Sowell: the catchwords “climate change deniers” reveals nothing but a political crusade

Fact-Free Politics: From Climate Change to Trickle Down

by Thomas Sowell

January 17, 2019

Empty catchwords reveal a mind that’s unwilling to analyze and debate.

In this era when there has been more information available to more people than at any time in the past, it is also true that there has been more misinformation from more different sources than ever. We are not talking about differences of opinion or inadequate verification, but about statements and catchwords in utter defiance of facts.

Among the most popular current catchwords are “climate change deniers.” Stop and think. Have you ever — even once in your entire life — seen, heard or read even one human being who denied that climates change?

It is hard even to imagine how any minimally knowledgeable person could deny that climates change, when there are fossils of marine creatures in the Sahara Desert. Obviously there has been quite a climate change there.

The next time someone talks about “climate change deniers,” ask them to name one — and tell you just where specifically you can find their words, declaring that climates do not change. You can bet the rent money that they cannot tell you.

Why all this talk about these mythical creatures called “climate change deniers”? Because there are some meteorologists and other scientists who refuse to join the stampede toward drastic economic changes to prevent what others say will be catastrophic levels of “global warming.”

There are scientists on both sides of that issue. Presumably the issue could be debated on the basis of evidence and analysis. But this has become a political crusade, and political issues tend to be settled by political means, of which demonizing the opposition with catchwords is one.

It is much the same story on economic issues. Any proposal to reduce income tax rates is sure to bring out claims that these are “tax cuts for the rich,” based on the “trickle-down theory” that reducing the taxes collected from the rich will cause some of their wealth to “trickle down” to people with lower incomes.

Here, yet again, all you need to do is think back over your own life, and ask yourself if you have ever — even once in your entire life — seen, heard or read a single human being who advocated this “trickle-down theory.”

Certainly none of the innumerable fellow economists I have encountered in my 88 years ever advocated any such theory. Nor am I aware of anyone else, in any other walk of life, who has done so.

Yet there are ringing denunciations of the “trickle-down theory” in books, articles, and in politics and the media. That theory has been denounced as far away as India.

The next time someone talks about the “trickle-down” theory, ask them to tell you where specifically you can find the writings, videos, or any other evidence of someone advocating that theory. You may get some very clever and creative evasions of your question, but no actual answer.

One of the best-selling history textbooks did name Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon as having said in the 1920s that letting the rich pay less taxes would allow their wealth to “trickle down” to others. It was one of the very rare examples that actually named a name.

Unfortunately, what this widely used history textbook attributed to Andrew Mellon was the direct opposite of what he actually said. In Mellon’s own book, Taxation, he said that wealthy people were not paying enough tax revenue to the government, because they put their money into tax-exempt securities. Mellon called it “incredible” that tax laws allowed someone making a million dollars a year to pay not a cent in taxes, and an “almost grotesque” consequence that people of more modest incomes had to make up the shortfall.

He understood, however, that higher tax rates did not automatically mean higher tax revenues. So when the tax law changes that he advocated cut tax rates, the income tax revenues actually hit a record high at that time. Moreover, the rich paid more tax revenue and a much higher percentage of all income tax revenues than before.

Issues in both economics and science can get complicated. But when one side of those issues has to resort to demonstrably false catchwords, that should give us a clue.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at

h/t to Joseph Bast

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Paul r
January 27, 2019 2:14 am

When the person you’re debating resorts to name calling you know you have won the argument. You also know that that person will never change their mind because most people will never accept or admit they’re wrong. Ego and pride can be very destructive.

Reply to  Paul r
January 27, 2019 11:11 am

Phew. If I had a dollar for every time a person here started a response to me with “Simple Simon.” Well…. I’d have 37 dollars.

John Doran
January 27, 2019 2:24 am

Not “trickle down”, but efficient tax revenue gathering:

John Doran.

Mike Bryant
Reply to  John Doran
January 27, 2019 4:32 am

Forty-five percent is the optimal tax rate?
Are you having a Laffer?
I beg to differ. When Great Britain was at her economic peak, the tax rate was at ten percent. Imagine that the government employed less than half the number they currently do. Do you suppose they would require fewer marble buildings? Would they purchase fewer vehicles? Would there be fewer opportunities for our masters to heap economy-killing regulations on us? Would those “workers” have to get real work and pay taxes too? And, to use the word “optimal” or “efficient “ to describe anything that has to do with any government is ridiculous.

Reply to  Mike Bryant
January 27, 2019 6:02 am

Mike Bryant

From memory, the worlds first national income tax was introduced in the UK at 1P in the £ to fund the Napoleonic wars.

It was never intended to fund numerous other endeavours but politicians figured that once they had set a precedent they should keep it going and find things to spend the money on when the wars were over.

Rich Davis
Reply to  HotScot
January 27, 2019 9:08 am

According to Wikipedia, it was graduated from zero to 10%. The first bracket was on incomes below £60 which were exempt. Then 2d in the £ (0.83P in the £), up to a maximum of 2s (10P) in the £.

According to Dickens, Bob Crachitt made 15/- per week (0.75P) in 1860 working for old Ebenezer. So his £39 annual income was exempt. Now he’ll be paying 20% VAT on his coal even in his retirement. But if he can’t pay, then he had better die, and reduce the surplus population.

Hugh Clark
Reply to  Rich Davis
January 28, 2019 2:02 am

No, 5percent VAT on solid fuel for domestic heating.

Hugh Clark
Reply to  Rich Davis
January 28, 2019 2:07 am

No, 5% VAT on solid fuel for domestic use.

John Endicott
Reply to  Rich Davis
January 28, 2019 9:06 am

Hugh is that before or after carbon tax schemes are implemented?

Reply to  Mike Bryant
January 27, 2019 6:03 am

Mike Bryant, when economists are doing their job, they’re explaining relationships among numbers. The “optimal” tax rate in Laffer’s classic illustration is the theoretical rate at which the government collects the most in taxes – it’s not the “best” rate for growth, liberty, or anything else.

Laffer was showing that, when politicians advocate rates above a certain point, they are no longer using the tax code to fund the government. They have to admit (as Obama did) that their intent is redistribution.

Capn Mike
Reply to  damp
January 27, 2019 6:32 am

Thanks for that excellent clarification. I know he’s not popular in limited govt. circles, but Laffer was right in a limited way. He was not asked what was the best rate for the economy, only what was the best rate for govt. $$$ harvesting.

John Endicott
Reply to  Capn Mike
January 28, 2019 11:06 am

+42 exactly right Capn Mike. The optimal rate is what is optimal for the tax man not what’s optimal for the individual tax payer.

Reply to  damp
January 27, 2019 10:45 am

Laffer is a dingbat “economist”,
always looking for publicity.

There is no way anyone could determine
an “optimal tax rate”, or even state
there might be one.

US Federal income tax brackets have changed
repeatedly in the past 100 years.

The surprise is that income tax revenues
don’t change that much (except for falling
during recessions).

My guess is that people cheat / evade / avoid taxes more
when income tax brackets are high,
and less when income tax brackets are low.

There appears to be a limit to how much money
the goobermint can squeeze out of the taxpayers!

I have written an economics newsletter,
for subscribers, since 1977.

My theory on the optimum tax REVENUES
are sufficient revenues, over a whole business
cycle, to fund 100% of government spending.

The taxpayers should pay
for ALL government spending,
over a full business cycle
(I accept deficit spending during recessions)
with no government deficits/borrowing,
especially from foreigners.

Borrowing makes reckless
government spending
“painless” for American taxpayers.

If the people want more government spending,
then they must pay for it — “my” policy
would lead to less government spending
as a percentage of GDP.

End of economics lecture.
You can wake up now!

Reply to  Richard Greene
January 27, 2019 1:08 pm

Changing tax rates gives plenty of experiments from which to draw data.
The fact that people cheat on their taxes is part of the equation.
So optimal for you, is determined based solely on how much politicians feel like spending.
Don’t have much sympathy for real people I see.

Reply to  Richard Greene
January 27, 2019 1:33 pm

This is a reply to Mark W.
I don’t understand your comment,
and maybe you didn’t understand mine.

My comment was about controlling,
and hopefully significantly reducing,
government spending.

Taxpayers, in general, want “stuff”.

They can get “stuff” almost for free
if their government borrows the money
to pay for the services / goods they want.

So why not demand more and more
government spending, if the only cost
is paying a little interest on the borrowing
(and later passing on the debt to the next generation
for them to pay interest on … permanently)?

Deficit spending hides the true cost of government
and passes on huge debts to the next generation.

Anna Keppa
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 27, 2019 3:58 pm

You lost most of us at “dingbat”.

And then when you said “my guess is”. And “Appears to be”.

And “my theory”.

But I’m very interested and would like to subscribe to your newsletter!


John Endicott
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 28, 2019 10:52 am

There is no way anyone could determine
an “optimal tax rate”, or even state
there might be one.

For someone who claims to “have written an economics newsletter” you aren’t showing much knowledge of basic economic.

While the optimal tax rate is unknown (if it was known, we’d set the tax rate to that optimum and be done with it) it most definitely exist. Think about it. If the tax rate* was 0%, what would the tax revenues be? obviously $0. Now what do you think tax revenue would be if the tax rate was 100%? Are you thinking of a nice large number, in the billions or trillions perhaps? if so you would be wrong. the revenue would be $0. Why, you might be wondering? Because there’s no reason to earn money if you don’t get to keep any of it for your own use. People won’t get out of bed and go to work for nothing.

As you raise the rate from 0 revenue goes up until you reach a point where additional increases result in a decrease in revenue. Conversely, as you lower the rate from 100, revenue goes up until you reach a point where additional decreases result in a decrease in revenue. And it’s where that point of inflection between the two extremes of 0% and 100% is that the optimal rate exists (IE the rate that will get the tax man the most tax revenue).

Now, our tax system complicates things, as we don’t have a single rate but multiple “progressive” rates, we have credits to incentivize certain behaviors and activities over others, etc. which makes it nearly impossible to figure out where the optimal rate is (and the optimal rate isn’t necessarily static, what might be optimal this year might not be the next).

* while the above example assumes a single flat rate for ease of illustration. The general concept still applies even when talking about progressive tax rates.

As for “controlling, and hopefully significantly reducing, government spending”, that has nothing to do with the optimal tax rate. the two are separate issues. Taxes are only one source of money for governments, whether the rate of those taxes is optimal or not.

