the American political and cultural elite make the American decline even more certain and, potentially, catastrophic.
But, however one views the decline of the United States of America and of the West in general, it is of historic importance, and it is clearly illuminated by the collapse of US influence at Copenhagen.
The news of the last few days makes a very good history lesson for us homeschoolers to discuss with our kids.
I pointed out shortly before the conference began that the Chinese had clearly determined beforehand to reject the proposals of the United States and its allies (“a major offensive on rich nations at the Copenhagen conference on climate change,” to quote the exact words used by The Times of India ) and that the Chinese had put together an international coalition able and willing to advance their goals.
The course of the Conference was indeed controlled by the Chinese: the UK Prime Minister whined that the Western powers were “held to ransom by only a handful of countries” led by China.
And, the President of the United States was treated with contempt.
In a report by NBC News environmental correspondent Anne Thomspon on the final day of the Conference, December 18, 2009, President Obama referred to the Chinese proposal by saying, “That doesn’t make sense. It would be a hollow victory.”
Changhua Wu, China Director for the Climate Group, brusquely dismissed Obama’s statement by sharply declaring, “It’s not only an attack; it’s humiliating to a certain level.”
The full extent of the humiliation suffered by the American President was described by Ms. Thompson:
For thirteen hours, the President went from room to room, meeting with various world leaders, trying to figure out what they could agree on. Frustrations reached a crescendo when, waiting to meet with the Chinese Premier and Brazil’s leader, Obama found out they were already meeting and walked in uninvited.The President of the United States was left waiting by the Chinese because they were meeting with the leadership of Brazil. And he managed to get in to the meeting only by barging in “uninvited.”
Thompson summed up the President’s experience by declaring:
The final agreement, which even the most optimistic environmental groups called insufficient, left the President clearly exhausted and dejected.Exhausted and dejected indeed.
What does this have to do with homeschooling?
As I pointed out recently, we Westerners view and teach history as if the ascendancy of the West during the last several centuries was natural and inevitable.
The perspective from much of Asia is rather different: the period of Western ascendancy seems a peculiar but brief historical anomaly that is ending now that Asia is reasserting its natural supremacy.
The real issue here is not partisan politics, Barack Obama’s personal political skills, or even global climate. What we observed in Copenhagen is a reassertion of Asia’s sense of its natural superiority over the West, and the collapse of the United States’ position as the natural, and generally acknowledged, leader of the world.
Twenty years from now, the whole Copenhagen fiasco, possibly the whole issue of “global warming,” will be a distant memory, rather like earlier environmentalist frauds such as the supposedly disastrous “population explosion”: try reading the 1968 best-seller The Population Bomb by Stanford Professor Paul Ehrlich and his wife, and have a laugh over how ludicrously wrong their prophecies turned out to be (I myself actually read Ehrlich’s book a year after it was published at the urge of my high-school history teacher, so I can remember how serious people once took Ehrlich seriously).
However, while the Copenhagen conference may strike our grandchildren as ancient history, the collapse of American preeminence and the rise of Asia will strike our grandchildren as very real. At some level, this is no doubt inevitable: the physical size of Asia and the fact that the majority of the human race lives in Asia means that Asia was always destined to be of key historical importance.
Of course, the foolishly irresponsible financial, educational, political, and environmental decisions pursued by the American political and cultural elite make the American decline even more certain and, potentially, catastrophic.
But, however one views the decline of the United States of America and of the West in general, it is of historic importance, and it is clearly illuminated by the collapse of US influence at Copenhagen.
The news of the last few days makes a very good history lesson for us homeschoolers to discuss with our kids.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
The Collapse of the Global-Warming Fraud?
The Times of India reports that the rising Asian powers have decided to reject the attempts by the United States and Europe to stifle the global economy in the name of the global-warming fraud:
Until there is real scientific evidence – all we have now are the results of deeply flawed computer models – that is the only sensible approach.
The times they are a’changin’ – who’d have thought, a few decades ago, that India and China would be teaching the West the virtues of common sense and the dangers of over-regulation of market economics?
I also recommend a wonderfully fair and balanced discussion of Climategate on the Freakonomics blog: Steve Dubner points out that, quite aside from all the sound and fury over the whistleblower's publishhing of the CRU e-mails, “the central scientific issue here” is:
At The Atlantic, Clive Crook explains why he is more outraged now that he has waded through the leaked CRU e-mails than he expected to be:
Now, reports indicate that the original raw data, absolutely vital to judging the scientific validity of CRU's global-climate work, have been either "lost' or, possibly, intentionally destroyed.
