Jeff, you are absolutely correct on all fronts. However, the society, culture in America has been infected with a form of humanism that has taken things like facts, statistics, data and realized outcomes from all of this and thrown it out the window. I can't tell you how many times in my time living in NYC and working in the greater Wall Street world I would go out after work, get into conversations regarding all things economic and political and I would bring facts to the table and those who I would be speaking with would simply retort, "I just don't feel any of what you have said is correct." Notice their justification for disagreeing with me, "I don't FEEL", this is where we are and what has become the true divide. Those who like to take in things, digest it, then look into the facts surrounding something, as best they can be ascertained in a western Media world that has been left to very hard left now for 80 plus years, then pass judgement on something. The other side simply takes in the emotionally centered and very purposeful subjects the MSM puts forth and they buy what they are selling hook line and sinker because it comports with their emotionally centered approach to life. They also, in places like NYC, San Fran, Chicago, Seattle, etc live in an echo chambers filled with other emotionally centered pseudo intellectuals. Throw in a truly well read, fact based individual and all Haites breaks loose.
you can, but then you'd have to do it in a continuous manner to be kosher. Inflation in the 1970s was higher. I am not sure how representative that measure would be but I do hear it on conservative media. Not sure if it would help you tease out better conclusions, since markets typically do not do well in higher inflation environments.
A little bit of a tangent, but I'm not convinced that anything is contributing to "global warming." I am skeptical because of two things: 1) The Hiatus - which is the period of the last decade or so with no warming and 2) the fact that the NOAA manipulated the older data by extrapolating temperatures down. Their reason? The old data is from weather stations that were not "positioned properly" to compare to modern data. In every instance, the data were extrapolated down. And wouldn't you know it, that made times seem cooler in the old days, thus making the last few decades seem...you guessed it -- hotter!
Also, their models are not predictive. They never work, or their ranges of confidence are so wide that the model is useless. If you had a good hypothesis, then the model should be somewhat predictive. But they don't.
Finally, who is to say that the CO2 model is static? In other words, what are the feedback loops? Do plants grow more, storing an excess amount of carbon? Does carbon even really trap heat for that long?
This stuff is so complicated, and my feeling is that only AI is going to be able to start sorting it out. The "movement" (which is what it is) has been hijacked by anti-capitalists and anti-humanists to use it for their own ends, not "climate change."
Even the wildest set of numbers is inside the band of accuracy of the temperature measuring gear from the past. Meaning -- it was impossible to measure to that degree of accuracy.
Exactly. They're trying to predict something with a level of precision that doesn't exist within the degree of confidence the measurements allow. And they don't really understand the secondary effects, both negative and positive, beyond. This would probably require an advanced AI to get some idea of what we're dealing with.
The fact that they are so CERTAIN is what makes me suspicious that there is more at play here. If they allowed for reasonable debate and questioned their own research a little more I would be more inclined to believe they are sincere.
Just to add, expanding supply of oil and other fossil fuels is not a spigot trivially turned back on. There is (can be) a long timeline of investment and R&D not only to find more but in both current and innovative (cost-cutting) technology to liberate and process raw material into useful product, all of which depends to some extent on incentives past, present, and people's best guesses projecting the future, and balancing likely returns on these risks versus other options and opportunity costs. Demoralization may linger longer after this administration no matter how policies change.
Yes, the high risk-accepting folks will jump back in with both feet as soon as there's an opening, but lots of folks will wait and see, longer, now that we know the next Dem may go back to drastic measures literally aiming to kill real energy.
The St Louis Fed has a graph of the Dow average divided by the Consumer Price Index: which adjusts the Dow for inflation. Something worth $30k in 2023 dollars, is not the same thing as $30k in 2003 dollars. It shows the recovery from covid, then the inflation hit starting in August 2021, then bottoming out in October 2022, before rising again.
As of December 2023, the Dow/CPI stands at 25,446, and in January 2021, when Biden took office, it was at 24,960, an increase under Biden of a whopping 2.03%.
Comparing that to Jan 2017 - Jan 2021 for Trump, and the Dow/CPI was up 43.61%
I don't think people will be impressed much by the massive snow job being belched that the economy is good. Inflation might not be climbing but the damage and the deflated value of the dollar remain. What is the actual inflation rate now?
This is a point that is not made often enough. If hamburger was $3 a pound, and goes to $5 a pound, there is inflation. When it sits at $5 a pound no inflation but it costs a lot more than it did a year or two before. My standard of living has been reduced, or if I got a huge raise, stayed the same. Inflation is a terrible drain on our standard of living.