Reply to  Richard Greene
January 29, 2019 8:32 am

Comment to John Endicott
You provided such a long-winded, boring reply,
I fell asleep reading it … three times!
You obviously didn’t comprehend much
of what I wrote, perhaps I should have
used simple language.
Here a few of my comments
in response to your
ranting and raving
er .. I mean comments:
“For someone who claims to “have written an economics newsletter” you aren’t showing much knowledge of basic economic.”
Great way to start a “debate” (rant) Endicott,
— leftist style — with a character attack !
” If the tax rate* was 0%,
what would the tax revenues be?”
If the tax rate is zero,
then the tax does not exist, dingbat !
I can character attack too!
“Now what do you think
tax revenue would be
if the tax rate was 100%?”
No one knows.
To the best of my knowledge, 100% has never been tried. We did have a 91% marginal individual income tax rate in the US. The tax revenue DEPENDS HEAVILY ON the quantity of exclusions, deductions and loopholes — there were many when our top rate was 91% — so the effective top tax rate back then was about 45% — which was not that much higher than today.
“As you raise the rate from 0
revenue goes up
until you reach a point
where additional increases
result in a decrease in revenue.”
Just an unproven theory.
Actual experience with many different marginal tax rates in the US, over many decades, for federal income taxes, strongly suggests that tax revenues DO NOT CHANGE VERY MUCH when rates change.
I explained the most logical reason for that in my first comment.
” And it’s where that point of inflection
between the two extremes of 0% and 100%
is that the optimal rate exists
(IE the rate that will get the tax man
the most tax revenue).”
More unproven theory.
This is a back of the napkin theory from a dingbat economist
with no real world experiments to prove it is true.
“As for “controlling,
and hopefully significantly reducing,
government spending”,
that has nothing to do
with the optimal tax rate.
the two are separate issues.”
I never said it did !
I have alternative free market view — matching TOTAL TAX REVENUES with TOTAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING over a full business cycle. That theory has NOTHING TO DO with tax rates, or total tax revenues.

Here’s a simpler explanation maybe even you could understand:
Our US government takes in roughly $3 of tax revenues for each $4 of spending. The other $1 for spending is borrowed. Borrowing money for government spending encourages wasteful spending, because so “painless” for the taxpayers — for $1 of spending on the taxpayers, all they have to pay is a little interest on the borrowed money each year (interest is actually paid every year, forever after, as the debt is passed on to their children).

If US taxpayers had to pay $4 of taxes, for each $4 of government spending, rather than $3, I believe they would be more likely to want less government spending, or at least to slow the growth rate of government spending.

Have a nice day.

My economics blog
launched in 2008,
is free, even for you:

Farmer Ch E retired
Reply to  Mike Bryant
January 27, 2019 6:54 am

Mike Bryant said:

“Imagine that the government employed less than half the number they currently do. . . . . Would they purchase fewer vehicles?”

Did anyone besides me notice that during the US Gov shutdown, the metropolitan traffic seemed to be much better? I’m in a suburb to a state capital w/ some gov high rises. The reduced traffic was a reminder to me that as the size of gov goes up, so does the portion of our infrastructure that must be devoted to servicing the gov. In the 70s & 80s I worked predominantly for DoE & DoD contractors so I understand and sympathize w/ gov workers missing pay checks but still, bigger gov does not make for better gov.

Reply to  Farmer Ch E retired
January 27, 2019 7:51 am

“That government is best, which governs least”
Thomas Jefferson

Gary Ashe
Reply to  Mike Bryant
January 27, 2019 8:58 am

We dont have corporation tax here, only banks pay 10%.

Personal income tax is capped at £120,000 maximum thats why the place is full of millionaires and corporate HQ’s.

Its the N.I. we get and the vat.

John Endicott
Reply to  Mike Bryant
January 28, 2019 11:15 am

Forty-five percent is the optimal tax rate?
Are you having a Laffer?
I beg to differ. When Great Britain was at her economic peak, the tax rate was at ten percent.

As pointed out elsewhere in this thread. the optimal tax rate is what’s will bring in the most tax dollars (pounds, yen, euros, or other currency of your choice). The Great Britain, at her economic peak only taxed at 10% does not mean 10% is the rate that would have brought in the most tax money (IE the optimal rate) for all we know they could have jacked it up to 20% and raked in even more.

And, to use the word “optimal” or “efficient “ to describe anything that has to do with any government is ridiculous

depends, as always, on context. Government-pork spending is an efficient way to waste lots of money. The optimal form of government is the one that is least intrusive. dealing in absolutes is ridiculous (and the way of the Sith)

Reply to  John Endicott
January 31, 2019 5:21 am

Seems to me there is a link between tax rates and economic activity, which generates revenues. Like you said, a 100% tax rate doesn’t work because no one would do anything to generate income. The optimum tax rate will create the maximum amount of economic activity thereby generating the the maximum amount of revenue. Of course, the hope would be that the more economic activity we have the less government support is needed which decreases the need for the revenues. We all know the politicos will find somehow to spend it, and more. Its not that we don’t have enough revenues, but rather the government spends too damn much of our money.

Mike Bryant
Reply to  John Doran
January 27, 2019 5:04 am

Your link says that 45% is the “optimal” tax rate in Great Britain. It is to Laffer. When Brittania ruled the waves the tax rate was at 10%. More of our money does not make government better, only bigger. Quizlet is propaganda.

Reply to  John Doran
January 27, 2019 5:53 am

I see your Laffer Curve, and raise you Hauser’s Law:

The US Federal Government typically gets ~19% of the GDP as tax revenues, independent of tax rates. So let’s just set the rate – Federal income, SSI, FICA combined – at 19% with zero deductions and be done with it. That would be the optimal per Laffer as well – since it’s where the Federal Government inevitably ended up no matter what it tried to do over 70+ years…

January 27, 2019 2:52 am

Oh dear.

Go to the creators website and one of the first titles you will see is:

Democrats Are Border Crisis Deniers

Kaiser Derden
Reply to  HotScot
January 27, 2019 5:30 am

just throwing the nonsense back in their face is all …

Steve B
Reply to  HotScot
January 27, 2019 5:35 am

Democrats are denying a border crisis at this time…Who exactly is saying that climate doesn’t change?

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  HotScot
January 27, 2019 6:31 am


Democrats Are Also Voter Fraud Deniers

Gary Ashe
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
January 27, 2019 9:04 am

And Caucasian-phobic
Factose intolerant

Reply to  HotScot
January 27, 2019 6:41 am

I can find you the quotes and names of Democrats stating that there is no border crises. Can you do the same wrt denying the climate changes?

Do you not recognize the difference between claiming, erroneously, that someone has said something, versus accurately quoting people? If not, you qualify for being a CNN reporter.

Reply to  jtom
January 27, 2019 7:21 am


I’m not saying anything mate. I’m just pointing out that it’s a bit of faux pas.

Robert W. Turner
Reply to  HotScot
January 27, 2019 8:33 am

The moral of the story is that you should have some semblance of reality to backup your labeling of other people or groups. Like climate cultist is a completely valid and appropriate way to describe the adherers of climate alarmist science.

Tom Anderson
Reply to  Robert W. Turner
January 27, 2019 1:09 pm

A recent account of Isaac Newton’s religious studies at Oxford emphasized his awareness that people seem to have always been inveterately superstitious. Even the ancient Egyptians knew it. Nothing seems to have had a greater chance of success in this world than a new superstition. With many modern people endorsing beliefs from astrology to the benefits of organic as opposed to genetically enhanced food, there is a sufficiency of ready and willing converts to begging forgiveness for the original sin of getting warm by fire.

That suggests little chance of overcoming the Global Warming credo except by a new more commanding, and probably more distressing, popular belief.

Tom Anderson
Reply to  Tom Anderson
January 27, 2019 1:21 pm

His studies at Cambridge, sorry.

January 27, 2019 2:57 am

Sowell is one of the greatest thinkers of our time.
Sort of the Einstein of economics.
What makes it even better is his skin color! (-:

Reply to  Eyal
January 27, 2019 10:50 am

Sowell is a great economist
because his writing is clear
and easy to understand.

Many economists these days
deal in high level math and
computer models — no one
can understand their studies,
not even them!

Reply to  Eyal
January 28, 2019 1:27 am

Furthermore, he is a former Marxist who saw through the nonsense and recanted. The Left hate him, of course.

Rod Evans
January 27, 2019 2:58 am

The climate change alarmists rely on the first rule of propaganda, i.e.
If you tell a lie often enough and loudly enough, eventually people with influence will accept it as fact?
The President of the EU commission has famously been reported promoting such strategies.
His version was “when things get difficult, you have to lie”.
Paraphrasing Mark Twain.
“It is easier to con people, than to convince them they have been conned”

Rod Evans
Reply to  Rod Evans
January 27, 2019 3:50 am

With a name like yours Kym, I would have expected better than that.
Hey ho.

Reply to  Rod Evans
January 27, 2019 4:28 am

Here people don’t seem to be convinced in the absence of convincing arguments, let alone the absence of argument.

Reply to  Rod Evans
January 27, 2019 7:54 am

For once, would you care to present some evidence to support your claim?
Or like the rest of the alarmists, do you prefer to hide your data?

michael hart
Reply to  Rod Evans
January 27, 2019 10:20 am

Rod Evans
January 27, 2019 at 2:58 am

The climate change alarmists rely on the first rule of propaganda, i.e.
If you tell a lie often enough and loudly enough, eventually people with influence will accept it as fact?

Though I’ve never though to rank them, I can easily add a second:
When you are doing something you probably shouldn’t be doing, make sure you accuse your opponents of doing just that same thing first.

Thus: The alarmists appear to deny that climate ever changed significantly due to natural causes before mankind’s influence, or that it might still be doing so. Ergo, they should accuse their opponents of being “climate change deniers”.

January 27, 2019 3:05 am

It’s a snarl word. If you’re not familiar with the term, this is a designation dreamed up by the lefties to delegitimise the vocabulary of the other side of the debate, and thereby to silence it. For example, CAGW is a ‘snarl word’. So is ‘neo-Marxist’ (go on, google it). Yup, every time folk like us find a useful term to label a phenomenon we’re talking about, it will be designated a ‘snarl word’ and eliminated from discourse. But the boot’s really on the other foot. While our perfectly reasonable words are called snarl words by the left, the left is the best source of snarl words: Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia (is that fear of crossing the road?) and denier, to name a few. It’s time we called out their snarl words and hobbled their vocabulary as they have sought to hobble ours.

January 27, 2019 3:05 am

Sowell is one of the most brilliant thinkers alive today.


Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
January 27, 2019 4:48 am

I will second Willis’s comment!

Excellent article Dr. Thomas Sowell!

Except, I will quibble the “trickle down” theory.

Reply to  ATheoK
January 27, 2019 6:03 am

Another ad hominem snipe by kym.

No explanation, no detail, all mouth or fingers spewing bile and zero substance.

I have a disagreement with Dr. Sowell’s depiction of “trickle down” theory. That neither demeans nor lessens Dr. Sowells cogent arguments.

It always astonishing that someone who only slings insults and falsehoods pretends they can distract or diminish solid cogent arguments by the genuine brilliant thinkers of the world.