Obviously, the e-mail from Jones raises the possibility that he carried out his plan and actually did intentionally delete the vital information, perhaps to cover up scientific malfeasance.
If anyone ends up going to jail for all this, the destruction of data to illegally evade "freedom of information" requests may be the reason.
Anyone who wants to get their hands dirty actually digging through the leaked documents might start at the blog Shadow of the Olive Tree, which has kindly posted the infamous "Harry Read Me" file for everyone's enlightenment.
Let me emphasize once again that of course the CO2 we have dumped into the atmosphere will almost certainly make the world at least a bit warmer than it otherwise would have been. And, yes, this might be a big problem.
But, it might not be a problem at all. It might even be beneficial if, perchance, we are entering a natural cooling period.
We just don’t know.
The fraud comes not from those who claim that global warming might happen and that it might be a problem. The fraud is from the handful of scientists, and the large number of scientific illiterates in the mass media, who keep saying that it is “settled science” that global warming will be huge and hugely damaging.
That is not settled science. The fraud of global warming consists of the false claim that global warming will be a major problem when neither the empirical data nor the deeply flawed computer models are yet able to indicate how large global warming will actually be.
In a way, the CRU gang have become the fall guys for a much larger scandal: yes, we know from the published e-mails that the CRU guys played nasty little unprofessional games to silence their critics, that they were more concerned with protecting their turf than with advancing science, and that they are incredibly poor computer programmers.
But the real scandal is the larger group of climate modelers around the world who have falsely claimed to know how big a problem global warming will be when they do not really know at all but are simply relying on very dicey computer models.
Over my career, I have been involved with numerous computer simulations, ranging from elementary-particle physics detectors to satellite-communication systems. No responsible scientist fully trusts such simulations until they have been well validated by experimental data.
The global-warming simulations are more speculative, less embedded in accepted science, than the simulations I have worked on. Yet, the global-warming simulations have not been validated by making detailed, unambiguous predictions and then rigorously checking those predictions against reality.
This is not science: it is pseudo-science.
The real fraud in the area of global warming is the covering up of this fact by the mass media, by the political establishment, and by so many climate scientists themselves.
(See also my September post, published before the current scandal broke, explaining why the global-warming scam is fraudulent, and my previous post on the Climategate scandal.)
In an unprecedented move, India on Saturday joined China and two other developing countries to prepare for a major offensive on rich nations at the Copenhagen conference on climate change next month.No “legally binding emission targets” means, of course, that they will wait and see if global warming turns out to be a real problem (and, yes, that is possible) or if it turns out to be of little consequence (and, yes, that too is possible) before agreeing to any action of any real substance.
The four countries, which include Brazil and South Africa, agreed to a strategy that involves jointly walking out of the conference if the developed nations try to force their own terms on the developing world, Jairam Ramesh, the Indian minister for environment and forests (independent charge), said.
“We will not exit in isolation. We will co-ordinate our exit if any of our non-negotiable terms is violated. Our entry and exit will be collective,” Ramesh told reporters in Beijing…
...
The developing nations will also not accept any pressure from developed countries to establish legally binding emission targets at Copenhagen.
Until there is real scientific evidence – all we have now are the results of deeply flawed computer models – that is the only sensible approach.
The times they are a’changin’ – who’d have thought, a few decades ago, that India and China would be teaching the West the virtues of common sense and the dangers of over-regulation of market economics?
I also recommend a wonderfully fair and balanced discussion of Climategate on the Freakonomics blog: Steve Dubner points out that, quite aside from all the sound and fury over the whistleblower's publishhing of the CRU e-mails, “the central scientific issue here” is:
that the most prominent climate scientists’ computerized models may be neither as robust nor as predictive as many people think…He goes on to quote from my fellow physicists Nathan Myhrvold (of Microsoft fame) and Lowell Wood, explaining why the computer models should not be trusted.
At The Atlantic, Clive Crook explains why he is more outraged now that he has waded through the leaked CRU e-mails than he expected to be:
The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering. And, as Christopher Booker argues, this scandal is not at the margins of the politicised IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] process. It is not tangential to the policy prescriptions emanating from what David Henderson called the environmental policy milieu [subscription required]. It goes to the core of that process.Perhaps what Crook had particularly in mind was CRU head Phil Jones' allegedly declaring:
...
I'm also surprised by the IPCC's response. Amid the self-justification, I had hoped for a word of apology, or even of censure. (George Monbiot called for Phil Jones to resign, for crying out loud.) At any rate I had expected no more than ordinary evasion. The declaration from Rajendra Pachauri that the emails confirm all is as it should be is stunning. Science at its best. Science as it should be. Good lord. This is pure George Orwell. And these guys call the other side "deniers".
