Saturday, December 8, 2018

Lessons of the Failure of Initiative 1631, the Washington State Carbon Fee, Part 1: Election Analysis

This blog will examine the failure of Initiative 1631, the carbon fee initiative, which would have placed an escalating tax on carbon-based fuels and then given the authority to distribute the funds to an appointed 15-person board.   It was the most expensive initiative battle in Washington State history, with reported expenses of nearly 50 million dollars, and it failure received both national and international attention.
  

Why did 1631 fail?   Did "big oil" secure its downfall?    Was 1631 essentially flawed?   These are all important questions, because we need to know how to proceed in the future.   Global warming is a serious challenge for mankind and we can't afford to waste such extraordinary resources, with nothing to show for it.  Only knowing why it failed can we find a better way forward.  This is the first in a series of blogs to analyze the situation.

Election Data

    1631 was decisively defeated:  56.6% were against, 43.% for:  a large 13% loss.   Only three counties produced a majority for the initiative:  King (mainly Seattle) voters, Jefferson (mainly Port Townsend folks) and San Juan County (see below).


The core support for I-1631 was from liberal-leaning urban and tribal areas, with most rural and suburban locations voting against.   This division is illustrated in Kitsap county, with wealthy/heavily Democratic Bainbridge Island and the Suquamish tribal areas voting for and most of the rest of the county opposing.

It is instructive to compare the I-1631 vote with than of I-732, the revenue-neutral carbon tax initiative of 2016.    Results were only slightly better (a shift of less than 3 points), with only San Juan and King County supporting the carbon tax.


There was a nice 1631 analysis published in Crosscut Magazine by some of my colleagues at the UW (Steven M. Karceski, Nives DolÅ¡ak and Aseem Prakash).  First, comparing county votes of 1631 and 732, they found a distinct pattern, with greater support for 1631 (over 732) in the most liberal/Democratic counties (King County showed roughly a 5% improvement), while ground was lost in some of the more Republican counties of the eastern side of the State).   As some post-election polling done by the Yes side confirmed, I-1631 heightened the partisan divide across our state:  few Republicans voted for it and most supporters were Democrats.


But interestingly, many liberal/Democratic voters voted against it.   As shown in the Crosscut article many voters who supported Maria Cantwell (the champion of coastal weather radar!), did not vote for the initiative (see graph below).  That is true in EVERY county of the state  That fact will going to turn out to be very important.

I attended a meeting on November 28 sponsored by the Low Carbon Prosperity Institute, which included some post-election poll results sponsored by the Yes on 1631 campaign.  The pollster,  Dave Metz of FM3 Research, found that both No and Yes sides were effective in getting their messaging out, and noted the extreme partisanship of the electorate on this ballot measure.  He found that about 25% were dead set against it (mainly core Republicans in eastern WA), about 30% were worried about climate change but thought 1631 was bad policy), and the rest were worried about climate and either supported the initiative or were willing to give it a chance.

So, which Democrats did not vote for 1631?   And how did lower-income and minority folks feel about the initiative?   Well, I decided to try my hand at election analysis using official Washington State demographic data.

First, what about income and voting preferences on 1631?  Here is a plot of percent Yes vote versus median county income for all WA State counties.  A least-squares linear fit trend line is shown as well.   In general, counties with lower income tended to vote no on 1631.  The best fit line showing this relationship explained about 30% of the variation.


What about minorities (non-white, state of WA definition)?  A lot of scatter, but a tendency for a No vote when minority percentages increase.


How about hispanic groups?  (see below).   A stronger relationship.  The three counties that voted for the initiative have low-hispanic populations and heavily hispanic districts were strongly against the initiative.



    All of these, and other, results, suggest that lower income and minority citizens of our state, many of them Democratic leaning, were uncomfortable with the initiative.  This is consistent with direct feedback I received when talking to primarily working-class groups (such my talk to facilities management folks on snow/ice conditions) and the fact that many labor unions in our state (e.g., the steelworkers and construction unions) were against it.

    I believe that the bottom line is that 1631 lost because most Republicans were against it, low income, construction/labor, and minority groups were wary of its economic impacts on their lives, and a significant proportion of climate-concerned folks, many of them long-term Democrats, were uncomfortable with aspects of the policy.  

    In fact, there was clear signs that 1631 was in trouble early in the election period--well before the No campaign started to aggressively push its message.  The Crosscut/Elway poll, based on sampling in early October, showed only 50% supported the initiative, based on a telephone poll.  Elway himself said that only measures that started in the high-50s% had much of a chance.

    But it was worse than that.  The questions told folks that "large emitters" would pay the bill and that all kinds of wonderful things would happen (see below).  Even with such a give-way, only 50% would support it.   A profound warning sign--many people did not buy it.


    In the next blog on this subject I will examine the politics of 1631, suggesting that a poorly constructed initiative, a flawed strategic plan by the 1631 folks,  an unwillingness of the population to sacrifice to deal with global warming, and a steady, disciplined effort by the No folks, resulted in the decisive defeat of 1631.

    71 comments:

    1. Dr. Mass, I think the most salient fact about these kinds of taxes is that the least well - off among us can ill afford them. The MSM is almost completely embargoing the primary reason for the mass rioting going on right now in France. This is one of the most socialistic republics in Europe, yet hundreds of thousands of demonstrators (both from the far Left, the Middle and Lower Classes and the far Right) are demanding that Macron cease and desist with his increasing taxes on fuel, all in the name of curing AGW. They're struggling enough to make ends meet, and have reached their limits of being taxed from the cradle to the grave. The Western World is overtaxed to the point of no return, and most of the public realizes that until the main polluters of carbon (India and China, to name a few) get their own houses in order, they shouldn't have to pay for someones else's misdeeds. The guilt trip and constant hectoring from those who don't suffer for these policies has reached the endgame.

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Very very well said Eric. I couldn't agree more.

        Delete
    2. People are done listening to to all of the scare tactics the left has been spouting off for years. Al Gore is a perfect example of this. All of these dire predictions have not come true. Most people are unwilling to change there way of life to deal with something that has been over hyped for way too long. Cliff, i really appreciate your blog as its well balanced and you dont fall in line with the sensationalist left. I get that you believe global warming is an issue but with the progression of cleaner cars and hybrid/electric vehicles is it really an issue? I work for toyota and very soon we will have hybrid alternatives for every car we make. This will equate to less carbon emissions. Lastly, i love listening to different points of view, surely I'm right leaning but science is always changing and i just read an acticle that due to sunspots, the earth is cooling????
      Thanks for your input,
      Walt

      ReplyDelete
    3. Cliff, I think your analysis is pretty much correct. Politically, I am purple to light blue but becoming more blue with every day Trump is in office. I voted for I-732 because I am concerned about climate change and it was revenue neutral. I voted against I-1631 because I thought it was poor policy and I was concerned about the impact on low income families.