It isn’t even popcorn time as lightweight pretenders throw baseless claims and insults against a true icon.

Pathetic is too good a word in describing kym and it’s comments.

Reply to  ATheoK
January 27, 2019 7:15 am

I think the problem lies with what is meant by ‘trickle down’.

The only thing high taxes vs low taxes does is decide in what direction that money trickles. The money will be spent in either case. The rich will ‘invest’ much if the money, but what does that mean? It simply means the money will be spent in ways that will increase goods and services, building more wealth (of which, the investor gets a share). The rich are often motivated to create more wealth. Otherwise, they spend the money on ‘things’. The Biltmore House is a monument to wealth, but its construction provided construction workers, landscapists, architects, servants, etc., lifetime jobs.

If the government takes the money, it will decide how it is spent – a large amount on military, some of it given away to other countries, and most on social programs. Little of it results in increasing the national wealth. For example, a large standing army does not increase GDP. The economy will remain status quo (soldiers must eat, the money gets to farmers, etc), but little if any is used to create new wealth.

I favor low taxes on the rich because, by virtue of becoming rich, they have likely proven the ability to create wealth, and some of that new wealth will ‘trickle down’. Governments, otoh, have a track record of destroying wealth.

Reply to  ATheoK
January 27, 2019 7:55 am

Like most leftists, Kym defines smart as “agrees with me”.

January 27, 2019 3:21 am

Referring to Mellon and the 1920’s: ” So when the tax law changes that he advocated cut tax rates, the income tax revenues actually hit a record high at that time. Moreover, the rich paid more tax revenue and a much higher percentage of all income tax revenues than before.”

I think Trump just did the same thing. Total tax revenues are up. Percentage of total taxes paid by the most wealthy is also up (another way of saying that the working class paid lower taxes both in amount and percentage). Economy up. Win win win.

Ben Vorlich
January 27, 2019 3:26 am

Well I have a vague memory of Mrs Thatcher being quoted as saying wealth trickles down. But that may not have been her actually words but a media interpretation of what she actually said

Reply to  Ben Vorlich
January 27, 2019 4:03 am

The term trickle down economics is as daft as it sounds.

In a crude example, businessmen/women risk their hard earned capital to establish businesses then pay employees a lot of money to operate it for them. That’s not trickle down, that’s Niagara falls.

Additionally, if it’s an SME the chances of getting any form of government support is virtually zero other than in some very specific market segments.

So, what’s the incentive to start a business if there’s no financial reward for the risks taken at every point in the life of the business? Indeed, why have corporation tax at all, I mean a ‘business’ costs the country nothing but is a vehicle that creates employment which generates income tax.

Personally, I like the concept of voluntary shared ownership where employees are incentivised by the companies success, but there’s not much incentive if the business is hammered for tax and the returns are dismal.

It’s no wonder the UK suffers so much Tax Avoidance when the tax laws runs to, I believe, around 17,000 pages. There’s so many loopholes in it that decent accountants can run rings round it.

old construction worker
Reply to  HotScot
January 27, 2019 5:35 am

Who pays taxes? Businesses and individuals have to get the money from somewhere so they can transfer money from their pocket to the governments pockets. But where did the money come from? It come from us when we put on our end user consumer hats. All taxes are paid for by the end user of products and services. Taxes along with other cost are are built into the price of goods and services. When the governments (local, state and federal) increase taxes that additional tax is passed on to the consumer. Unfortunately the business will lose consumers do to higher cost to a point of going out of business. What happen in the end? Everyone become poorer. If everybody worked for McKey D’s McKey D’s goes out of business.

John Endicott
Reply to  HotScot
January 28, 2019 11:18 am

Indeed HotScot. As the saying goes “I never got a job from a poor person”

Reply to  Ben Vorlich
January 27, 2019 8:19 am

The psychology is important and not so obvious. Marxists assume rich people have a treasury full of money where it is not available to the population at large. So they want to confiscate it, or if only socialists, tax the money at a usuriously high rate.

They forget that in the capitalist system, the rich person got rich by providing goods and services that others were willing to pay for, because it improved their lives in some way that the government was not providing.

Then the rich people put their money into financial institutions where experienced people reinvest that money more astutely than governments generally do. ALL the rich persons money is back in “the system”. In reality, the rich person only feels rich because his bank statement says he has money in the bank instead of “We lent it out so you have no money left”. And the rich person goes on supplying goods and services that the government doesn’t have to or care to…. Making everyone wealthier.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  DMacKenzie
January 27, 2019 3:39 pm

“The psychology is important and not so obvious. Marxists assume rich people have a treasury full of money where it is not available to the population at large.”

They assume the size of the economic pie is fixed and if some get more of the fixed pie then that means that others are limited to less of the pie.

The truth is the economic pie expands with economic activity. An economy that creates millionaires is not an impediment to the economy or to others becoming wealthy. There’s enough wealth available in a growing economy to accomodate and benefit everyone who is willing to work for it.

January 27, 2019 3:36 am

Climate denialism obviously refers to human caused climate change.

No it doesn’t. It’s invariably a catch all, pejorative term for those sceptical of climate science.

lower taxes for the rich is supposed to benefit the poor. Yeah right.

OK, put it another way, higher taxes on the wealthy have them leaving the country taking their money and their businesses with them.

Case in point, the UK’s braid drain in the 1960’s when higher rate income tax was so punitive the wealthy just packed up and left.

Carbon BIgfoot
Reply to  HotScot
January 27, 2019 4:14 am

Last paragraph delusional and lacking no evidence.

Reply to  Carbon BIgfoot
January 27, 2019 4:33 am

Last paragraph delusional and lacking no evidence.

Erm … That means it has all the evidence it needs. yes/no? I’m pretty sure that’s not what you meant. yes/no?

Reply to  Carbon BIgfoot
January 27, 2019 8:05 am

Watching Kym complain about the use of ad hominems is really, really amusing.

Carbon Bigfoot
Reply to  Carbon BIgfoot
January 27, 2019 8:35 am

Suffering from Expressive Aphasia the delay in posting my response did not allow me to correct the wording after the fact. Really miss the editing feature.
There is no supportive evidence that we have caused a good degree of warming as Griff’s buddy KYM suggests.

Robert W. Turner
Reply to  Carbon BIgfoot
January 27, 2019 8:39 am

I’d say the whole diatribe is delusional.

Reply to  Carbon BIgfoot
January 27, 2019 6:38 pm

Your evidence that Heartland is bought and paid for?
Oh yea, they disagree with you.
One of these days Kym, you are going to slip up and actually present data to back up your opinions. Until then, you will just continue to be an average know nothing alarmist.

Reply to  HotScot
January 27, 2019 4:20 am

KS “A climate denialist denies even the settled parts of the science ”

Perhaps you could expand on that and cite those parts that are settled? The ECS?

Reply to  lee
January 27, 2019 5:10 am

All those climate models can’t be wrong, can they?

We’ll just have to re-calibrate all our thermometers, they appear to be reading low.

michael hart
Reply to  lee
January 27, 2019 11:09 am

Only one of them, at most, can be right.
Yet the IPCC keeps a stable of 30 or so models in complete defiance of logic or sensible science.
The overly hot ones should be thrown out on their ear, but the IPCC keeps them to frighten the children with, even when they are regularly falsified by reality.

Reply to  lee
January 27, 2019 11:30 am

“Perhaps you could expand on that and cite those parts that are settled? ”
That is quite easy.
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
2. Man has put a significant amount into the atmosphere over the last hundred years or so.
3. This has caused the planet to warm.

All three are beyond question, i.e settled. Anyone who denies those three things is a climate science denier. If you think I am wrong name a scientist in the field who says they are wrong? Spencer, Curry, Christy…. all agree with those three. Hell, even the guy whose website you flock to (WUWT) doesn’t disagree with them.

The debate is not about those settled issues, it is about:
1. how much warming will continue to happen and
2. how much damage will occur? And….
3. what do we do if anything to improve our chances of maintaining a quality of life we have become accustomed to.

Reply to  lee
January 27, 2019 1:11 pm

Simon, since almost nobody questions the first three things, what is your point?

As to the second three, the real world data shows that CO2 sensitivity is low, to very low.

Reply to  lee
January 27, 2019 1:34 pm

“Simon, since almost nobody questions the first three things, what is your point?”
Perhaps yo should read the first line of my post. It will explain the point.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  lee
January 27, 2019 8:35 pm

You said the CO2 is a ‘greenhouse gas,’ ergo it is causing the Earth to warm. That is like observing that almost all the trace elements that are essential for healthy organisms are poisonous — if taken in large doses. Therefore, we are at risk of dying from ingestion of trace elements. The ‘greenhouse gas’ statement has to be taken in the context of one of several things that interact in a complex way. That is, as some things increase, such as water vapor, clouds increase, which decreases the amount of sunlight reaching the surface. It is not logically valid to present one fact and claim that everything else is subservient to that ‘fact.’

Reply to  lee
January 27, 2019 10:41 pm

It is not logically valid to present one fact and claim that everything else is subservient to that ‘fact.’
It is when it is such a driving force int he warming of the planet.

Matthew Drobnick
Reply to  lee
January 28, 2019 4:24 pm

This NPC ironically surnamed Smart calling the great Dr. Thomas Sowell a shill…
That is comedy!

Thank you NPC! I didn’t know an NPC had programming capable of humor. Hmm, learn something new everyday.

Reply to  HotScot
January 27, 2019 4:39 am

The original term was “man-made global warming.” That was changed to a far more generic “climate change” precisely because temperatures refused to cooperate with the propaganda, and they’re still not doing anything outside normal variation.

Reply to  Notanist
January 27, 2019 5:28 am

If the main core of the theory was settled, the main tool that is used to make the predictions/projections, the models, would all produce the same result.
But the do not, they produce a spaghetti.

Which one of them do YOU trust the most Kym ?

and btw, ‘basket of deplorables’ was another political catch all that didn’t work out to well. just knock it off, please.

Reply to  Notanist
January 27, 2019 8:13 am

It has been checked and found to be accurate.
As always, Kym defines as true, only those things that support what Kym wants to believe.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Notanist
January 27, 2019 8:55 am

“When they realised the ‘pause’ was a problem for them only then they began promoting ‘Climate Change’, which they were well aware was the correct term all along.”

Well, the IPCC was formed LONG before the pause, and the CC stands for…

Reply to  Notanist
January 27, 2019 9:22 am

Sorry Kym, it`s true. Wake up.

Kym, why do you deny science?
How is it possible to find pure propaganda as reliable evidence about anything?

Kym, read history. This all has happened before, with a little difference. Then it wasn`t climate, but the final end is going to be same.

Kym, prove your case or change your last name. This is not a cartoon.

