If you have two points of a function you can estimate how much it is changing (first derivative). But your measurements have errors, and you must take a difference, and so the relative size of the error is magnified. You might think you can measure rate of change (second derivative) from three points, but the error amplification is huge. If you want to measure rate of change, you better have many points, and use some rugged fitting process. Of course, by the time you have enough points, the answer will be obvious.

wrote:

No, I don't believe in creationism. .... We lose species, not gain them. Culling does not produce novel forms.

Now this is a novel idea. Species are lost not gained; so new ones do not evolve. On the other hand, they were not all created. You could be on your way to creating a new religion.

from the Thomas article:

...but it is also true that in areas outside his expertise he sometimes gets his facts wrong (his record has improved lately).

An honest mistake from Krugman is better than slanted truth from Newsweek.

A matter of style: Enclosing a sentence in quotes just before the period of another sentence is something I would do in blog comment (I am no writer). But in the cover story of Newsweek? Apparently the author has no more respect for his work than this commenter does.

wrote about Krugman:

The guy really believes that debasing the currency is a good thing. That must be the upshot of an MIT education these days.

And you really believe that the ice mass on earth is increasing and we are headed for another ice age. I am sure you have studied economics with the same rigor.

wrote:

Why not just cut a check for a billion to each American so we can become the world's super consumer?

Why not give everyone anti-biotics all the time instead of just when they are sick? Ah, yes, cows. What is happening?

wrote again:

Once more, why not just cut a check for a billion to each American so we can become the world's super consumer?

What, you did not like my first answer? Then let me translate: There are times when doing something that would be harmful if done regularly is the right thing to do.

However, I am not convinced Krugman is right. Recovery from the great depression was one thing. The world economic situation, especially the US place in it, is very different now. But you cannot dismiss his solution based on some simple-minded idea of how things work.

I am not talking about the normal amount of inflation that occurs regularly, but an unusually large amount that would certainly cause serious problems if it happened often. When things are as screwed up as they are now, it may be best to do things you should not normally do.

Nobody here needs you to tell them what inflation does. If you think so, it is because you yet again think you have superior understanding. Sorry, you do not.

Not doing it might bring everything down, too.

Would requiring a minimum of one preview be useful? That is, if you hit "publish" before previewing, the effect is the same as "preview".

wrote: Given the abysmal failure of capitalism everybody is witnessing....

Not sure how serous you are, but is this not more a failure of regulation? You could argue that it is inevitable that regulations will be subverted, or not implemented as new technology requires. Perhaps it can be made to work much better, at least for a while again.

"Marijuana + logic" can go just about anywhere.

Wall street bought the treasury department a few administrations ago and still has control. This is not nice and cozy, as he implies; it is criminal in at least a loose sense of the word.

They screwed up big, but they want to keep control. Perhaps even they see the need to keep some of the "wild and crazy" guys from running amok.

Remember this old line: There is no such thing as a temporary building.

Define CO2 as not a pollutant and it will just that much more difficult to do anything about it at all. That provision will be misused in order to justify non-action. I can already hear the excuses coming: "I am sorry, my fellow Americans, but we just do not have the votes. Maybe in the next administration..."

Maybe one could save it by putting a time limit in the bill under consideration: if action meeting these criteria does not occur by ddmmyy, CO2 is a pollutant that comes under the jurisdiction...

wrote:

but have you considered that pollutant, like genocide, is one of those magical political words that once it is used requires certain responses that might be counter productive in the larger political climate?

Pollutants already come in various classes that are treated as required. Greenhouse gases are certainly special, and require special treatment. Nonetheless, they are a pollutant. Period.

A. L. wrote:

Johnson is no wild-eyed bomb-thrower -- "I'm not a populist by any means," he said

He is one smart, committed, and somewhat conservative guy. The truth probably lies a bit more on the "wild-eyed" side than he implies.