      ReplyDelete
    4. I am a San Juan county resident who has enjoyed following your blog for quite some time.
      I believe that a majority of us strongly believe in the that "heart of 1631" but as with much proposed legislation, I did not feel that it was "cleanly" written. I truly believe in the premise, but not with the way it was written. I try to be an informed voter, and I do read quite a bit about proposed legislation before I vote. I wish that politicians, and the proponents of "clean air legislative measures" would allow for "simple voting" rather than tangling it all up with both legalese (more than needed) and other adjunct policies that must accepted as part of the whole if one votes in favor.

      ReplyDelete
    5. I voted no on 1631 and yes for every democratic candidate on the ticket.

      Its interesting that those who have the greatest financial resources signed off on 1631 campaign of demonizing big oil companies, all the while consuming and benefiting the most from products derived from oil.

      I guess paying a carbon tax is just a drop in the bucket for those folks and justifies their consumption.

      I'm all in favor of introducing a green economy and reducing personal carbon footprints.I have taken steps myself in that direction using my own monetary resources and foregoing luxury items like jet fueled trips to Tropical Islands.

      It can be done but it takes personal sacrifice.

      Every time I see another load of helicopters skiers disturbing the mountain peace and causing environmental damage in a pristine environment, I know that Americans will never give their jet fueled carbon-rich lifestyles.

      Al Gore won't do it and as Cliff pointed out, carbon scientists won't do it. Hypocrisy rules.

      In 2012, North Cascade Heliski chopped up and destroyed dozens of White Bark Pine Trees in order to create unauthorized heli landing zones.

      These trees are on the federally listed sensitive species and are not benefiting from a warming planet.

      NCH paid around $6000 in restitution fees valued by the US Forest Service at $100 per tree even after being less than truthful with the forest service concerning the extent of their environmental damage.

      Lake Louise Resort in Canada was just fine 2.1 million dollars for cutting 140 trees, some of which were white bark pine trees.
      So $55,000 per tree.

      Why would you wealthy people even consider supporting a company such as NCH while supporting taxing those who can least afford it?

      I guess humans can easily justify anything that serves their self-interest gains. And that's all that matters right?


      Chris H
      Heli-free North Cascades



      ReplyDelete
    6. The markets have to ultimately decide the carbon and climate change conundrum. If it becomes too expensive to fly kerosene fueled aircraft, drive an internal combustion car, eat red meat or have a big litter of children...well...people will cut those things out. Or substitute green tech ultimately made mainstream by virtue of being cheaper than dirty tech. Hydrocarbons are a miracle in their own right for their chemical properties. Burning it all up is going to become dumb...and expensive...before too long.

      You can't force behavior change by just saying there is this impending doom that is intangible right now, imperceptible in a typical work day, and expect everyone to just suck it up. It robs everyday people of the ability to decide what is best for THEM. You can't sell it as a "Best interests at heart" initiative either. That pretentious thinking and the backlash to it has manifested itself in our current political situation. The whole Kitsap case study is a PERFECT analog of that!

      ReplyDelete
    7. I am a carbon based life form and I am offended at this carbon tax bullhonkey.

      ReplyDelete
    8. Something worth highlighting :

      " an unwillingness of the population to sacrifice to deal with global warming"


      remember that this occurs under the following conditions:

      1) This is a population that is among the per capita wealthiest in the world

      2) a population that has among the highest per capita carbon footprint in the world

      3) a population that owes everything to far more significant sacrifices that the previous generation gave the last time the world faced a similar global scale hazard, in world war 2.


      Yes Boomers, this is the legacy of greatness you are setting yourselves up for and don't think for a second your own kids are not taking note

      ReplyDelete
    9. Self-identying progressives take more flights, and fly more miles per year than self-identifying conservatives. Mellenials are the most well-travelled generation in history. Sea-Tac continues to break records year over year. Traffic continues to get worse. These are not people trapped in an oil-based economy, involuntarily taking flights and driving ... these are people doing so completely by choice ... and making oil companies rich in the process.

      Then, every now and then, they start railing against and demonizing the companies that make their lifetyles possible, and we’re all supposed to wring our hands along with them.

      But we know.

      We know that they don’t give a damn about the climate. We know this. Deep down in our core, we know this. They know it too.

      If a big asteroid was barreling toward earth, there would be no need to exaggerate it’s danger. Furthermore, people would cheer every sliver of news which showed that maybe the asteroid was changing course.

      With climate change, such news is met with resounding disappointment. In-between, we are told that everything is being caused by climate change, even things that are very clearly not.

      This is a dog-whistle issue. It seperates the haves from the have-nots. The afluent from the working-class. A large portion of the people who pretend to believe in it, do so because they want to curry favor with, and be associated with the haves. It’s the same reason they buy certain cars, certain clothing, etc. Climate Change is the trendy concern of the hollywood and political elite, so like fad diets, they latch onto it and wag their finger at those oh-so-untrendy working-classers.

      At the end of the day, though, when the ballot is secret and there’s nothing to be gained, people know that something isn’t right with the whole thing. They sense it. They don’t see the people who worry most abot climate change sacrificing much to stop it, so they know that it’s not all that dangerous to them.

      When you want to know what someone truly believes, don’t listen to what they say, watch what they do.

      Why would the progressives who call you stupid, dumb, and uneducated ... care how confortable your great-grandchildren are 80 years from now? Does the most narcissitic generation in history really care what will happen to the earth after they are long gone, even as they step over homeless people on their way to work today, without flipping them so much as a shiny nickel?

      Of course not.

      Few of us will outright admit it, it would shatter our carefully-cultivated faux personas to do so, but after all of the public posturing and finger wagging to boost our own egos, at the end of the day, in our most reflective moments, deep down, we all know.

      Do as I say, not as I do is not a good strategy. And if you want to pass one of these initiatives, the first thing you have to do is stop talking the talk and start walking the walk.

      Before you ask others to sacrifice, they are going to want you to go first.


      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Tabitha

        Great comment. I'm a progressive and a "warmist", but agree with most everything you wrote.

        Delete
    10. Cliff, I was going to vote yes on this initiative because I believed we needed to do something vs nothing. However, you who I respect very much, worked tirelessly against it. So I voted no at the end. Now we have nothing and if I read the tea leaves correctly, we are being held up as proof that a carbon tax won't fly.

