0xdde

It's clearly stated and expanded upon in this reporting.

But much less in terms of proportion of total energy usage. It's jarring how much less energy efficient TX is than CA. Over 2x the energy usage despite having a substantially smaller population.

I think you misread the solar number. The link says 37.6TWh solar with the remaining numbers matching what you wrote. That gives a total of 120.42TWh.

They don't describe the graphic very well in the article, but they do link to the source data [1]. The "Expected" line seems to refer to a historical average. Since the starting point of the graph coincides with the beginning of congestion pricing, we would expect a difference between the two values at that point.

[1] https://metrics.mta.info/?cbdtp/vehiclereductions

Extreme events are, by definition, "outlier driven"

You're using "Orwellian" in an Orwellian way. What do mass deportations have to do with this bizarre sudden policy change that leaves people scrambling with a 15 hour window? You're claiming this is exactly what people had in mind when they voted?

Note that the data are not reported raw, though. While the sample does not match the population, it is post-stratified and weighted to reflect the US population. (See the last two pages of your link for the study methodology.)

It should also be noted that there are some pretty big flaws in the analysis. They mention "the distribution of firms using ADP services does not exactly match the distribution of firms across the broader US economy," but make no attempt to adjust their analysis for it. They also drop 30% of the data for which there is no job title recorded. With such a skewed sample, it's hard to tell how the analysis is supposed to generalize.

I wouldn't say "well above" when the curve falls well within the error bars. I wonder how different the plot would look if they reported the median as their point estimate rather than mean.

Your "Swedish" source appears to conclude that the wealth tax is effective, but suffered from loopholes and lack of enforcement. Why not fix those rather than follow your "real plan"?

Also your UK link does not support your argument:

> Weaker-than-expected tax liabilities from additional rate taxpayers are not necessarily an indicator of an unexpectedly low yield from the 50p rate. Incomes for those earning above £150,000 could be depressed for other reasons. For example, high income earners are more likely to derive a higher proportion of income from savings, dividends and other investments – and these have been much weaker in recent years than employment income.

So no acknowledgement of the fact that your questions are answered even before the paywall? The conferences (and organizers thereof) listed also include International Society for Research on Aggression (ISRA), the International Conference on Comparative Cognition, and then the article goes on to add

"The International Association of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy has cancelled its conference, originally planned for August 2025 in Nashville, Tennessee, because cuts to federal funding meant it was “no longer financially viable”. The 2026 Cities on Volcanoes conference in Bend, Oregon, has been postponed to 2030 or 2032. The International X-ray Absorption Society cancelled its upcoming 19th conference in Chicago, Illinois, which was scheduled for July this year. “

Your argument that there is an agenda is not compelling.

The first sentence of the article gives the Canadian percentage as 4.7%.

I know you can't be serious, but are you also trying to imply that the incoming administration, staffed from top to bottom with oil industry insiders, won't affect our trajectory?

I'm not following your argument. Even if there were less spending on these other items, there is no indication Republicans would support any more funds for the Forest Service.

No, but I expect a better argument than a link to that page.

Funny enough, the fact that your link lists 9 pages compared to 112 for the US[1], it could be taken as stronger evidence for the parent's point. Not that I think this is a particularly reliable way to gauge the phenomenon.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conspiracy_theories_i...

And what do you suggest during a recession, where finding a job is not so easy?

The author raises an interesting question as to how the Soviets produced so much scientific talent, but his discussion of math circles strikes me as more of a tangent than a convincing answer. Were these math circles really so widespread, and were they a big part of producing mathematical and scientific question? He doesn't address this. However, the book he is reviewing is available online [1] and I see from skimming it that Zvonkin says only one of his students ultimately chose math as a profession. My hunch is that the structure of the formal education system in the USSR played a larger role.

[1] https://sites.icmc.usp.br/sasha_a/zvonkin-e.pdf

Can you post your comparison?

Except the two are not mutually exclusive, and TFA points out that tax and price incentives tend to be successful. I would take anything from Pielke with a grain of salt. As much as he loves to pay lip service to supporting the most minor climate policies, he notoriously downplays the effects of climate change. But that's just par for the course to be on the AEI payroll, I suppose.

The article is specifically about Tampa Bay, not Florida-wide. But why is it crazy if both things are true and there are very different reasons behind the two phenomena? A quick Google search will show you that the NYT has written about the NY exodus, as well.

What about some of us creatures who aren't shelled? Should we be as blase about the sharp spike in CO2 as you are?

I'm not sure "historic" means what you think it means. Obligatory XKCD so that no one is taken in by this spurious argument, which is often made for temperature rather than C02, https://xkcd.com/1732/.

So basically astroturfing? Does this type of activity automatically get flagged? I wish there were a way for us regular users to be able to detect this. Otherwise, we end up with these discussions where people conclude that something is, say, a widespread mentality in the U.S, or a "Silicon Valley thing", when in reality it could be a small number of bad actors.

You are cherry-picking only one of the environmental issues that cruise ships cause. Even that aside, you are also ignoring a large part of the discussion in the first article you cite, which focuses on all of the other, acute, air pollution cruise travel causes in the port cities. Focusing on CO2 is a strawman.

That's a preposterous claim. I suggest looking at the large number of far more expensive vehicles that rank above the Altima in the "Highest rates of other-driver deaths" table.

The p-values don't say anything about the size of the effect. With a large sample size, they are almost guaranteed to be small. In fact, the confidence interval after covariate adjustment comes very closing to containing the value 1, which suggests no substantive change between the groups.

> In developed societies it doesn't make sense to let individuals solve collective problems.

This is simply restating the dismissal that OP brought up, not providing an answer. The example does not do much as CO2 quotas are nowhere near universal.

What principle of basic game theory would that be? You also need to justify the incredibly strong assumption that "any sacrifice" has "highly negative effects" on the individual player. An immediate counterexample would be beef consumption. For many people, reducing their intake would have positive effects on their health.

Your implication being that a market crash affects no one?