John Endicott
Reply to  Notanist
January 28, 2019 10:07 am

“The term ‘Global Warming’ was a convincing and evocative ‘brand’ apportioned to climate change principally by the MSM, but never criticised by alarmist scientists because it suited their agenda. When they realised the ‘pause’ was a problem for them only then they began promoting ‘Climate Change’, which they were well aware was the correct term all along.”

Well, the IPCC was formed LONG before the pause, and the CC stands for…

Jeff, how does that dispute at all what Hotscot was saying? It doesn’t matter when the IPCC was formed or what the CC in IPCC stands for, Global Warming was the term in popular usage for the 80s and 90s when people talked about “climate change” back then they usually used the term Global Warming. Even James Hansen of NASA used the term when talking to congress: “global warming has reached a level such that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence….” It was only the later 90s/ early 00s that the popular usage was transitioned from Global Warming to Climate Change (in part because the Bush administration preferred the later term).

As even the Washington posts admits The gradual change in preferred terminology from “global warming” to “climate change” among scientists and politicians began about a decade ago because that’s what their institutions called for. It also happened to be the preference of the George W. Bush White House.

Reply to  HotScot
January 27, 2019 4:49 am

“We should all be skeptical of all science…
A climate denialist denies even the settled parts of the science”

LOL. I bet you “got a million of ’em”.

Reply to  HotScot
January 27, 2019 5:03 am

There are no “settled” parts of Anthropogenic Global Warming. There is no actual scientific evidence, only computer modeled “evidence”. The phrase “Global Warming” was dropped in favor of the more expansive Climate Change, to open the door to all variety of weather events. Now freezing cold or extended periods of rain can be identified as the result of Climate Change. Climate Change cannot be a truly scientific phrase as the earth has many climates, not a single climate.

Reply to  HotScot
January 27, 2019 5:29 am

Except for your first paragraph, every paragraph is a falsehood.

It is alarmists who have claimed consensus, alleged authority and that peer reviews guarantee alarmist climate science is valid.
meanwhile, skeptical scientists find their research is blocked from reaching peer review and publication.
A fact borne out by the climategate emails.

Restating your false beliefs does not make them facts, kym.

Alleged absolute climate denialists do not exist, as described by Dr. Sowell.
Calling people “climate deniers” is one of ‘the’ first responses to those promoting alarmism.

Climate alarmism is a hoax. That it has socialist overtones is not an accusation. Climate alarmism has been explicitly identified by the UNFCCC and IPCC as a means for wealth redistribution. Not once, not twice, but multiple times.

You then apply the climate denialist claim broadly to skeptics; which identifies your sole role is to misrepresent and confuse.

kym claims that “powerful vested interests” have hoaxed skeptics.
Name those “powerful vested interests”!
Compare them to the powerful “powerful vested interests” desperately seeking to expand climate alarmism, carbon taxes and falsely alleged renewable energy.

Even the big oil companies give far more donations to alarmist climateers than skeptics ever receive.

Name the favorite alarmist blog sites! Every one of the major alarmist blogs are funded by alarmist billionaires, universities or government.
Compare the internet traffic of those alarmist web sites to WUWT’s traffic. yet, WUWT is not funded by any rich powerful interest.

“awful truth is that in the blink of a geological eye we’ve caused a good degree of warming, have locked in at least another decades worth from already emitted CO2”

A classic alarmist claim that is utterly bogus and without scientific proof.

Man’s CO₂ emissions are miniscule tokens to the atmosphere as the OCO-2 satellite proved.
Nor does CO₂ remain in the atmosphere for decades. CO₂ is actively used by every chlorophyll plant and shell building creature on Earth.

Every claim about “accelerating” is false!
Not ice melt, not warming, not storms, not sea level, etc. etc. are accelerating! Every claim for “accelerating” is based on copious use of models that use data from models already proven wrong.

There are no “finer points of the summary”!
Every claim of alarmism is based upon supposition and assumed prophecy. None, repeat none, are based upon hard science.

Of course, kym finishes with the already proven false claim of “settled science”.
“Settled science” is a claim put forth by people unable to factually defend their claims.

It is why the >’Global Warming Petition Project” is signed by many ‘tens of thousands’ verified scientists. “Settled science” is a claim by those who are unable to factually prove their version of ‘climate science’.

And it is why those climate alarmist web sites that are funded by “powerful vested interests” are so desperate to demean and diminish the ‘Global Warming Petition Project”, as their livelihoods are dependent upon keeping the fake climate alarmism campaign going.

Those scientists who research historical epochs and eras have termed warm periods as “Climate Optimums”!
Because every identified warming period has been abundantly beneficial to Earth’s wildlife, fauna and plants.

As Earth sinusoidally warms from the “Little Ice Age”, it is decidedly beneficial to Earth and humans, as long as the warming continues. It is when Earth cools that living creatures on Earth suffer.
It is also typical of alarmists to ignore all of recorded history when cold periods exacerbated human and Earth’s wildlife suffering.

Reply to  ATheoK
January 27, 2019 6:32 am

Another baseless ad hominem by kym who has failed to truly document any of it’s claims.

A) It is the responsibility of CO₂ drastic warming to prove their arguments.

B) It is the responsibility of trollops to prove their claims; e.g. “powerful vested interests”.
All of us here notice kym fails to document or prove anything. kym is all insults, innuendo, insinuation and character assassination.

C) Every statement I made is easily backed by science; so long as one avoids the alarmist misinformation web sites.

Reply to  ATheoK
January 27, 2019 8:12 am

As opposed to the rantings of Kym who just declares that anyone who doesn’t listen to those Kym considers to be experts and only to those Kym considers to be experts are denialists who have been conned by powerful interest groups.

It really must be nice to never have to go through life convinced that you can never be wrong.

Steve B
Reply to  HotScot
January 27, 2019 5:39 am

“A climate denialist denies even the settled parts of the science and calls it a hoax or a scam or a socialist/left-wing plot and imagines they know better than the climate scientists (who are just riding a gravy train) because they read something in a blog.”

Exactly which parts of climate science are “settled”. We are still scratching the surface with regard to our knowledge of energy movement through the system and what factors effect climate.

Eamon Butler
Reply to  HotScot
January 27, 2019 5:48 am

”The awful truth is that in the blink of a geological eye we’ve caused a good degree of warming, have locked in at least another decades worth from already emitted CO2,…”

A ”good degree of warming” is not a metric and means nothing. Same goes for ”at least…’ If this is something settled, it sounds very uncertain and vague.Scientists don’t argue about settled established facts.
Emotional scaremongering with idle assertions and slogans will cause arguments every time.

Ok! I’m curious now. What ”settled parts of the science” are being denied by sceptical scientists?

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  HotScot
January 27, 2019 6:14 am

**2. The extra CO2 can explain that increase?**
You are wrong here. Lindzen, Curry and Spencer do NOT agree that CO2 explains most of the increase.
The increase you mentioned is mostly natural – coming out of the Little Ice Age.

Reply to  HotScot
January 27, 2019 8:02 am

Now Kym proceeds to build a second and a third strawman.
First off, the claim that only peer reviewed science counts. This has never been true, and is even less true in modern times as pal review has over taken peer review.
Secondly, the claim that those who dare to disagree with Kym are being bought off by powerful interest groups.
Of course actual evidence of these massive payoffs are never presented, since even those making the claim know it to be a lie.

Reply to  HotScot
January 27, 2019 8:04 am

PS: Kym, if CO2 is the cause of the warming since the bottom of the Little Ice Age, why did most of the warming occur prior to the increases in CO2?
If CO2 is the only acceptable explanation as to how the world got out of the LIA, how did the world get into the LIA?

Rich Davis
Reply to  MarkW
January 27, 2019 10:06 am

Don’t hold your breath waiting for an answer on that one, Mark.

Reply to  HotScot
January 27, 2019 8:07 am

ATheoK, the other part of Kym’s deception is pretending that the increase in temperature has been smooth, and matches the rise of CO2. Of course neither is true, but it’s enough to keep the true believers going.

Reply to  HotScot
January 27, 2019 8:09 am

Kym, other sources of CO2 have been listed.
That you are unaware of any science that goes against what you want to believe is hardly surprising.

Stan Robertson
Reply to  HotScot
January 27, 2019 8:39 am

Settled science is an oxymoron.

Gary Ashe
Reply to  HotScot
January 27, 2019 9:38 am

Dumb sophist azzhole gtfooh.

Rich Davis
Reply to  HotScot
January 27, 2019 10:25 am

ha ha “testimony” as in “Amen! Can I get an Amen brothers and sisters? Testify it brother Kym!” Gimme that old time CAGW religion!

Reply to  HotScot
January 27, 2019 2:14 pm

Temperature is not accelerating despite co2 increase. I suggest to do more research that you find on this website. At the risk of authority argument I am a geologist.

Reply to  HotScot
January 27, 2019 6:41 pm

The difference between you and the rest of us Kym, is that we have actually studied the science and as a result we recognize that nothing ATheoK stated is in any form controversial.

Regardless, being the person who keeps claiming that 100% of the warming since the bottom of the Little Ice Age was caused by CO2, you have no leg to stand on.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  HotScot
January 27, 2019 8:24 pm

You said, “A climate denialist denies even the settled parts of the science…” And, just what would the “settled parts” be? What the amount of future warming will be for a doubling of CO2? What the percentage contribution to modern warming that humans are responsible for? Exactly what the anthropogenic portion of the Carbon Cycle is? Anything less than these is trivia.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  HotScot
January 27, 2019 8:40 pm

You said, ““we”? lol. Dude you’re alone. Uh huh, yes you are.” I would call that obvious denialism, or at least wishful thinking!

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  HotScot
January 28, 2019 3:42 am

Samuel, I could post links to the peer-reviewed literature,

Kym S, and I can post links to various colleges, steel mills or horse racing tracks……. so what?

If you can’t define/explain, in scientific terms and/or examples, why you agree with or believe parts or portions of your aforesaid ”peer-reviewed literature”, …… then your arguments in support of Anthropogenic Global Warming climate change and/or CO2 causing Anthropogenic Global Warming climate change is nothing more than a mimicry of your nurtured (brainwashed) religious beliefs.

Kym S, my guess is, you are an avid supporter of the “junk science” associated with weather and climate change in order to maintain “peer approval” of the group of individuals you “hunger” to be friends with.

To disagree with your group of friends ……. is to be shunned and badmouthed by your now belated group of friends.

Matthew Drobnick
Reply to  HotScot
January 28, 2019 7:02 am

Hey guys, go easy on her, she can’t even spell her name correct

There Kim, fixed it 😉

January 27, 2019 3:40 am

Ronald Reagan advocated tax cuts for the rich, citing the trickle-down effect. They actually worked, too. American GDP went up. And yes, he was lambasted in the media. They had a definite lean, even in those days.

