Free-market dudes don't understand the free market. As Milton Friedman said, corporations are in the business of making money. If having someone (Trump) on the platform costs it money, they have the right — nay, the responsibility — to kick him off to maximize profits.
Wow, another person who needs to read more Adam Smith. In a free market, transactions are voluntary. If Twitter doesn't want to transact with Trump, they don't have to. Nikki Haley can move to Cuba if she doesn't like free markets.
Just so I can keep all of these people who supposedly love free markets, but don't understand what they are and/or how they work, in one place.
I look forward to many many 'free market' evangelists screaming about how terrible it is that a private company attempts to do what the company think is in the best interest of the company. Terrible! There should be a law.
I suppose he’d be happier in a centrally planned economy. Free markets aren’t for everyone.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Andrew Dessler

Andrew Dessler Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AndrewDessler

8 Jan
Quick reminder: Elsevier is trash. Do not publish in their journals. I am going to avoid citing papers in those journals & I hope other researchers do this, too. That's the only thing that will stop them from bankrupting the academic community.

From @TAMU libraries:
In geosciences, there's no need to ever publish in Elsevier. The @theAGU @ametsoc and the @EuroGeosciences have all the journals we need. Elsevier journals are nothing special and can easily be avoided.
I know, I know. In other fields it's harder to avoid Elsevier. Obviously, everyone's situation is different. And the decision about which journal to publish in, like the decision to fly to a meeting, can be difficult.
Read 4 tweets
4 Jan
I'm a co-author on a new paper about committed warming! @mzelinka is a co-author, so you know it's good!

nature.com/articles/s4155…
Here is an explainer video. I'm using the fancy video set-up I use for teaching.

"Committed warming" is a standard calculation that asks how much warming you would get if you held the atmospheric composition fixed at today's values indefinitely.

This figure from the IPCC AR4 report shows about 0.6°C of committed warming in 2100 (the yellow line).
Read 11 tweets
23 Dec 20
There is no result that disqualifies climate economics more than this one. 8°C warming = loss of ~10% of GDP???? As a reminder, the last ice age was about 6°C cooler than today. Now imagine changes as big as those occurring over the next century or two. This result is absurd.
This plot shows GDP curves (growing at 2.5% and 2.46%) that differ by 4% in 2100. This is analogous to Lomborg's worlds with no global warming and a world that warms by 8°C in 2100! Image
8°C is getting close to temperatures during the Eocene, when there was no permanent ice on the planet.

NH land will warm more than the global average, so 8°C global avg. probably corresponds to something like 12°C (22°F) over NH land (and even more in the Arctic).
Read 5 tweets
27 Aug 20
If you hear a "reasonable middle bro" who "cares deeply about the environment" but tells you that "climate change is not making hurricanes worse," they're gas-lighting you.
Let's examine the peer-reviewed science on this issue. From chapter 6 of the IPCC Ocean and Cryosphere report.
See also this web page from NOAA:
gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming…
Read 17 tweets
19 Aug 20
REPOST: I've been looking for a good figure showing Extreme temperatures have gone up. After searching without success, I made this, adapted from @DrJamesEHansen's 2012 PNAS paper. Data are from Berkeley earth.
[previous post had an error in the plot; corrected here] Image
The left plot shows the 1951-1980 June-July-August seasonal average for northern hemisphere land (30°N-60°N). The blue area is the coolest is 33% of temperatures, the white area or the middle 33%, and the red or the highest 33%.
The right plot shows the 2011-2020 temperatures. Over the decade, 88% of the seasonal averages would have been in the top third in the 1951-1980 period. Only 1.2% would have been in the coolest third. And 14% are warmer than ANY temperatures in the 1951-1980 period.
Read 10 tweets
16 Apr 20
Some thoughts on models in thread form:

Climate models are based on physics. Their code describes the fundamental processes that we know drive atmospheric processes: radiative transfer, thermodynamics, the idea gas law, etc. 1/
Despite what you might hear, these models have been thoroughly tested. In fact, I’ve spent much of my career looking at model output and comparing to observations and I am constantly amazed how well climate models do. 2/
Now this doesn’t mean models do everything well. Some process are not simulated from first-principles — e.g., cloud microphysics, which occurs on too small a spatial scale for models to resolve. 4/
Read 10 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!