      I have been giving a lot of thought to this problem and I have decided we are doomed. Our species does not have the ability to say no (on a collective level) to the level of convenience and comfort we are used to. At the other end of the solution spectrum we refuse to even mention the possibility of reducing our population to a level where we can live our chosen lifestyles without exceeding the capacity of the earth to cleanse itself. It is hardwired into our brains from billions of years of surviving by grabbing and controlling the resources we need. I watch the hummer wars every year and they have an effectivly infinite food source our feeders.

      If the people of this state, who love to tax the poor more than the rich, couldn't get this done then more progressive tax states will fail as well. The situation is exacerbated by having a leader who clearly believes and preaches that the only thing that matters is the great God Money. He has also chosen to alienate the very nations that have to work together to solve the problem. Now as we know it is always darkest before the dawn and perhaps somebody will invent a viable commercial fusion process or space aliens will come to earth and give us technologies for clean power and to clean up our other messes. My pessimism is increased by a sneaking suspicion that our climate models are underestimating the vigor of the warming feedback loop that is clearly underway.

      So I regret very much my decision to vote no. The symbolism of passing it was way more important than its obvious flaws. They could have been fixed. It was an individual decision but is an example of how we will be unable to discern a workable path forward. Tabitha's comment above is entered into evidence as exhibit A.

      ReplyDelete
    11. This was an excellent discussion and you raise important questions. For those who do not think that Dr. Mass is deeply concerned with global warming, I would refer you to his statement:

      "Global warming is a serious challenge for mankind and we can't afford to waste such extraordinary resources, with nothing to show for it."

      And, what he appears to believe is a major obstacle:

      "[A]n unwillingness of the population to sacrifice to deal with global warming."

      Although he alluded to it, the disparity in campaign spending was very large. The pro-1631 group spent about $15 million and the anti-1631 group spent about $30 million. The anti-1631 group consisted almost entirely of the petroleum industry, including $13 million from a single oil company and $14 million from 4 other oil company sources. The pro-1631 spending sources were more dispersed with $5 coming from three politically-active conservation and similar organizations and $3.5 million from 5 wealthy individuals and philanthropists.

      https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Initiative_1631,_Carbon_Emissions_Fee_Measure_(2018)

      One can certainly argue that the electorate may have been saturation bombed on 1631 well before the opposing sides' campaign war chests were used. As a result, some of the disparity in spending may not have affected the final result. Nonetheless, you cannot totally discount the importance of this very large disparity as having some significant impact on the final outcome even if it does not account for the entire result. As with most things in life, money does make a difference, and no doubt it made some difference in the 1631 campaign as well.

      The fact that carbon control measures in Washington have failed should not necessarily be cause for undue pessimism for advocates of such local approaches. There are many instances in the political system of minority positions becoming majority positions over time as the electorate changes its views. So, in itself, this latest failure does not mean the state would not choose to take similar action in the future.

      But, more broadly and apart from ballot measures, this spending gap and their sources do reflect just how difficult it is going to be for humans to change their collective impact on the planet, including the introduction of carbon into the atmosphere. We have a dual, but closely intertwined situation that is going to be very hard to change. First, there are extremely powerful and concentrated worldwide interests (e.g. fossil fuel producers) who have an immediate and an overriding economic interest in preserving the status quo or even increasing fossil fuel usage. This includes not only producers per se, but many countries and governments whose economic base is highly dependent on fossil fuel revenues. Second, there is a very broad portion of the human population (fossil fuel consumers) who are highly dependent on fossil fuel, some of which is very dirty, and are fearful of the short-term personal economic consequences of disturbing the status quo. In all societies, these consumers can easily be made to fear the short-term consequences of fossil fuel cutbacks far more than the long-term consequences of fossil fuel consumption.

      So, my broader source of pessimism comes from the increasing, and possibly irreversible, hole that humanity is putting itself in, not only with respect to global warming but our unsustainable consumption of the planet's finite resources. In that context, individual measures, such as 1631, even when well-conceived, may be wholly inadequate. As the Fourth National Climate Assessment (https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/) details in so many ways, the potential for economic and other effects from global warming is truly disturbing.

      My concern is that by the time fossil fuel consumers truly understand that the long-term consequences of fossil fuel consumption are greater than the short-term fossil fuel benefit, it will be too late to do much about it.

      ReplyDelete
    12. Mike
      We are not doomed. We can do something better here in WA state, and I firmly believe that technology/science will save us. Energy companies are ready to join others on solutions--many won't believe this, but it is true. And the effective use of nuclear power (fission and fusion) and renewables, plus removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, will pull us away from disaster. I-1631 represented a poorly written, partisan, initiative that never had a chance. Now, let us work on a new approach in a bipartisan way. Don't believe the far left and far right...we can do this...cliff

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Cliff, What science and technology are you referring to that will be the great saviour of mankind's selfishness and greed that consumes the very planetary habitat that is meant to sustain us?

        Imo, This problem requires a paradigm shift in thinking where the needs of the planet, and all its life, take priority over the needs of the weathly to overly consume every imaginal resource.

        I used to see mountain lynx and other big cat tracks moving away from where the NCH helicopter was depositing heli- skiers.

        Now, after 30 years of the NCH helicopter terrorizing animal habitat from above, I no longer see those wonderous animal tracks in the mountain habitats where they once thrived.

        Good science was supposed to mitigate this habitat loss and that just didn't happen. Human self interest greed got in the way.

        The governmental public land managing agency (Forset Service) went along with the NCH cover story,took no action on the lie, blamed the helicopter pilot and basically turned a blind eye towards what their private corporate partner was doing, ie destroying critical habitat and public resources.

        What good science is going to stop this type of corruption?


        Chris H
        Heli-free North Cascades

        Delete
    13. Haha. The liberals lost at something in Seattle. They are so entitled to thinking to they so educated and smart that if the rest of Washington doesn't want a unreasonable tax they get offended that they have to question their so called brillant environmental ideas.

      ReplyDelete
    14. Way back in your October post on this initiative you convinced me to vote no.

      ReplyDelete
    15. I signature gathered for I-732 because I thought it was written sufficiently clearly that most people could understand that it was approximately revenue neutral and simple to implement. I still feel that with community support (Times, Sierra, Climate Solutions etc.) that it WOULD HAVE PASSED.

      I voted for I-1631 because I could not bring myself to vote against it as doing nothing would be unforgivable. I cast my "for" vote despite believing that its only beneficiaries might end up being Washington State lawyers trying to interpret and implement such a messy bureaucratic tax bill. Further state legislation looks formidable, so I suggest we all focus on getting climate friendly leadership in Congress and more importantly the White House before more time and money is wasted fighting oil company money.