Reply to  Hivemind
January 27, 2019 3:54 am

They’ve had a definite lean for much longer than that. At least since the campaign in 1960 between Kennedy and Nixon. Of course political leanings were a fact of life in the press the whole history of this country and before it’s inception but that was expected in Newspapers. Heck, the Chicago Times characterized Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address as “The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly, flat, and dish-watery utterances of the man who has to be pointed out to intelligent foreigners as President of the United States.”

Reply to  Hivemind
January 27, 2019 11:40 am

Government debt tripled in Reagan’s eight years.
Worse than O’Bummer — he had almost a double!

I voted for Reagan in 1980,
but not in 1984.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 27, 2019 4:50 pm

Everybody else voted for Reagan in 1984. He won 49 states and missed winning his opponent, Mondale’s, home state of Minnesota by about 1,000 votes, or he would have won all 50 states.

Reagan raised the national debt a few hundred billion. Obama raised the national debt by $10 Trillion! Unfortunately, Obama had the help of the Republican congress in doing so. They were scared to death to be labeled racists, so they practically rubberstamped everything Obama sent to them. A pathetic performance. We are caught between Democrat treachery and Republican incompetence and disarray. The Republicans need to get their act together.

Take for example the government shutdown. The Democrats organized groups of laid-off workers to go protest Republican Mitch McConnell and other Republicans about the shutdown, but the Republicans did nothing similar. Why didn’t Republicans organize protests of Pelosi and Shumer?

The Republican just leave the field to the Democrats. Democrats have the killer instinct, the Republicans do not. They sit here calmly while Obama and Mueller carry out a slow-motion coup of the Republican president.

Maybe they will fight back effectively one of these days. They have a leader that knows how to fight this fight, but they just can’t seem to all get on board. Our nation and futue is at stake while they fiddle and fail to act against the radical Democrats.

Reply to  Richard Greene
January 28, 2019 2:05 pm

“There are lies, damned lies and statistics.

You are using a form of statistics to create a false idea. Your 3X and 2X increases are meaningless without looking at starting and end points. What was the total dollar increase during Reagan’s 8 years verses the total dollar increase during Obama’s 8 years.

Who you voted for is TMI. It really isn’t any of our business.

Reply to  chemamn
January 29, 2019 8:57 am

I stated that I voted for Reagan in 1980
to inform readers that I had nothing
against him and would not misuse data
to make him look bad.

US debt tripled in Reagan’s eight years.

That is a fact.

Almost doubled in Obama’s eight years.

That’s a fact too.

You are entitled to
your own opinions,
but not your own facts.

Your opinion that 2X and 3X are meaningless
must mean you just don’t care about
federal debt — few leftists care,
so that’s a common belief
among Americans.

Even Republicans don’t care
not that Trump is president.

January 27, 2019 3:42 am

So many, so little time:
“tipping point”
“canary in the coal mine”
“new certainty”
“Climate Justice”
“green energy”
“Virtually ice free Arctic”
“Perma drought”
“The Arctic is screaming”
“Death spiral”
etc, etc, etc. ad nauseum.

January 27, 2019 3:55 am

Lower taxes benefit everyone. Except those munching on the state titty.

Alan D. McIntire
January 27, 2019 4:08 am

I wouldn’t call it a POLITICAL crrsade, I’d call it a RELIGIOUS crusade. We Catastrophic Anthropological Global Warming deniers are heretics, denying the true religion.

2 Timothy 2:12
If we endure, we will also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us;

Matthew 10:33
But whosoever shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my father in heaven.

As the Amish shun heretics, we global warming “deniers” are to be shunned by the CAGW religious community.

Reply to  Alan D. McIntire
January 27, 2019 4:27 am

You mean like Marcott’s hockeystick as mentioned favourably by the IPCC’s SR5 report?

Ian Macdonald
Reply to  Alan D. McIntire
January 27, 2019 5:29 am

“My voltmeter reads 120v so the supply MUST be OK. I know that this meter reads 120v on the workshop supply, therefore it must be reading accurately on your supply. The fact that it reads 17v on a fresh 9v battery is immaterial. The appliances failing cannot possibly be due to supply voltage issues. ”

What would this tell you you about the quality of the rest of this electrician’s work? Would you even trust him to change a plug?

Relate this example to the use of bristlecone pine data in creating the hockey stick.

Mike Bryant
Reply to  Alan D. McIntire
January 27, 2019 5:44 am

Kym, has Alan been conned by experts like you?

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Alan D. McIntire
January 27, 2019 6:19 am

** You’ve been conned into believing that hockey stick is an illusion, it’s not.**
If you believe Mann’s hockey stick you have been conned. Too bad. Hard to take you seriously.

Reply to  Alan D. McIntire
January 27, 2019 8:18 am

Hmm, checking into the actual science and the actual mis-use of statistics is now being conned.

Reply to  Alan D. McIntire
January 27, 2019 11:03 am

Good grief you are dum as rocks. I can’t even engage you as you are a complete and utter fool.

January 27, 2019 4:31 am

Er Kym, the Hockey Stick is an illusion, it was thoroughly discredited years ago. We don’t really need to prove that we are right, another thirty years of failed doomsday predictions should do the trick.

Reply to  Stonyground
January 27, 2019 5:50 am

so you’re saying the climate didn’t change for over 1500 years….even though you know it did

Reply to  Latitude
January 27, 2019 7:27 am

the “bumpy bits” were ~2/10th of a degree for over 1500 years…
…you know better

Reply to  Latitude
January 27, 2019 8:21 am

So the thousands of studies that point to the existence of the the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age don’t exist?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Latitude
January 27, 2019 9:01 am

Marcott, eh? You DO know that Marcott doesn’t have the temporal resolution to capture anything that’s happened in the last 100 years, right? Which means it wouldn’t have captured highs and lows over the whole time span. Averaging temperature (or psuedo-temperature) is not your friend.

Reply to  Latitude
January 27, 2019 11:22 am

You want “bumpy bits”?

I’ll give you bumpy bits.

Now, show me where there aren’t bumpy bits. Then show where, other than by sheer coincidence, CO2 and Temperature pay the least bit of notice to one another.

Reply to  Latitude
January 27, 2019 12:57 pm

Kym not very Smart:
Please go out and find
us a more qualified
“CO2 is evil” leftist
to make comments
on this web site.

The quality of your comments
is so low that we want our old
climate alarmists back !

You are not even entertaining!

I have a climate science blog,
as a public service, for people
to better understand the science
and politics of climate change,
written in simple language:

I’ve had almost 30,000 page views
so far. You would greatly benefit
from reading the blog, but I fear you think
you already know it all
( you’re a good “parrot”
for the government bureaucrats
who have told us climate fairy tales
for the past three decades, along with
their wrong climate predictions
using their taxpayer funded
computer games!)

There has been
significant global warming
for the past 20,000 years.

The rate of warming in the
past 15 years has been
very slow.

Most of the mild, harmless warming
since 1975 has been at night,
in the six coldest months of the year,
and in the northern half of the
Northern Hemisphere …
where the few people living there
are thrilled by the slightly
warmer nights!

All the news about climate change
in the PAST 20,000 years has been
good news … but smarmy leftists
like you want us to believe all the
news about FUTUREclimate change
will be bad news — and proof of that
… is because you say so !

Sorry, but those of us who
believe in real science,
rather than wrong wild guesses
of the future climate ( that YOU
think is real science ),
are too smart to fall for
the climate change con job,
especially after three decades of
WRONG climate predictions!

In real science,
after you’ve made
ONE wrong prediction,
people stop taking
your predictions
seriously !

But in modern climate
junk “science”,
having THREE decades
of wrong climate predictions,
makes you a climate change
authority !

Only leftists
like you
could live with
such faulty logic !

We realists know that truth
is not a left wing value!

Reply to  Latitude
January 27, 2019 6:30 pm

KS, “Lets go for the full Marcott et al shall we? ”

You mean like where he was interviewed at realclimate, about the last 100 years?

“Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions. “

Reply to  lee
January 27, 2019 8:37 pm

Yes Kym very good. Now about that part of the last 100 years not being robust. That is the sticking point. General features? We have a temperature? That’s general. Temperature has increased that’s general. CO@ has increases – that’s general. Now tying them together outside a climate model.. that’s different.
“Although not part of our study,” – So they are saying they can’t guarantee other results, they have just accepted them. Hardly an endorsement of them because they didn’t study them.

Reply to  lee
January 28, 2019 1:21 am

KS, ” Choose any data set, they all show trend.”

How does trend show CO2 causation?

“It seems to me that the only reason these hockey stick type results are soo disputed is that they clearly demonstrate the influence that modern industrial civilisation has had in the climate.”

No causation then. Mere feelings.

Perhaps you should look at the parameters in AR5. Page 78 of 126 on the browser or page 818 Chapter 9.

“With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.” – von Neumann

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Stonyground
January 27, 2019 6:24 am

**Not true. Just a fake meme. There have been numerous studies confirming it. But you believe the lie. Do your own checking.**
Obvously Kym had not done ant research. the “numerous” studies all do the same thing – rely on one bad proxy to dominate the rest of the noise. They switched a few proxies but kept the main bad one. The “peer” review was more like “pal” review – see Wegman Report. All the details were covered by Steve McIntyre at about 12 years ago.

Reply to  Gerald Machnee
January 27, 2019 8:22 am

Fascinating how everything that confirms your belief system is definitely true and can’t be questions. While anything that goes against your belief system is rubbish and must be ignored.

And to think, you actually believe yourself to be smart.

Reply to  MarkW
January 27, 2019 8:51 am


It’s not funny, quite tragic really.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  MarkW
January 27, 2019 9:03 am

Yes, Mark. Just like the vast majority of science papers are wrong, but not climate science papers. Somehow they are intractably perfect.

Reply to  Stonyground
January 27, 2019 8:19 am

Acolytes of Mann, using the same data and the same methods get the same result.
If that impresses you, you are not a scientist.

Reply to  MarkW
January 27, 2019 3:00 pm

The hockey stick is old hat. Been reproduced so many times by so many verifiable studies it is boring. And still you can’t accept it and move on. Yawn. This is why the term “denier” is so apt for people like you. You accuse people of only believing what they want to and yet you are the ultimate example of that very fault.

Reply to  Simon
January 27, 2019 6:43 pm

Like I said before, same people, same data, same methods. Of course they got the same result.
The hockey stick has been refuted and even the IPCC doesn’t cite it anymore.
Unfortunately those, like you, who have no knowledge of science have to cling to their discredited shibboleths, because they can’t think for themselves.

Reply to  Simon
January 27, 2019 10:47 pm

“The hockey stick has been refuted and even the IPCC doesn’t cite it anymore.
I can understand why they aren’t preoccupied with it like you seem to be. It was the first of many that has highlighted the significant recent warming. But it wasn’t the last and it was sooooo long ago.