The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone...The “two MMs” are mathematician Steve McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick, two Canadians who have been trying to uncover the details of the global-warming fraud for the last several years
Now, reports indicate that the original raw data, absolutely vital to judging the scientific validity of CRU's global-climate work, have been either "lost' or, possibly, intentionally destroyed.
Obviously, the e-mail from Jones raises the possibility that he carried out his plan and actually did intentionally delete the vital information, perhaps to cover up scientific malfeasance.
If anyone ends up going to jail for all this, the destruction of data to illegally evade "freedom of information" requests may be the reason.
Anyone who wants to get their hands dirty actually digging through the leaked documents might start at the blog Shadow of the Olive Tree, which has kindly posted the infamous "Harry Read Me" file for everyone's enlightenment.
Let me emphasize once again that of course the CO2 we have dumped into the atmosphere will almost certainly make the world at least a bit warmer than it otherwise would have been. And, yes, this might be a big problem.
But, it might not be a problem at all. It might even be beneficial if, perchance, we are entering a natural cooling period.
We just don’t know.
The fraud comes not from those who claim that global warming might happen and that it might be a problem. The fraud is from the handful of scientists, and the large number of scientific illiterates in the mass media, who keep saying that it is “settled science” that global warming will be huge and hugely damaging.
That is not settled science. The fraud of global warming consists of the false claim that global warming will be a major problem when neither the empirical data nor the deeply flawed computer models are yet able to indicate how large global warming will actually be.
In a way, the CRU gang have become the fall guys for a much larger scandal: yes, we know from the published e-mails that the CRU guys played nasty little unprofessional games to silence their critics, that they were more concerned with protecting their turf than with advancing science, and that they are incredibly poor computer programmers.
But the real scandal is the larger group of climate modelers around the world who have falsely claimed to know how big a problem global warming will be when they do not really know at all but are simply relying on very dicey computer models.
Over my career, I have been involved with numerous computer simulations, ranging from elementary-particle physics detectors to satellite-communication systems. No responsible scientist fully trusts such simulations until they have been well validated by experimental data.
The global-warming simulations are more speculative, less embedded in accepted science, than the simulations I have worked on. Yet, the global-warming simulations have not been validated by making detailed, unambiguous predictions and then rigorously checking those predictions against reality.
This is not science: it is pseudo-science.
The real fraud in the area of global warming is the covering up of this fact by the mass media, by the political establishment, and by so many climate scientists themselves.
(See also my September post, published before the current scandal broke, explaining why the global-warming scam is fraudulent, and my previous post on the Climategate scandal.)
Monday, September 7, 2009
What Barack Should Tell the Schoolkids
Here’s what President Obama should tell the schoolkids on Tuesday if he really wants to help solve the problems in American education:
Of course, that kind of courage would require that Barack have a backbone. And there is no evidence that he does.
Since I’m supposed to be the leader of this country, I’m gonna give you guys some straight talk. The grown-ups in this country are ruining you kids’ lives. Your teachers have been trained to make sure you don’t learn anything interesting or challenging; half of your teachers should never have been allowed to graduate from grade school themselves. Your parents want you to end up just as stupid and ignorant as they are: they’re really afraid you might actually end up smart, which is why they make fun of smart folks by calling them “nerds.”Kids would be pretty startled to hear someone telling them the truth about education for the first time. But they'd listen. And they might even believe him.
So, here’s what you gotta do: fight back! Hard. Force your parents to take you a couple times a week to the biggest library in your town. Go through the books on science and history and math. You’ll find that most of them are just as full of empty words as your schoolbooks. But, if you look carefully, you’ll find a few that tell you the truth. When you find one of those books that tells you the truth, read it, and work hard to understand it.
It’s not gonna be easy, because no one ever taught you to understand books that tell you real stuff. But there are books that tell you the truth about how people create computers and bridges and medicines and airplanes and skyscrapers. The grown-ups don’t want you to learn that stuff, because then you’ll be smarter than most of the grown-ups and then the grown-ups will feel like fools. You just show ‘em.
And you can find books that tell you the truth about all the grown-up leaders, too – how Presidents fought wars for no reason, lied just to keep power, and stole as much money as they could get their hands on. The grown-ups don’t want you to know that either. They want you to grow up to be suckers, just like they have been.
Knowledge is power, guys. You wanna be poor, ignorant fools like your parents, or you wanna fight back?
Your choice.
Good luck
Of course, that kind of courage would require that Barack have a backbone. And there is no evidence that he does.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
