Finally a Walter E Williams column

https://www.pilotonline.com/opinion/columns/vp-ed-columnist-williams-1123-20191123-owhlb6sbl5hiho2po2fzhuljom-story.html

Apparently something good will come from the merger of the Pilot and the Daily Press. Williams is my favorite living economist.

8 thoughts on “Finally a Walter E Williams column

  1. Maybe he should stick to economics. His palpably ignorant cherry-picking through environmental matters is patently ridiculous.

    Just, for example, climate scientists are not surprised to learn that sea levels were much lower when most of the northern hemisphere was covered by two miles of glaciers. Williams seems to think that this is something they have ignored.

    Or, another bit of nonsense – The number of forest fires in the United States have been greatly reduced from the levels of the 1930’s. So, gosh, how could climate change be a factor in current fires. Maybe Williams is not aware of advances in forest fire prevention, detection and control during the last 80 years?

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Yeah, he lost me in that first paragraph. Does Mr. Williams not remember that in the 1930s: (1) we had a little thing called the Great Depression going on, and (2) most homes, especially in rural forested areas, were still heated by wood stoves and/or fireplaces and cooking was still done by wood burning stoves? Of course desperate people created dangerous conditions that led to an increase in forest fires.

      I give Professor Williams an F on that answer.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. The 1920s and 30s were also a period of unprecedented drought and high temperatures, far worse than anything since, and that climate anomaly, not wood stoves, was the cause of the spike in wildfires.

        Like

    2. You miss the point, though perhaps it is easiest to get it if you go to the original Youtube video by Tony Heller Williams column is based upon.

      The point is that by choosing the starting date, you can create the trend you desire.

      That is what started me on the road to skepticism in the first place. I saw Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick graph in the IPCC FAR, and noted it started in 1400AD, after the Medieval Warm Period and in the depths of the Little Ice Age. I checked the references and saw his data sets went back 1000 and in some cases 2000 years, so the 600 year span was clearly cherry picked to create the impression of an unprecedented rise.

      That trick of picking the starting date has been repeated over and over by alarmists, and that was the point of Heller’s video, not how to explain away any individual trend.

      Over and over alarmists arbitrarily select the time span to create alarming but false trends, or exaggerate real, but benign trends.

      So, Heller provides an algorithm to take a dataset and use to to prove any trend you desire.

      Like

  2. Williams brings up the “true agenda” of climate scientists and activists as a more equitable redistribution of the world’s finite resources.

    I don’t know enough about math unless it pertains to f-stops and shutter speeds, so I don’t get into the reports and rebuttals.

    But it has occurred to me that over the last few centuries, whole nations have been carved up, decimated, enslaved and then left to founder when the usefulness to industrial nations is diminished. Africa comes to mind. And Nigeria is a present day mess. A rich source of oil, but most live on a few dollars per day. But the West gets its plastics, fuels and other resources to live good lives.

    There are lots of reasons that can be debated ad infinitum. But the stark numbers are real.

    “ Between 2009 and 2017, the number of billionaires it took to equal the wealth of the world’s poorest 50 percent fell from 380 to 42.”

    https://inequality.org/facts/global-inequality/

    42 people own as much wealth as the bottom 3 1/2 Billion humans.

    Now some may give a lot of reasons as to why this is the case and that it is a good thing.

    I find it disturbing, however.

    Regardless of why sea levels are rising, the effects will probably wipe out a good percentage of poor people.

    So perhaps the ratio of wealth distribution will change.

    One way or another.

    IMHO

    Liked by 2 people

    1. RE: “Now some may give a lot of reasons as to why this is the case and that it is a good thing.

      “I find it disturbing, however.”

      You might consider that while the statistics you cite tell us something about the wealth of billionaires, they tell us nothing about the wealth of the poor. The story of global poverty gives a very different impression:

      “The Princeton economist Angus Deaton, recently awarded the Nobel prize [2015], has spent much of his career working on how we measure consumption, poverty, real standards of living, etc. It is thanks in part to his work that we can say that the global rate of ‘extreme poverty,’ currently defined as subsistence on less than the equivalent of $1.90 a day, is now the condition of less than 10 percent of the human race. In the 1980s, that number was 50 percent — half the species — and as late as the dawn of the 21st century, one-third of the human race lived in extreme poverty. The progress made against poverty in the past 30 years is arguably the most dramatic economic event since the Industrial Revolution.”

      https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/10/economics-wealth-global-liberal-democracy-free-markets/

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s