Reply to  Stonyground
January 27, 2019 10:13 am

The Hockey stick graph was based on the premise that tree rings could be used as a proxy for global temperatures. In order to establish this premise, temperatures reconstructed from tree rings were compared with instrumental temperature records for the time since those records have been available. For part of this calibration period the correlation was very good, but for a significant part it was not. For this reason the basic premise is flawed.

The samples of trees used was often small. In one case a single tree stood as a proxy for the entire planet.

The Roman warm period, the Medieval warm period and the various cold periods in between failed to appear in the tree ring reconstruction.

There were many errors in the data and the methodology.

If the Hockey Stick graph has not been discredited, why were the alarmists so desperate to distance themselves from it when it was?

Reply to  Stonyground
January 27, 2019 11:26 am


Quite how anyone believes they can determine a temperature to the nearest whole number from a tree ring, far less down to one decimal place utterly defeats me.

Try taking someone’s blood pressure, it varies almost by the second.

Reply to  Stonyground
January 27, 2019 3:03 pm


here is another one. You know the one all skeptics were going to agree with till…. you know it looked like another hockey stick….
comment image

Reply to  Stonyground
January 27, 2019 3:32 pm

@ Kym – “Do your own checking.”

I’d love to …But Michael Mann still refuses to release the data despite a court order.
if his data is so convincing, then publishing it would prove ALL sceptics wrong; most would recant, eat humble pie & join him in the great crusade (whatever this months title is).

On the other hand, I have irrefutable data that shows Michael Mann to be a liar, a cheat & a fraud .

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Stonyground
January 27, 2019 8:48 pm

I keep hearing you deny things, but then ask people to do their own checking. They already have done their checking, which is what you don’t want to believe.

Stuart Nachman
January 27, 2019 4:34 am

Anyone interested in how the world works, including fascinating information suggesting why certain areas of the world developed at a faster rate than others, will be enriched by Dr. Sowell’s books on those subjects. He is the successor to the great FA Hayek as the most eloquent defender of the free society. His first great book, Knowledge & Decisions, is what drew me to him.

Alan D. McIntire
Reply to  Stuart Nachman
January 27, 2019 4:50 am

Yes, I started reading Thomas Sowell’s columns in our local newspaper when I was a teenager. It was his clear arguments that made me a conservative.

January 27, 2019 4:46 am

Media research supports what Sowell is saying.

That aligns with what Media Matters found when we looked at climate coverage on broadcast TV news programs in 2017: Trump dominated the news segments about climate change. Researchers at the University of Colorado Boulder, in the International Collective on Environment, Culture & Politics, reached a similar conclusion when they analyzed TV news coverage from November of this year: “In US television coverage of climate change or global warming in November 2018, ‘Trump’ was explicitly invoked over fourteen times more frequently than the words ‘science’ or ‘scientists’ together and nearly four times more frequently than the word ‘climate’ itself.”

Details at my synopsis:

January 27, 2019 4:51 am

Actually I was thinking of the studies released since AR5. but perhaps you are not as up to date as you think.

But don’t you think it fascinating that according to AR5 there has been no improvement on ECS? And after 30 years of study too.

Rod Evans
Reply to  lee
January 27, 2019 5:14 am

As time goes by, now with decades of scientific study available to help us refine our estimate and as the linked graph of climate sensitivity shows, the science is increasingly pointing to climate being very insensitive to CO2. At the present rate of peer reviewed research reports shows, it will be down to zero by 2030.

Reply to  lee
January 27, 2019 5:22 am

So less than 4.5K.;)

Reply to  lee
January 27, 2019 5:25 am

So less than 4.5K.;)

Model derived ? Oh dear

Reply to  lee
January 27, 2019 8:26 am

In Kym’s world, the only thing that affects climate is CO2. Therefore all changes, no matter how big or small are due to CO2.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  lee
January 27, 2019 9:07 am

“2008 had us back at around 380ppm (assuming a 10 year lag in maximum effect) – a 35% increase for a 1C approx rise. That gives an ECS by my back of the envelope calculation of about 2.85C. That doesn’t include a blue Arctic nor any extra methane. 3-4 is still looking good.”

So ALL of that rise was due to human CO2? All of it? Really? There was NEVER any variation in temps before human CO2? Really? There were no glaciations? No Holocene Climate Optimum (You do know what “optimum” means, right?)? No Minoan Warm Period? Roman? No LIA? Just a flat line of nothing until 150 years ago? Really?

Yup, you’re a Manncolyte.

Reply to  lee
January 27, 2019 6:32 pm

KS, Did you forget ocean outgassing? Warmer world more outgassing.

Reply to  lee
January 27, 2019 6:45 pm

Kym didn’t forget it, Kym never knew about it in the first place.
Like most of Kym’s compatriots, actual knowledge of actual science is a impediment to true enlightenment.

Tom Halla
Reply to  lee
January 27, 2019 6:10 am

Kym, try reading Judith Curry on this issue. While she concludes that ECS is over 1 degree, the evidence does not support anything over 2.5 degrees.

Gary Ashe
Reply to  Tom Halla
January 27, 2019 2:20 pm

What real world ”evidence” supports any degree of co2 forcing, zero evidence thats what evidence.

Reply to  lee
January 27, 2019 8:40 am

Models Vs Observations.

comment image

Reply to  HotScot
January 28, 2019 1:34 am

KS, Oh No Skep Sci – the home of the forlorn 97%.

The claim 97% of climate scientists.

The study 97% of 33% of abstracts.

You do know even if it were 97% of abstracts it wouldn’t equal 97% of scientists; don’t you? Multiple papers etc.

Reply to  HotScot
January 28, 2019 4:02 am

KS, You mean the models are reality? Oh dear.

And the balloon datasets? Remember they weren’t all satellite. Oh that’s right the guys doing the balloons didn’t know to shield them from the sun. 😛

Or was it really so as not to provide clutter?

But real climate prefers satellite data for SLR and Topex, Jason 1, 2, 3 had accuracies of 42mm down to 34mm, but still claim SLR an order of magnitude finer than the accuracy.

Reply to  lee
January 27, 2019 10:59 am
Reply to  lee
January 28, 2019 1:27 am

KS, “What’s your point? That the CO2 in the air isn’t ours?”

That without precise measurements of natural variation there is no way to accurately prescribe how much is man-made. They did try to measure each countries output. Then found China lied. But even that is an estimate. Tree cover varies as well. Greening of the plane ring a bell? So many different natural causes and not looked at each year.

Reply to  lee
January 28, 2019 4:05 am

KS, Oh no the ice core data with its own inaccuracies, 😛

And I didn’t say that present concentrations don’t point to fossil fuel use.

It still doesn’t validate the models or the warming. Strawman.

January 27, 2019 5:08 am

KS “Thats the only unsettled part lee.”

So you can tell us whether clouds are net positive or net negative. Not probabilities but actual.

Reply to  lee
January 27, 2019 7:11 am

“Settled” only to an extent Kym.

It is well understood CO2 is a radiatively active molecule that absorbs/disperses energy in the far infrared. It’s also understood the CO2 of fossil fuel combustion raises the ERL thus disturbing the energy in/out equilibrium of the planet. To what extent the ACO2 increases mean temperature as a result of the equilibrium restoration thus affecting climate has not been determined. Estimates per doubling vary from next to zero to the IPCC’s range of 1.5 – 4.5 degrees C.

Observations indicate the 20th century was slightly warmer than the 19th. In the last 150 years the instrumental record indicates an increase in mean temperature a little over 1 degree C. which has climbed fractionally and sporadically from the depths of the Little Ice Age 370 years ago and continues to do so. So, in attributing some of this warming to man, it needs to be pointed out the warming has been small, barely registers on a thermometer and is not indicative of alarm.

The 0.5 degree C. attribution of the late 20th century warming to Anthro CO2 is nowhere near affirmed. The emphasis on CO2 has played down the other arguments……Cloud cover variance, ENSO in combination with the PDO and the AMO, solar activity (not solar irradiance, which is a constant), libration’s impact on the Sun/planet magnetic fields and Earth’s orbital mechanics, the subtle changes of insolation in response to the Precession nutations….to name a few.

Not that I care, I think our academic, media and governing elites would find it beneficial to lose the term “denier”. It’s a word the warm side uses to denigrate skeptics by connecting us with the Neo-Nazi holocaust deniers giving it the stench of evil. Its use is nothing more than the political tactic of attacking the person and not their argument, thus damaging the credibility that comes with detached and reasoned discussion.

Reply to  M.W.Plia
January 27, 2019 11:42 am

Wonderfully stated. But leftist-marxist like KYM will not hear or understand a word of it. Detest their ilk.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  M.W.Plia
January 27, 2019 8:57 pm

We not only don’t know for sure what the ECS is, we don’t even know if it is truly a constant! That is, it may be variable, being a part of the feedback mechanism. There is no “settled” in real science. There are only paradigms that have a nasty habit of being overturned as we learn more.

Reply to  M.W.Plia
January 29, 2019 1:29 pm

“10C”???…good grief, where do you get that?

Yes, “zero” is not realistic, that’s why I said “next to zero”.

Reply to  lee
January 27, 2019 7:45 am

Why the weasel word, “can,” in, “CO2 can account?” If that is your opinion, then all that your “settled science” boils down to the warming MIGHT be caused by CO2, so no specific fact is ‘settled’.

Do you intend to say the, “extra CO2 accounts for the warming?” Are you stating, flat out, that only the increase in CO2 can be the cause of much, if not all, of the warming? There is the problem; there is great difficulty proving that, and models can prove nothing. Until there is much, much more empirical evidence, the consensus of climate modelers can be as wrong as the consensus of doctors who, up until the 19990s, believed that stomach ulcers were caused by stress.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  lee
January 27, 2019 12:49 pm

***, and I think you do when I say what is settled ie:**
You missed a letter: “settled Lie”

**it has warmed, extra CO2 can account for the warming,**
NO measurements to prove it.

**the extra CO2 is from us.**
No proof. warm water releases CO2.

**Are all the feedbacks known conclusively?- no, is there narural variation mixed in with the Anthro-signal? – probably,**
Correct here, feedbacks have not been researched or measured accurately.

** are we sure of the ECS? – well no but it is probably higher than 3.**
Way off the mark. the best recent research is trending to closer to 1.0. However, these are estimates based on theoretical calculations.
In reality, it is more likely closer to zero, as the calculations are based on incomplete theory. There are likely positive and negative feedbacks that have harly been touched. A good example is water vapor (resulting in cloud), which has been theorized to be negative and positive. this has hardly been touched because a certain group is so immersed in CO2 that they think the science is settled.