      Furthermore, I'm afraid Trump's support for the "French yellow jacket gang" pretty much illustrates today's global climate/carbon sensibilities. Hopefully, soon, as better educated voters, we will eventually work our way through this god awful global rise of nationalism and populism and end up a better civilization on other side. Besides, a top down carefully negotiated universal carbon pricing plan at this late stage looks like the most workable (if not the only) effective emissions reducer and a creative pathway to reinvigorating democracy universally too.

      Politicians however won't act unless the people demand it. A sufficiently enraged and engaged electorate could turn the climate tide in 2020. But will they (we)?

      ReplyDelete
    16. "...and I firmly believe that technology/science will save us. Energy companies are ready to join others on solutions--many won't believe this, but it is true. And the effective use of nuclear power (fission and fusion) and renewables, plus removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, will pull us away from disaster."

      I agree wholeheartedly, and if we had gone ahead with a Manhattan - like project to develop both Nuclear fusion as well as fission back in the 50's, this issue would likely have been relegated to the list of things we don't have to worry about now. However, as I've posted numerous times here, fusion is not one of those futuristic technologies that are always just off to the horizon anymore, it's now in the final stages of both large and scalable technologies, with far - reaching effects for the planet.

      https://www.siliconrepublic.com/machines/nuclear-fusion-breakthrough-excess-heat

      The fusion teams at MIT have now basically solved the science part of the problem, now what's left is the engineering part. As only a layman on this issue, my understanding is that once the scientific issues are completed, the engineering issues are only a matter of time as to when they're ready for full scale use among the public. This is going to be huge and dramatic, and they're likely less than ten years away from full implementation. No more cO2 and pollutants from coal plants and motor vehicles, no more harmful emissions from factories, the future is almost here. The MSM, NGO's and enviros have refused for decades to embrace this technology, and their lack of support has discredited them in much of the public's eye. They will be relegated to the scrap heap of history.

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. We've understood how to use water to spin gears for hundreds of years and here we are.. it's not a lack of options. It's the fact that we dont get to decide.

        Someone tell opec the party is over.

        Delete
    17. Chris H,
      Humans are often selfish and greedy. I understand that. But we are a very clever species and our technology can potentially save us....in spite our flaws. Consider lack of clean water. Huge advances have been made in desalinization and that is growing exponentially in southern CA and the middle east. Safe fission is possible...we should use it. And fusion power is a solvable problem. Taking carbon out of the atmosphere is a solvable problem. We simply have to stop fighting each other, take the politics out of it, and get to work. The founders of our nation understood all this....they build a republic ASSUMING folks wanted to amass too much power and were selfish...cliff

      ReplyDelete

    18. I don't want to continue broadcasting negativity and so I will cease after this post. When I was working I was trained to take a systems view of things. Our planet is certainly a system comprised of many separate subsystems. I have read several disturbing articles lately that make me feel that the collapse has already started and is probably irreversible. One thread in particular is about the loss of insects. We are all probably familiar with the loss of bees. Well the rest of the insects seem to be in trouble too. Here is a Washington Post article on this topic.https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2018/10/15/hyperalarming-study-shows-massive-insect-loss/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.87b170bc64f4. I like to read other sources but they aren't reassuring me.

      My point is that we are far too clever with tools and not nearly wise enough to use them correctly. The earth, as currently positioned in the solar system and made up, has a certain biological carrying capacity. Said another way the earth can only naturally sustain a certain tonnage of life. As we add more tonnage of human life there has to be a corresponding reduction in other life. Our technology has enabled us to "cheat" and add capacity but it has come at a cost we don't really understand or appreciate like bugs.
      As we seemingly unravel the great web of life from several directions, altering the climate , chemically disrupting the ecosystem, and replacing the soil of our planet with concrete and asphalt. It is hard to see how it ends well for us. When push comes to shove we have the capacity to really accelerate what some biologists already call one of geological history's great extinction events. We just need to start tossing around our nuclear weapons as we fight over dwindling supplies of food and other resources. Or we fight over more stupid things like we like to do. Anyway I am shutting up and hopefully the AI's will take over sooner rather than later. I am sure they would run thing's in a more logical fashion.

      ReplyDelete
    19. First rule of risk management is to not put all your money in some miracle swooping down to save the day. Fission power is a now solution using proven technology. there are other proven technologies that also need to be prioritized as a mean of at least attaining the attainable, not the dreamable.

      You are right, all that future stuff better work out because our current technologies are inadequate for the whole job but only a fool pins all their money on what can only be imagined. Besides, we will need time to discover and scale it all up. Better buy all we can right now.

      ReplyDelete
    20. Cliff Mass said...

      "Mike
      We are not doomed. * * * we can do this...cliff"

      Of course, you are right. It does little good for me or anyone else to simply bemoan the impossibility of it all. And to the extent I have done that, I offer my apologies and thank you for your encouragement.

      In the future, I will try to reframe my pessimistic impulses as challenges to be addressed with achievable goals. After all, what is the alternative? And perhaps, I should try to wait to post on your blog until I have had at least my second cup of coffee.

      It is clear to me that in terms of goals, we need to have broad agreement among our political and other leaders that recognizes the seriousness of the situation and accepts the need to find solutions. For whatever reasons, we currently have a major political divide on this issue. Having global warming be portrayed as another instance of the urban-rural or red-blue divide is of little value because if the threat is real, it will drastically affect everyone.

      The customary way for dealing with changes in political leadership is at the ballot box, but there may be other pathways. Scientific questions sometimes do not lend themselves to political debate. I certainly believe that having individuals like yourself who have a public forum can be very valuable. I think it is important that you help others recognize the high level of integrity and competence within our scientific community and allay fears that climate science research is heavily influenced by political considerations.

      Thank you again.

      ReplyDelete
    21. I am in the "poor democrate" catagory. I can totally relate to the rioting in France.

      Income inequality is out of control. The idea of taxing the blue collar working class, because the wealth white collar urbinites feel guilty (Which they should!) Is Ludacris!!

      You well to do folks, were asking the poor folks that wipe your children's butts, grow your food, serve your food, and wipe your elderly parents butts, to pay the brunt of the tax.

      Taxes and penalty should Always be viewed as a percentage of income!!

      It is real frustrating, lower working class is very disenfranchised from the both political parties. Tax breaks for rich and corporations. Free everything for the lazy bums that don't work. The lower working class gets crapped on from, above and below.

