Oh FFS, more politics? Still no science? Sorry, but yes. The Economist doesn’t like Putin, or rather what he’s doing to Russia, and who could disagree with them. Certainly not me. The Commies themselves do, as you’d hope. I think the Economist is basically right: Putin and Russia are weak and flailing and dangerous because of that; much like (as they don’t say) North Korea. Foundation and Empire, part II refers as does Foundation and Empire.
Vaguely connected to science, or at least the debate around it, it is nice to think that only two years ago I was vaguely relevant. And I liked Eli’s chart of the year. On sea ice, Tamino points out that the annual mean for this year may well be a record, since although the September min was unimpressive it was low early and now late. A thing to watch.
Meanwhile in other news, on mt watch on Twitter (I hate f*ck*ng Twitter it is such a rubbish medium and so hard to link to that I’m forced to screen shot it, how awful is that?) I find:
That seems like a change of views on mt’s part to me. A welcome one, because I too think that (a) growth isn’t built into capitalism, and (b) it needs tweaking not replacing.
Less interestingly ATTP is still on Tolwatch, this time about cliscep.com. But I don’t think I’ll follow him.
* Why I support Hillary Clinton – 3. Trust
* Washington’s Carbon Tax Initiative Splits Idiot Greens – spot my addition
* Immigration Makes Us All Richer – So The IMF Says And They’re Right – Timmy
* The Trump and Clinton campaigns finally had a substantive climate debate