Steve B
January 27, 2019 5:19 am

“Have you ever — even once in your entire life — seen, heard or read even one human being who denied that climates change?”

Well….Michael Mann worked very hard to make the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age all but disappear giving the impression that the climate has experienced almost no change till we invented the internal combustion engine.

January 27, 2019 5:23 am

Sowell was born in Gastonia, North Carolina, near the border with South Carolina. His father died shortly before he was born, and his mother, a housemaid, already had four children. A great-aunt and her two grown daughters adopted Sowell and raised him.[7] In his autobiography, A Personal Odyssey, Sowell wrote that his childhood encounters with white people were so limited that he did not know that blond was a hair color.[8] When Sowell was nine, his family moved from Charlotte, North Carolina, to Harlem, New York City, as part of the Great Migration of African Americans from the South to the North for greater opportunities. He qualified for Stuyvesant High School, a prestigious academic high school in New York City; he was the first in his family to study beyond the sixth grade. However, he was forced to drop out at age 17 because of financial difficulties and problems in his home.[7]

Sowell held a number of positions, including one at a machine shop and another as a delivery man for Western Union,[9] and he tried out for the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1948.[10] He was drafted into the military in 1951, during the Korean War, and was assigned to the United States Marine Corps. Because of his experience in photography, Sowell became a Marine Corps photographer.[7]

Thomas Sowell is an accomplished academic who has seen real life, experienced poverty and raised himself through his diligent efforts and the kindness of friends and strangers.

One subject of “climate change denial”, more scientifically termed global warming skepticism, Sowell wrote:
“There are scientists on both sides of that issue. Presumably the issue could be debated on the basis of evidence and analysis. But this has become a political crusade, and political issues tend to be settled by political means, of which demonizing the opposition with catchwords is one.”

This is an accurate statement by Sowell, as evidenced by the unrelenting attacks on climate skeptics by global warming alarmists. The overwhelming problem of the alarmists is not merely their dishonest abuse of those who question their false claims, it is their perfect record of failed predictions of runaway manmade global warming and wilder weather, claims for which there is NO supporting evidence and ample contrary evidence.

It is true that atmospheric CO2 is increasing, probably due to fossil fuel combustion, but also possibly also due in part to deforestation and other manmade AND natural causes. It is also true that the sensitivity of climate to increasing atmospheric CO2 is very small, between 0C and a maximum of about 1C/(doubling of CO2) [Christy and McNider 2017, Lewis and Curry 2018}. It is also true that despite increasing atmospheric CO2 and some moderate global warming. extreme weather events have declined , not increased, over the same period.

All the evidence indicates that CO2 is NOT a major driver of global warming or more extreme weather. The only measured consequence is hugely beneficial – increased atmospheric CO2 drives considerably improved plant and crop yields.

Earth is clearly colder-than-optimum for humanity – Excess Winter Deaths total about 2 million per year – that is the number of people who die in the Winter months minus the number who die in equivalent non-Winter seasons.

In conclusion, any global warming caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 will be minor and strongly net-beneficial to humanity and the environment.

Regards, Allan

curtis powell
January 27, 2019 8:22 am

One of the more interesting facets of Sowell’s life was that he was actually a Marxist while a college student at Harvard, Columbia, and the University of Chicago. It was his experience working for the federal government that caused him to reject Marxism for free-market economics.

January 27, 2019 10:19 pm

It has been brought to my attention that I have occasionally been scathing in my comments, and may have caused distress to others. For this I apologize.

Most of my harsh comments have been in response to attacks on me or knowledgeable professionals that I know and respect. My friend Dr. Tim Ball, a competent climatologist who has questioned human-made climate change, has received many death threats. My friends Dr. Sallie Baliunas at Harvard-Smithsonian and Dr. Pat Michaels at the University of Virginia are experts in their fields. They were harassed and dismissed from their positions after they questioned catastrophic human-made global warming.

For the preceding reasons I tend to respond harshly, perhaps too harshly to unsupported criticism. For this I again apologize. I will strive to keep future comments science-based and impersonal.

Regards to all, Allan MacRae

Matthew Drobnick
January 28, 2019 4:34 pm

I enjoy your remarks regardless.
Can’t say I’ve seen anything or of life but I can’t catch every article

January 27, 2019 5:23 am

Sowell says things that should be said and that nobody else will say. He backs his assertions up with facts. What he’s doing is tricky, in the same way that navigating a mine field is tricky.

I remember when Philippe Rushton got in big trouble for studying race and IQ. Since then, other scholars have pointed out the dismal IQ scores of the populations of many African countries. Similarly, people have been fired for saying exactly the same things for which Jordan Peterson is celebrated.

There are people who would gladly crucify Sowell. The fact that they can’t do so is a testament to the man’s brilliance.

Because his logic is simple and straight forward, some folks accuse him of being facile. link That may be somewhat true but the issues he deals with are mostly swept under the carpet and ignored by the left. In any event, I have yet to see a decent rebuttal of his work.

Matthew Drobnick
Reply to  commieBob
January 28, 2019 4:37 pm

They track remarkably well across multiple arenas from violence, abortion, intact families, income earning etc. Remarkable, the consistency, across the board

Rhys Jaggar
January 27, 2019 5:46 am

One of the ridiculous arguments about taxation of the rich concerns whether their increasesd earnings comes from things like cutting their employees’ pay, sacking a load of workers etc etc.

The thing with making the rich much richer is that the less well off almost always get absolutely poorer. The 1980s was a classic example. So was the decade 2009-2018.

There is nothing more obscene than claiming a wealth increase from $100m to $200m justifies making people earning $25,000 a year homeless, needing food banks, barely able to clothe their children.

Once you have wealth of $50m, you and your ancestors can live well on $2m a year future-proofed without having to do a single day’s work (if you outsource investment management). If you cannot live on $2m a year, do not come crying any time soon. Most people do not see $2m over a lifetime. So think a bit more carefully about what you really need in life….

Reply to  Rhys Jaggar
January 27, 2019 8:16 am

The problem with your thinking comes in the second paragraph. The richest man in US history was Andrew Carnegie, who amassed about 2.1% of the county’s GDP. The entire country became richer, not poorer because of him. The same can be said of a great many wealthy people. Do you deny that Bill Gates has improved the country for all? Think of the productvity increases arising from his efforts. Do you think the government would have gone down the same path as he (pc’s would still be a military secret, if they were even developed)? Many of the wealthy became that way by creating new wealth, and that improves the entire country.

Today’s poor have an equivalent standard of living as the middle class did in the 1950s, and are rich compared to people when the country was formed. Have you ever considered what this country would look like today if the Constitution dictated wealth redistribution? We would still be using animals for labor and transportation. Most of the country would be working on farms. Had their been such redistribution at the time, there wouldn’t even be a country. The Founding Fathers were the wealthiest colonists. Washington would have been stuck on his own little farm, trying to feed his family.

It takes wealth to create wealth. The redistribution of it stops the creation of wealth. That is one of many reasons why socialism will always lag captalism.

Reply to  jtom
January 27, 2019 11:52 am


You missed one very important detail. Carnegie was a Scot. 🙂

And whilst I joke, few can imagine how important that fact is.

The socialist idyll utterly fails to calculate into their little plan that if all wealth is redistributed, what motivation is there for anyone to risk starting their own business and employ people, to pay the taxes, to give to everyone else.

Stupid simplistic people. The idea of socialism occurred to me when I was a young child, the idea didn’t stick for very long. I must have been 12 years old when I figured it was just insane.

Reply to  Rhys Jaggar
January 27, 2019 8:32 am

There’s nothing harder to kill, than a good lie.
The rich have never gotten richer by sacking people. They get richer by cutting costs.
If those jobs aren’t needed, then they should be eliminated. Companies exist to make a product at the best possible price. They don’t exist to employ people.

PS: I love it when Marxists decide how much wealth a person is going to be permitted to have.

Reply to  MarkW
January 27, 2019 11:55 am


A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. Winston Churchill (and others).

Reply to  Rhys Jaggar
January 27, 2019 8:34 am

An idiot in science, and idiot in economics. Care to go for a tri-fecta Kym?

Marxists have always believed that the way to help the poor is by eliminating wealth.
The problem is that this has never worked. However by teaching the myrmidons to hate those who have succeeded, the Marxists have ensured themselves a wealthy lifestyle.

Reply to  Rhys Jaggar
January 27, 2019 8:39 am

Marxists do not believe in wealth creation, they believe that wealth is a fixed amount and the we need government to distribute that wealth fairly.
They also tend to believe that it’s impossible to get rich fairly, anyone who is rich has gotten so be stealing from those more deserving (such as themselves).

Reply to  Rhys Jaggar
January 27, 2019 8:41 am

Look at the global reduction in poverty. This is NOT the result of the rich getting richer by taking from the poor.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  John
January 28, 2019 7:48 am

Excellent point, John.

Reply to  Rhys Jaggar
January 27, 2019 10:54 am

Good-so let’s open up the borders and let in more low-educated and low-skilled workers thereby widening the income gap even further..

Reply to  Rhys Jaggar
January 27, 2019 3:10 pm

@ Kym,
It seems like you really had something to say there, but its meaning was lost in the jargon, care to try again ?

John Miller
Reply to  Rhys Jaggar
January 27, 2019 5:51 pm

Ancestors? No, I don’t think so.

Reply to  Rhys Jaggar
January 28, 2019 2:31 pm

Actually it isn’t any of your business what others do with their money.

January 27, 2019 5:56 am

Dr. Thomas Sowell asserts that:

“Here, yet again, all you need to do is think back over your own life, and ask yourself if you have ever — even once in your entire life — seen, heard or read a single human being who advocated this “trickle-down theory.”

Certainly none of the innumerable fellow economists I have encountered in my 88 years ever advocated any such theory.”

I may not have 88 years of experience and wisdom; however, I do remember the Reagan years and Reaganomics, which was a political word for “trickle down” economics.
Those years did provide proof, to me, that across the board substantial tax cuts to the ultra-rich fail to significantly benefit the less well off. In my opinion, because Reaganomics does not provide incentive for the ultra-rich to risk their wealth building infrastructure, helping small businesses or functionally aiding the poor.

Whether economics doctors and MBA pledged support of Reaganomics and it’s inherent “trickle down” economics, I neither care nor worry about.
As I remember, every publication in the country sought pro and con discussions regarding trickle down economics; making reading material abundant.

I can not imagine that major publishing houses ignored those who were most educated and/or experienced in economy, while researching their articles.

I also remember that after Reaganomics was put into practice, publications and authors dropped all discussions regarding Reaganomics or “trickle down” theory.

Reply to  ATheoK
January 27, 2019 8:19 am

From Investopedia:
“The first reference to trickle-down economics came from American comedian and commentator Will Rogers, who used it to derisively describe President Herbert Hoover’s stimulus efforts during the Great Depression. More recently, opponents of President Ronald Reagan used the term to attack his income tax cuts.”