      If we Taxed the heck out of the upper 40%. Apply the proceeds to green energy technology. Subsidise the cost of that technology for the masses. I1631 would have passed, and we would reduce our carbon footprint.

      Trying to midigate climate impacts on Humanity, by creating global anarchy, does not sound like a good idea!

      Nice job Cliff. Thanks for the poinient blog post!

      ReplyDelete
    22. Great comments. Especially regarding France. Energy is life blood. Let’s be honest, the socialist oligarchy wants to tax energy so that it has control over the lives of the masses. It’s not about creating renewable energy because if it was we would be hearing about Thorium instead of the laughably inadequate sources of wind and solar. And don’t even start in regarding climate. That’s a nonstarter witth the vast majority who have woken to the socialist scheme.

      ReplyDelete
    23. What socialist oligarchy? To be charitable we will allow you George Soros.... but only to be charitable.

      any others?

      This is what happens when perfectly reliable institutional news media is rejected..... to only be replaced by common sense

      ReplyDelete
    24. Thanks for this, Cliff.

      Just as Ralph Nader and the anti-nuclear energy movement really didn't want a solution to the nuclear waste storage issue because it was too important a talking point in their campaign, I'm coming to believe that progressives really don't care about solving climate change because it's just the excuse they need to garner support for their socialist, globalist agenda. Six months ago I would've said that sounds like crazy talk, but with this idiotic Green New Deal it's becoming pretty obvious (depressing that Derek Kilmer has signed on to support it). This Intercept piece by Kate Aronoff makes my skin crawl:

      https://theintercept.com/2018/12/05/green-new-deal-proposal-impacts/

      On another note, I've recently started following Sarah Myhre on Twitter. What a horrible, toxic person she is. Interesting to get a look into that worldview though. She and her ilk are not reasonable people.

      ReplyDelete
    25. FYI, in the Washington/Oregon/Idaho/BC area, you do not have to talk about more nuclear. We have the Columbia Generating station at Hanford, and it is a relatively moderate contributor to the portfolio of hydropower plants that provide power for most of the state. Wind power from eastern Washington often comes when there is a surplus of noncarbon power. We often sell power to California. California has a lot of solar power during the day and they use natural gas at night (and also purchase from Bonneville Power).
      There are only two big fossil fuel plants, Centralia and Boardman, which are slated to be shut down within 5 years. When the city electric companies still show that they are using coal power, this is because they purchase it via transmission lines from Wyoming and Montana, as the cheapest source.

      However, in short, the NW does not really lack for carbon free electricity, given the surpluses we often have.

      My other point is that Washington has a very regressive tax structure, and that is why poorer people probably hesitate with a tax. What that Tabitha says above about progressives being the moneyed elite does not pan out; it's more of a propaganda piece - despite some celebrities, black females are the most consistent democratic voting demographic and they do not do the most air travel.

      ReplyDelete
    26. The Seattle "progressive" cult will be back. You are rich, you are smug, you are arrogant, and you absolutely hate not only yourselves but especially your inferiors.

      ReplyDelete
    27. @Organic Farmer, if we "taxed the heck out of the top 40%," just who in heck do you think would buy your snake oil?

      ReplyDelete
    28. Taxing fossil fuel emitters, which like tariffs, will be paid by increased prices and less money in people's pockets, may not be the right approach. An alternative the might be considered is to have governments establish a major global climate change fund along the lines of the Nobel prize grants ... give a $100 million (why not $1 billion?) to individuals or companies for substantive ideas/advances that will significantly reduce carbon emissions.
      For argument sake, one aircraft carrier costs about $18 billion with development and constriction costs. Billions more to staff and operate. Which is the better long term federal tax expenditure ... another aircraft carrier for say $20+ billion, or that same funding for major carbon emissions advances? This approach also wouldn't take any more money out of taxpayer pockets than is already being spent.

      ReplyDelete
    29. I-1631, along with any future attempts to hijack public funds for sectarian purposes cloaked in obscurity, was, and will be, destined to fail because, at the end of the day, it was bogus "for Seattleites, by Seattleites" partisanship. End of story. If you want to introduce and pass absurd legislature just dripping with the kind of factional/"we could give a rip about any point of view which in any way dissents from the Seattle/Port Townsend/San Juan "progressive" orthodoxy" with any hope of it passing, you're going to require a breakaway secessionist "People's Republic of King County" in order to do so. Unfortunately, such legislation would only apply to said new political organization and have no effect on the remainder of the world's population which of course even then would be considered a failure by it's proponents since the very point of such initiatives, written by a cabal of elites with a very specific and very militant agenda in mind, is to coerce those who do not subscribe to every vagary of their ideologies and whose refusal to toe their line would act as a source, as it does even now, of considerable consternation, wailing and tooth-gnashing. You see, the true "progressive" ideal is one of faceless masses filed like gravestones sacrificed to the ultimate glory of the higher purpose that only they, the true believers - the pure - are able to see in the light of its truth, it's all-encompassing virtue against which any argument - any thought - constitutes heresy rightly punished with the swiftest and surest of severity. However, and most fortunately, as tough a pill as it may be to swallow for some, we live in a (thankfully) diverse state where civilized dialogue which leads ultimately to real compromise is the only way forward.

      ReplyDelete
    30. Carbon taxes are regressive by their nature. Poor people are seriously hurt by rising gas & food prices while rich people shrug it off like its nothing.

      When will the Democrats learn that they have to be for a progressive state income tax? That will pass easily.

      ReplyDelete
    31. roboimages... with China becoming more belligerent day by day, I would not skimp on our military the slightest.

      ReplyDelete
    32. Anathema is pretty well defined for Humans in our current age. Basically anything that significantly combats climate change based on current science (verses tradition) falls under that definition. Those limits are socioeconomic and maybe not so much technological. Sort of on the lines of the cure for cancer being the transference of Human consciousness into a refrigerator that would otherwise display "Oh, hey Mark" memes as well as letting you know you are out of soy milk/craft beer/ humus.

      That's where we are at right now.

      On the plus side, Humanity has made significant strides on terra-forming and atmospheric chemistry. We know how to alter a world quick, fast and in a hurry. That should advance our species on the Kardashev scale as far as Add X = Y when Z is done. Burn this and chop down that might equate a few definable equations for what might result. We are not even at Type I currently but learning through some solid mistakes might get us there. Now if we can only not kill our selves off in the process.....

      ReplyDelete
    33. @roboimages, why not $10 billion? Why not $100 billion? Why not $1 trillion? Why not $100 trillion? You're a Seattle "progressive." Think big! You people are experts at wasting everyone else's money, and ignoring anyone who doesn't agree with your civic insanity. Go for it!

      ReplyDelete
    34. @Alex, the "progressives" have tried to pass an income tax in this state 9 times, and have failed every time. The most recent attempt lost in every county, including King. Only Seattle, the home of this state's most obnoxious, entitled, rich, arrogant, oblivious liberals, supported it.

      Here's a radical idea: Live within your means, and spend the money wisely instead of p***ing it away as a civic art form.

      ReplyDelete
    35. Cliff, what do you think of the Governor's announcement yesterday? No details yet that I can find, but I liked the broad strokes.

      ReplyDelete

    36. Blogger Placeholder said...

      "The Seattle "progressive" cult will be back. You are rich, you are smug, you are arrogant, and you absolutely hate not only yourselves but especially your inferiors"

      "@Organic Farmer, if we "taxed the heck out of the top 40%," just who in heck do you think would buy your snake oil?."

      "@Alex, the "progressives" have tried to pass an income tax in this state 9 times, and have failed every time. The most recent attempt lost in every county, including King. Only Seattle, the home of this state's most obnoxious, entitled, rich, arrogant, oblivious liberals, supported it."

      "Here's a radical idea: Live within your means, and spend the money wisely instead of p***ing it away as a civic art form."

      What is the source of all of this vitriol and rage? You can only say "I hate people who disagree with me" so many times before it loses all effect.

      ReplyDelete
      Replies
      1. Income inequality gap, is the source of my "rage"
        Started with Regan's "trickle down economics"

        Middle class is soon to be extinct.

        Delete
    37. What is the source of all of this vitriol and rage? You can only say "I hate people who disagree with me" so many times before it loses all effect.

      What is the source of all of this grim Seattle "progressive" arrogance, end-of-the-world fantasy, and self-loathing? Is it the ever-present cloudiness, gloom, depression, and suicidal impulses that drive you to continually seek absolution, affirmation, and self-abasement? This is understandable given the desperation, but might I suggest that you punish yourselves rather than everyone else?

      I sympathize with your need to tax yourselves into oblivion, but can you please keep it within King County?

      ReplyDelete
    38. Placeholder said...

      "What is the source of all of this grim Seattle "progressive" arrogance, end-of-the-world fantasy, and self-loathing? Is it the ever-present cloudiness, gloom, depression, and suicidal impulses that drive you to continually seek absolution, affirmation, and self-abasement? This is understandable given the desperation, but might I suggest that you punish yourselves rather than everyone else?"

      "I sympathize with your need to tax yourselves into oblivion, but can you please keep it within King County?"

      Your harsh language is hardly confined to taxation, progressives, or Seattle. Almost inevitably, your response to someone with whom you disagree is a personal attack and name-calling. You typically question the intelligence, honesty, and motives of persons with whom you disagree and often label such persons as arrogant, lying, and a member of a cult.

      A public record of these kinds of comments on this blog is available for all to see:

      https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLL_enUS388US388&q=placeholder+site:cliffmass.blogspot.com&gws_rd=ssl

      ReplyDelete
    39. MAC in Bellingham - If you really want to know how Placeholder draws the conclusions he does, look no further than the congressional hearings into Google's search algorithms and some Gongresman's unshakable belief that there is an "anti Conservative bias":


      https://nationalpost.com/news/world/why-do-pictures-of-trump-show-up-when-i-look-up-idiot-congresswoman-asks-google-ceo?fb_comment_id=1730874327017062_1731044877000007&comment_id=1731044877000007#comments-area

      ReplyDelete


    40. @mac in Bellingham

      Here are a couple of quotes from my go to Moral psychologist Guru.

      "Morality binds and blinds. It binds us into ideological teams that fight each other as though the fate of the world depended on our side winning each battle. It blinds us to the fact that each team is composed of good people who have something important to say."

      If you think that moral reasoning is something we do to figure out the truth, you’ll be constantly frustrated by how foolish, biased, and illogical people become when they disagree with you.
      Jonathan Haidt"

      While I draw the line at name-calling and personal attacks, there are people who seem fine with it and it is protected speech in our country.

      When I was at turns all year posting stories about my experience in the mountains and talking about how overcrowding of a BC slope can lead to safety issues as crowds have the potential to trigger Avalanches down on other poeple.

      That is a pretty common Avalanche involvement scenario and was a factor in that 2012 three-person fatality at Tunnel Creek,Stevens Pass and unfortunately many other fatal Avalanche incidents, many involving commercial guides.


      Three or 4 years ago a North Cascade Mountain Guide triggered an avalanche down on a friend of mine. The guide obviously did not check to see if the path was clear before he did his Avalanche control work.(Btw you won't find that incident in the nwac annual Avalanche summary report). I was vocal about that incident on turns all year.

      So this guy, good2go, on Turns All Year really enjoyed attacking me, creating a strawman to argue against and constantly accused me of wanting the snow all to myself.

      I post a warning specifically to good2go about a slab overriding a week layer instability that I had observed on a particular Avalanche prone slope because Good2Go said he was coming up to our area for a visit that weekend and intended on skiing that area, which also has safe descent routes.

      Well good2go came up for the ski trip visit and later posted that he had triggered an avalanche in the exact spot that I had warned him about. He was lucky he was able to ski out of it.

      So there were the facts posted in black and white all on TAY,(now deleted when I was shunned from that site) my warning and his account of a potentially fatal Avalanche and yet he continued his attacks and even denied that I had tried to warn him.

      The moral of the story is people so obviously blind themselves to their own bias and are able to come up with the most ridiculous reasoning to defend their actions and words just as Jonathan Haidt's research suggests.

      Or in the words of Paul Simon,

      "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest"





      Chris H
      Heli-free North Cascades

      ReplyDelete
    41. Your harsh language is hardly confined to taxation, progressives, or Seattle. Almost inevitably, your response to someone with whom you disagree is a personal attack and name-calling. You typically question the intelligence, honesty, and motives of persons with whom you disagree and often label such persons as arrogant, lying, and a member of a cult.

      This is fun. A Seattle global warming cultist now accuses people of making personal attacks. I don't know about anyone else, but blatant Seattle "progressive" hypocrisy makes me laugh, anyway. Sorry, but no one is nastier than your crowd.

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/13/cliff-mass-victim-of-academic-political-bullying

      ReplyDelete
    42. Seattle "progressives," here is what awaits you if you keep it up. I almost hope your slack-jawed idiot governor and his corrupt legislature try to contravene the expressed will of the voters toward your global warming tax grab. This state will turn "red" so fast you will break your necks watching the change of direction.

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/13/protesting-carbon-taxes-with-the-gilets-jaunes/

      ReplyDelete
    43. Placeholder-

      It seems it is very difficult for you to put a mirror up to your own behavior. That certainly is not unusual for any of us nor is it something that I have always succeeded in.

      You should be aware that I do not live in Seattle but you seem to know I have contracted some kind of Seattle disease, the symptoms of which I admit I do not full grasp.

      You constantly accuse Seattle inhabitants of making personal attacks on you, but in fact you constantly label 800,000 people (or close to 4 million if you include Seattle metro) as being part of some vaguely defined group of unworthy humans. If you substituted the "black" or "female" or "Jewish" or "immigrant" for "Seattle", what you are doing might be a bit clearer to you.

      Nor can you restrain yourself from repeating the name-calling ("cultist", "hypocrisy" "nastier than your crowd"). In the space of 3 short sentences, you have managed to call me 3 different names.

      Although you may think otherwise, I can assure that staying on this path has a very low likelihood of a fulfilling outcome. Whatever it is you feel about climate change, your approach to dealing with those with whom you disagree goes far beyond that issue.

      ReplyDelete
    44. Wow that Judith Curry thing is a doozy! Sounds like some real fruit loops loose in the henhouse.

      Still, I fail to see how Placeholder differentiates himself from them

      ReplyDelete
    45. I consider myself liberal, and concerned about climate change, but voted no. It's simple: enough with regressive taxation in this state. The first commenter to this blog post said it most succintly(Eric Blair).

      Carrots work better than sticks. And if the progressive neo-liberals in this state and elsewhere can't figure out that they're taxing the middle class out of existence, then what's happening in France will eventually happen here. Or perhaps Americans are just too brainwashed and cowed and anesthetized for that. I just heard something on the radio that our dear Guv now has some kind of whopping budget increased planned for, among other things, saving the orcas. What a joke.

      ReplyDelete
    46. You constantly accuse Seattle inhabitants of making personal attacks on you, but in fact you constantly label 800,000 people (or close to 4 million if you include Seattle metro) as being part of some vaguely defined group of unworthy humans. If you substituted the "black" or "female" or "Jewish" or "immigrant" for "Seattle", what you are doing might be a bit clearer to you.

      Nor can you restrain yourself from repeating the name-calling ("cultist", "hypocrisy" "nastier than your crowd"). In the space of 3 short sentences, you have managed to call me 3 different names.

      Although you may think otherwise, I can assure that staying on this path has a very low likelihood of a fulfilling outcome. Whatever it is you feel about climate change, your approach to dealing with those with whom you disagree goes far beyond that issue.


      How does it feel, "denialist?" You're just mad when someone throws your nastiness right back in your smug, arrogant, rich, entitled Seattle face. You don't like it? Keep crying, snowflake.

      ReplyDelete
    47. Regardless of your politics or your stance on AGW, I would urge you to read the article by Judith Curry that outlines how some at the UW are treating Professor Mass. You can find the article at:

      https://judithcurry.com/2018/12/12/cliff-mass-victim-of-academic-political-bullying/#more-24557

      ReplyDelete
    48. W Burrows... do you think any Seattle progressive will ever go onto Judith Curry's website? She's already a 'climate denier' so she might as well not exist to them.

      ReplyDelete
    49. Will Seattle's "progressives" stoop to actually learning anything from their failures to convince anyone but themselves? From my two decades of residence in a city whose "progressive" leaders and influencers pay only the barest lip service to actually listening to anyone but themselves, I doubt it.

      "You can always tell a Seattle 'progressive,' but you can never, ever tell a Seattle 'progressive' a single thing."

      All you will do now is whine about how misunderstood you are. Children, you are anything but misunderstood. We know you and your tactics, including your laughably hypocritical attempt to give lessons on proper manners.

      Hell, you can't even operate a sewage treatment plant. You can't even call other cities with hills to ask how they deal with snow. And you won't even salt your streets because you think it will somehow hurt the environment in a place that's a) next to a large body of salt water, and b) doesn't need salt very often to begin with. You have extremely high local taxes, but you can't provide basic city services.

      Yet, in the face of your own incompetence and the rejection of others, you continue to think that you're better than everyone else. Hear that sound? It's the rest of the state laughing at you and your arrogance.

      https://fabiusmaximus.com/2018/12/10/lessons-from-climate-change-crusade/

      ReplyDelete
    50. What Placeholder repeatedly does is conflate the behaviour of what amounts to a handful of "ill-liberal" Liberals with a population whose only real crime is drinking double Latte's instead of proper coffee.

      Well he also guesses where all live wrong but that is a direct result of the other error. In fact all his errors are a result of the above grossly overwrought leap of the nasty imagination.

      Trust me Placeholder, if this alleged Seattleite living in Powell River really was as outrageously ill-liberal to the poor oppressed hard working loggers, fishermen, carpenters etc that populate the bucolic countryside, I'd likely be dead right now rather than peaceful sipping my double Latte. And no I'm not the only one.

      ReplyDelete
    51. Blogger Placeholder said...

      "Hear that sound? It's the rest of the state laughing at you and your arrogance.

      https://fabiusmaximus.com/2018/12/10/lessons-from-climate-change-crusade/"

      I think the laughing is your constant reference to Mr. Kummer's website. Besides not having a single scientist listed as an author on his website, Mr. Kummer singles out the following as one of his more relevant qualifications:

      "He was a Boy Scout leader for 15 years."

      ReplyDelete
    52. @MAC, please tell us about your scientific credentials!

      ReplyDelete
    53. Hey let's smoke the Peace pipe for a moment. After all, its Christmas!
      That is the time to set aside our differences. We can start warring again after New years. Here is something that most anyone should get a laugh out of. let me tell you a hilarious story.

      A few years ago, myself and a mate were down at Washington Pass for a week, climbing some spires around The Liberty Bell group. On the way back home we bivouaced in a gravel pit at Rainy Pass where, after considerable evening festivities, we discovered that we’d run the van battery down so we went to bed expecting to flag someone down out on the highway in the morning.

      Bright and early, hearing a truck turn into the pit, I jumped up half naked and ran after him brandishing jumper cables and yelling for him to stop. He did, looked me up and down for a long moment then staring me in the eye asks “where ya from?”

      "Squamish"says I.

      He pauses long and hard again, then says finally “OK”

      He jockey’d his truck over, I got the hood up, then just before clamping them on he stares us in the eye again:

      “What do you do for work?”

      "Carpenter.”

      "How about you?"

      “Drive a Truck”

      At this he damn near smiles and gets down right talkative. He tells us he’s a logger from Concrete and the logging being in the dumps there, he’s off to the east side to do some sort of stream remediation for the government. We then talk about all kinds of manly stuff like Spotted Owls, building houses, driving trucks, chopping down trees but before long we got our charge and he has to get going.

      We say good bye then he starts to drive off…. but stops. He rolls the window down and as a parting gift, he smiles and says “You know if you’d told me you were from Seattle, I wouldn’t have stopped!”


      He caught me a little off guard and then he was gone, but all the same for a very brief moment I very nearly said in return:

      “Well actually I lied. Me and Don here, we ain’t really from Squamish. We’re from Brokeback Mountain!”












      ReplyDelete
    54. Blogger Placeholder said...

      "@MAC, please tell us about your scientific credentials!"

      I do not purport to be a scientist nor have I ever represented myself as one. But I did spend a long career working with scientists, engineers, and technical people in various settings including higher education, private and public companies, and in other professional capacities. But I will readily acknowledge that I have and do rely on qualified experts having commonly accepted credentials for scientific and technical opinions. And I do purport to be able to make at least a reasonable initial assessment as to whether someone has the scientific and technical qualifications to be considered an expert in a particular field. In those cases, where I do not feel comfortable in assessing an individual's expertise, I will consult with someone who can provide assistance.

      Unlike you, all of my links and references to climate science matters have been to sources widely recognized in the scientific community as being experts in the numerous fields relevant to climate change. None of my references have been to individuals whose primary qualifications are having acted as a financial adviser and being a boy scout leader.

      This is not that complicated.

      Asking Mr. Kummer about climate change makes about as much sense as asking him to perform a prostatectomy

      ReplyDelete
    55. @MAC, you're not a scientist, but you don't think non-scientists should have opinions about global warming. Okey dokey, then I'd say it's time for you to shut up, because you have no grounds to hold an opinion.

      Oh, but wait! You are a snotty, arrogant, hypocritical Seattle "progressive," and your role in life is to make rules that superior beings like yourself don't have to follow. Got it. Too bad WA State's voters told you otherwise when it came to your tax grab.

      Now: If you're so concerned, let Seattle pay the bill.

      ReplyDelete
    56. Interesting dynamic in the county by county voting. King, Jefferson & San Juan voted around 63% YES, but all the other counties managed to defeat it by voting around 80% NO.

      ReplyDelete
    57. MAC in Bellingham, as someone who styles himself as a conscientious and dedicated environmentalist, and also as a knowledgeable non-scientist in climate change topics, it is only fair that you take a pause from criticizing non-scientist public policy analysts such as Larry Kummer and offer your own opinions as to what specifically America's carbon reduction targets ought to be for the long term future.

      For example, was President Obama's goal of an 80% reduction in America's GHG emissions by 2050 too little or too much? Was he going too fast or too slow? Was the public policy approach he was relying upon to get the job done actually capable of reaching his 80% GHG reduction target by 2050?

      Please put some real substance into your climate activist message and tell us what specifically America's own GHG reduction targets should be for the long term future, and how fast we should be moving to get from here to there.

      Just as important, please tell us what specific public policy approach you think has the best prospects for reaching the end state you desire, including the balance to be made between public and private action in pursuing an aggressive anti-carbon national program.

      ReplyDelete
    58. And MAC? Make sure to state your credentials for holding an opinion. If it's simply a matter of being a superior Seattle "progressive" who thinks it is better than mere human beings, have the stones to say so.

      ReplyDelete
    59. Placeholder - It's a bit odd that you keep asking for credentials.

      It's pretty obvious to all that you place a higher relevance to how loud, aggressive and vitriolic one yells, as opposed to any measure of credibility behind it.

      ReplyDelete
    60. @Bruce Kay, I keep asking for Seattle (and in your case, tiresome Canadian) "progressives" to back off of their arrogance and hypocrisy for once in their miserable lives.

      ReplyDelete
    61. Placeholder-

      I am not going to bother to quote your latest comment, but it got me to thinking a bit. At first I thought your online road-rage was simply the product of being a person with a major anger management problem.

      But I looked a little more carefully at the major theme of your comments. You have said little of substance on any topic, but underlying much of what you say seems to reflect a goal of having various groups (left and right, conservative and progressive, urban and rural, American and Canadian) be in conflict with each other. Frankly, this constant stirring of the pot possibly reflects a darker objective on your part. And you have found the topic of climate change to be a convenient platform upon which to carry out this stirring, while never contributing anything of substance to the discussion.

      As I am sure you are aware, there has been a great deal of discussion and analysis of Russian disinformation campaigns worldwide whose primary objective appears to be to disrupt the US and other western democracies. While I am not saying that I know you are part of such an effort, there is nothing to prevent similar freelance efforts from those with similar goals. People can have an axe to grind for a wide variety of reasons, but it is clear to me that whatever your ultimate motivation or purpose is, you are one of those.

      Sometimes all we can do is judge by someone's behavior, and your online behavior has led me in this direction.

      ReplyDelete
    62. @Mac, you're not a political scientist. Therefore, you lack any credentials to hold an opinion, other than being an arrogant Seattle "progressive," which of course makes you the supreme authority on everything. Please instruct the world! It waits for your brilliance, which one day will show itself.

      By the way, it's especially fun to see you fall back on the "progressive" Russian accusation -- but in true passive-aggressive Seattle style, not even having the smidgen of courage it takes to actually say so online.

      Do you realize just how typical and laughable you are? I do!

      ReplyDelete
    63. Blogger Placeholder said...

      "@Mac, you're not a political scientist. Therefore, you lack any credentials to hold an opinion, other than being an arrogant Seattle "progressive," which of course makes you the supreme authority on everything. Please instruct the world! It waits for your brilliance, which one day will show itself.

      By the way, it's especially fun to see you fall back on the "progressive" Russian accusation -- but in true passive-aggressive Seattle style, not even having the smidgen of courage it takes to actually say so online.

      Do you realize just how typical and laughable you are? I do!"

      You've been outed. Everyone can see you game. You just repeat it over and over again. There is not even a syllable of substance in anything you say. I can see why because you clearly know nothing about weather or climate change. Truth is a form of inoculation and your attempts to get people at each other's throats does not work. How does it feel not to have any power?

      ReplyDelete
    64. @Mac, this is quite the Mutual Non-Admiration Society, but nevertheless, I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Honest!

      ReplyDelete
    65. @Placeholder.

      Thank you for the good wishes. I hope you have a good holiday as well.

      ReplyDelete