Jeff, you are absolutely correct on all fronts. However, the society, culture in America has been infected with a form of humanism that has taken things like facts, statistics, data and realized outcomes from all of this and thrown it out the window. I can't tell you how many times in my time living in NYC and working in the greater Wall Street world I would go out after work, get into conversations regarding all things economic and political and I would bring facts to the table and those who I would be speaking with would simply retort, "I just don't feel any of what you have said is correct." Notice their justification for disagreeing with me, "I don't FEEL", this is where we are and what has become the true divide. Those who like to take in things, digest it, then look into the facts surrounding something, as best they can be ascertained in a western Media world that has been left to very hard left now for 80 plus years, then pass judgement on something. The other side simply takes in the emotionally centered and very purposeful subjects the MSM puts forth and they buy what they are selling hook line and sinker because it comports with their emotionally centered approach to life. They also, in places like NYC, San Fran, Chicago, Seattle, etc live in an echo chambers filled with other emotionally centered pseudo intellectuals. Throw in a truly well read, fact based individual and all Haites breaks loose.
Need to also adjust S&P price changes for inflation over the period.
you can, but then you'd have to do it in a continuous manner to be kosher. Inflation in the 1970s was higher. I am not sure how representative that measure would be but I do hear it on conservative media. Not sure if it would help you tease out better conclusions, since markets typically do not do well in higher inflation environments.
Markets & higher-inflation environments...not including inflation adjustment will tend to mask this phenomenon.
Hey Jeff, for gas production quantities please add ‘million’ ahead of cubic feet. Otherwise awesome stuff.
thanks edited
A little bit of a tangent, but I'm not convinced that anything is contributing to "global warming." I am skeptical because of two things: 1) The Hiatus - which is the period of the last decade or so with no warming and 2) the fact that the NOAA manipulated the older data by extrapolating temperatures down. Their reason? The old data is from weather stations that were not "positioned properly" to compare to modern data. In every instance, the data were extrapolated down. And wouldn't you know it, that made times seem cooler in the old days, thus making the last few decades seem...you guessed it -- hotter!
Also, their models are not predictive. They never work, or their ranges of confidence are so wide that the model is useless. If you had a good hypothesis, then the model should be somewhat predictive. But they don't.
Finally, who is to say that the CO2 model is static? In other words, what are the feedback loops? Do plants grow more, storing an excess amount of carbon? Does carbon even really trap heat for that long?
This stuff is so complicated, and my feeling is that only AI is going to be able to start sorting it out. The "movement" (which is what it is) has been hijacked by anti-capitalists and anti-humanists to use it for their own ends, not "climate change."
But I digress.
Even the wildest set of numbers is inside the band of accuracy of the temperature measuring gear from the past. Meaning -- it was impossible to measure to that degree of accuracy.
JLM
www.themusingsofthebigredcar.com
Exactly. They're trying to predict something with a level of precision that doesn't exist within the degree of confidence the measurements allow. And they don't really understand the secondary effects, both negative and positive, beyond. This would probably require an advanced AI to get some idea of what we're dealing with.
The fact that they are so CERTAIN is what makes me suspicious that there is more at play here. If they allowed for reasonable debate and questioned their own research a little more I would be more inclined to believe they are sincere.
Great analysis Mr Carter! Thanks for the post!
Just to add, expanding supply of oil and other fossil fuels is not a spigot trivially turned back on. There is (can be) a long timeline of investment and R&D not only to find more but in both current and innovative (cost-cutting) technology to liberate and process raw material into useful product, all of which depends to some extent on incentives past, present, and people's best guesses projecting the future, and balancing likely returns on these risks versus other options and opportunity costs. Demoralization may linger longer after this administration no matter how policies change.
Yes, the high risk-accepting folks will jump back in with both feet as soon as there's an opening, but lots of folks will wait and see, longer, now that we know the next Dem may go back to drastic measures literally aiming to kill real energy.
Where did you get that abortion stat?
Mark Levin
The St Louis Fed has a graph of the Dow average divided by the Consumer Price Index: which adjusts the Dow for inflation. Something worth $30k in 2023 dollars, is not the same thing as $30k in 2003 dollars. It shows the recovery from covid, then the inflation hit starting in August 2021, then bottoming out in October 2022, before rising again.
As of December 2023, the Dow/CPI stands at 25,446, and in January 2021, when Biden took office, it was at 24,960, an increase under Biden of a whopping 2.03%.
Comparing that to Jan 2017 - Jan 2021 for Trump, and the Dow/CPI was up 43.61%
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=iipe
Great info. Thanks.
JLM
www.themusingsofthebigredcar.com
I don't think people will be impressed much by the massive snow job being belched that the economy is good. Inflation might not be climbing but the damage and the deflated value of the dollar remain. What is the actual inflation rate now?
This is a point that is not made often enough. If hamburger was $3 a pound, and goes to $5 a pound, there is inflation. When it sits at $5 a pound no inflation but it costs a lot more than it did a year or two before. My standard of living has been reduced, or if I got a huge raise, stayed the same. Inflation is a terrible drain on our standard of living.