Reply to  ATheoK
January 27, 2019 8:42 am

It has never been the job of the ultra rich to aid anyone.
The ultra rich aid the economy by building the “wealth building infrastructure” that you mention.
This “wealth building infrastructure” hires small companies and the poor.

Steve Reddish
Reply to  ATheoK
January 27, 2019 11:55 am

“Trickle down” is a phrase designed to misrepresent the value of the benefit to lower classes from reduced taxes on the wealthy. To quote Hotscot, the benefit to lower classes is not a trickle, it’s Niagara Falls.


January 27, 2019 6:16 am

It occurred to me this morning that if you believe humans, through their activity, can “manage” the global temperature through reduction of green house gasses to limit the rise of global average temp, you are denying the natural changes to the earth’s climate drive global temperature. That seems like climate change denial. In other words, denying the historical fact that the present climate is changing beyond human’s ability to “control” to some arbitrary temperature rise target. There is nothing permanent about our present climate, unless you believe the “warmist extremists” who claim they can control the Earth’s temperature by following their agenda.

Glaxx Zontar
January 27, 2019 6:27 am

Perhaps climate alarmists should cobble together a little red book full of alarmist talking points and quotes. The propaganda responses from alarmists are all too predictible. Title could be “Quotes from Chairman Gore”

Reply to  Glaxx Zontar
January 27, 2019 6:39 am

They have a number of sites that provide their responses.
desmog, skepticalscience, realclimate, center for American progress, etc. etc.

Which explains their “predictable” responses.
Those providing the trollops appear to consist of:
* Paid trollops,
* Religious fanatics,
* Those earning their salaries or invested in climate alarmism,
* And the very occasional misguided soul.

D Johnson
January 27, 2019 6:39 am

“Trickle down” is a pejorative expression used (and probably created) by the political left. I’m an octogenarian, and I recall it being used in political arguments in my high school days.

Curt Powell
Reply to  D Johnson
January 27, 2019 8:26 am

Indeed, the modern usage was coined by one of FDR’s speechwriters (Sowell documents it in one of his books).

HD Hoese
January 27, 2019 7:42 am

Objection to ”trickle-down” theory was the “Scrooge McDuck fallacy.” He was Donald’s uncle who hoarded gold, bathing in coin, denying it to the rest of us. I leave the mass balance distribution of gold coin to others.

Sowell is right, catchwords is a kind description.

January 27, 2019 7:59 am

Thank you Kym for so aptly proving Dr. Sowell’s point.

A grand total of nobody argues that humans are incapable of influencing the climate. All you have managed to do is burn down a strawman of your own making, and prove yourself a fool at the same time.

The issue is how much is man capable of changing the climate and if that amount is going to be dangerous.

The actual, real world science indicates that while man is capable of influencing the climate, that amount is small.
The actual, real world science indicates that a little bit of warming is 100% beneficial, as is the extra CO2 in the atmosphere.

Bruce Cobb
January 27, 2019 8:02 am

In 2007, Al Gore’s scifi flick, chock-full of lies and assorted distortions of the truth, ironically named “an Inconvenient Truth” was supposed to be the nail in the coffin for Climate Skepticism/Climate Realism. These were the glory days for the Climate Liars, who, although they couldn’t win an actual debate, declared that “the debate is over”. To their chagrin, though, just the opposite happened. More and more people examined what was being fed to them, through the media particularly as “Climate Truth”, and found it to be shockingly lacking in same. Thus, in a frantic effort to shout down and shut down anyone opposing the Climate
Catechism, the outrageous term “denier” was born, and it was a deliberate reference and comparison to holocaust deniers. Truth-tellers were then referred to as not only “climate deniers”, but, “science deniers” by the biggest liars on the planet, and in human history.

William Astley
January 27, 2019 8:08 am

What we are discussing is evil, chaos Rhetoric. Rhetoric is politically correct phrases.

Rhetoric is emotional talk for political purposes/agendas.

Rhetoric stops rational thoughtful discussions, new ideas, groups of people from working together to successfully solve problems.

Notice that there are no facts or logical arguments presented. (Same as most CNN news stories) There is no discussion of past specific cases, no acknowledgement of constraints (say deficits or past efficiency of action).

The news reports once upon a time had facts, numbers, graphs, alternatives, pros/cons of actions, intelligent thoughtful guests who were politically independent, and so no.

January 27, 2019 8:09 am

What do you expect when so-called “respected” journalists from the Guardian use the term “climate change deniers” as in todays offering, “Zali Steggall to challenge Tony Abbott for Warringah seat” by Anne Davies and Paul Karp.

“The groups have been liaising with GetUp, which has vowed to work to remove Abbott and other climate change deniers from their seats at the forthcoming election, likely to be held in May.”

January 27, 2019 8:25 am

The only place you will find high ECS values is from the models.
Every single attempt to measure the ECS in the real world has found the ECS to be below 1degree. Most find it to be as low as 0.5C or lower.

PS, I love the way Kym assumes that all of the warming (closer to 0.6C than 1C, but then Kym doesn’t care for accuracy) is due to CO2. Not even her idols make such claims.

January 27, 2019 8:28 am

I’d love to hear Kym give a lecture on how temperatures were measured back in 1860 and the strengths and weaknesses of this system.

Reply to  MarkW
January 27, 2019 11:42 am


You mean like buckets over the sides of ships? Predominantly on well plied trade routes which rarely involved the southern ocean?

Tea boys sent out in the snow and rain to take measurements from Stevenson screens that weren’t developed, far less globally distributed before around 1900? Calibration between Stevenson screens when they were eventually established done by letter?

And this gives us historic temperatures down to hundredths of a degreeC?

I could go on but you have probably seen it all before.

Blind adherence to wonky data which allows the user to manipulate it to represent anything.

Reply to  HotScot
January 27, 2019 1:17 pm

Using the Mark One eyeball to guestimate the value read to the nearest degree, most of the readers having little to no training in how to handle issues such as parallax.

Reply to  MarkW
January 27, 2019 1:18 pm

How many greenies even know what parallax is, and how to make sure it doesn’t contaminate your readings?

Reply to  MarkW
January 27, 2019 3:42 pm

Parallax = Liquid paraffin to loosen your stools (:-))

January 27, 2019 9:39 am

The left promotes many myths about the benefits of raising the top marginal tax rate.

Myth 1
We had less income inequality in the 1950s – 1960s because there was “Massive Income Redistribution “ when the top rate was ~ 91%.

No. Certainly those at the top paid a higher Effective Tax Rate (% of Gross Income paid in taxes). Those who paid the 91% top marginal rate in the 1950s paid an ETR in the range of 45-50%. But, as an example, in 1954 there were only 201 making $1 M + and only 640 who paid the 91% top marginal tax rate. The taxes paid by those paying the 91% contributed less than 0.5% of tax revenue. Not exactly a massive amount for income redistribution.

Myth 2

Clinton balanced the budget because he increased the top marginal tax rate to 39.6%.
He did balance the budget and he did increase the top marginal tax rate, but the added tax revenue from that change was a very small part of the increase in tax revenue 1992-2000. The total tax revenue increase was $925 Billion but the part from the top marginal tax rate was only ~ $100 Billion. Most of it was from the great amount of Real Growth in the Tax Base or Adjusted Gross Income. There were 5 years when the Real Growth in AGI was over 5%. Contrast that with the average Real Growth in AGI since 2000 of only 1%.

Myth 3

When the top marginal rate was 91% Government was awash in tax revenue. No, as an example, in 1948, the Effective Tax Rate for the combined Income Tax and Social Security Taxes was 10%. Truman balanced the budget that year. Today, the Effective Tax Rate of Income Taxes and Social Security Taxes is 22%. We pay more than twice of our incomes in taxes than in 1948. Much of the 1950s the ETR was 12-13%, including SS.

Play around with the top marginal rate at will but don’t expect huge increases in tax revenue. The more effective way to increase tax revenue is to increase the tax base with Real Growth in the Adjusted Gross Income.

If the top 1% paid an Effective Tax Rate equal to that paid in the 1950s -1960s, 30-33%, then that would generate only an additional $75 Billion. Our deficit is going to be $700-800 Billion this year. We need to reduce the spending path or make economic growth return to the average from 1945 to 2000 when the Real Growth in Adjusted Gross Income was 3.3% per year.

In 2016, the last IRS Report , those at the top paid an ETF of 27%.

January 27, 2019 10:02 am

Kym, if your guessies come true it would be heaven to mankind.

Kym, have you ever heard any mention about “little ice age”? We are still on our climb to normal (if there one is) climate.

Wake up and face the real world.

January 27, 2019 12:42 pm

Sowell is well spoken, penetrating wit, too bad we don’t have more of his ilk. He’s not a big Trump fan though!

January 27, 2019 1:27 pm

Damn good, short and to the point article about THE issue as it is, it completely shows the emperor without clothes sort of speak.

It agrees quite well with something that I’m digging through now about the Climate Industrial Complex and Greta Thunberg. At a website called, I’ve come across 2 parts of what is supposed to end up as a 4 part article. It looks rather disturbing and takes one through the belly of this beast. The worst thing about it is that it seems that what we’ve seen so far in the sense of rallying climate fanatics has only been the beginning: They’re planning a major campaign in April this year, I hope the word will spread so that some cool heads will be prepared.

Part 1:

Part 2:

January 27, 2019 1:41 pm

“It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.” Thomas Sowell

John Miller
January 27, 2019 2:09 pm

A computer model is not science.

Would everyone here say that Newtonian physics was settled in 1890?

What would climate scientists have said to Einstein?

What would climate scientists have said to NASA when the Appolo space missions missed the Moon?

Is there any point in debating the physics of Quidditch?

January 27, 2019 5:42 pm

Professor Sowell,

The large and largely misguided comments on your piece prove your point.


John of Fabius
January 27, 2019 6:43 pm

Let’s face it kids. Dr. Sowell is one of the greatest economic philosophers of our time. Always a pleasure to listen to and clear as clean glass. Pay attention!

January 28, 2019 2:59 am

Regarding the Tricle down effect, is that most of the super rich like to spend their money on things, such as cars, boat s and planes.

This spending creates employment, thus indirectly its a sort of tricle down effect.


Steve O
January 28, 2019 4:05 am

Perhaps a good counter-catchphrase might be to call alarmists “Chicken Littles.”

Dave Miller
January 28, 2019 2:33 pm
January 29, 2019 2:15 pm

Can’t say I’m surprised.

“Since neither the creationists nor the evolutionists were there when the world began, why are our schools teaching either set of beliefs, when there are so many hard facts that the schools are failing to teach?”

– Thomas Sowell

%d bloggers like this: