Comments on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Who Voted for the Climate Bill? (And Why?)

Nate: My first post on your great blog. You need t...

2009-07-03T20:49:20.372-04:00

Nate: My first post on your great blog. You need to read The Logic of Congressional Action by Douglas Arnold. Then you can add to the statistical analysis the calculus of why members of congress defied the predictions. Enjoy the book!

Great post Nate! I'm not an expert in logistic re...

2009-07-03T11:16:39.835-04:00

Great post Nate!

I'm not an expert in logistic regression, but I have to wonder whether collinearity among your strongest predictors (Ideology and PVI specifically) might influence your R^2 values.

There are a couple questions I have about using the logistic regression model to predict the voting in the Senate:

Would you expect that PVI would be a useful predictor when it comes to making projections in the Senate since only a few states are at the extremes of the partisan divides (WY, ID, and MA come to mind)?

Also, even though many Senators have strong ideological leanings, they often can stray from those ideological prejudices in their voting (especially those with Presidential aspirations). I wonder if there's any way to explicitly treat this potential source of "model error" in the use of the predictive modeling? Essentially by assigning an uncertainty band to the logit function and performing a Monte Carlo simulation to put uncertainty bounds on the estimated vote count.

Matt chants his mantra- "those of us who recogniz...

2009-07-01T21:30:15.384-04:00

Matt chants his mantra-

"those of us who recognize that anthropogenic climate change is the best explanation for recent steep changes in global temperature"

ROFLMAO. 'Recent steep changes'?? Don't look now, but there's been global COOLING over the last 12 years. Over the last century, it's risen about 1 degree...not remotely close to unprecedented. There are MANY explanations for it. Man has an effect. A small one. Oh,wait, you said steep CHANGES. There you go again, CYA'ing. That could cover ANY change, in ANY part of the world.
"We use the term, "Climate Change," as shorthand for "anthropogenic climate change" simply because the latter term is too long and awkward."
No you don't. Steaming pile of BS. Scaremongers use 'climate change' so they can take credit for ANY weather abnormality. If you want to talk about 'global warming', then say 'global warming'. You know darn well why greens don't...because there HASN'T BEEN ANY OVER THE LAST 12 YEARS. Be specific. Islands sinking because of ACC? False. Increase in tornadoes? A horrific lie by Gore that a 5th grader should catch. Massive flooding soon? BS
"Deniers willfully fail to recognize that simple and basic fact."
It's the GREENS who are deniers, of the lack of global warming in the last 12 years. I agree sea levels are rising...by 6-8 inches in the last CENTURY. 100 years of 'massive glacier melting', and the sea level rise is not enough to cover my schlong, but in a few years, it will cover massive skyscrapers. That either says something about the size of my schlong, or how brainwashed dogmatic greens are. It's the GREENS who are deniers of the feebleness of the amount of rising sea levels.

"Climatologists are very specific. They publish estimates of the amount of predicted change over the next century, and its local effects. "
ROFLMAO. The ones who do the scaremongering are as specific as Nostradamus, or your local psychic. Most have a HUGE vested interest in keeping alive the scaremongering, in the form of grants, and university positions, and $100 million movies. They already know what answer they are going to give, and try to find facts to fit their theory, and IGNORE EVERYTHING ELSE. Generally,they say temperatures MAY rise X degrees in the next century, water levels MAY rise X inches (or yards), then extrapolate from there, scaremongering. They are right, just like a psychic. Sure, temperatures MAY rise 9 degrees. They could rise 100, but that wouldn't be believable. It's like Ed McMahon saying 'you MAY have won $1 million'.
"I haven't seen anything specific in your rant--just a lot of bluster and prejudicial dismissal of anyone who disagrees with you."
Not PREjudging. It's very accurate judging, based on morons like you who constanly use the term 'climate change' to intentionally decieve.
Specifics- 1 degree rise in century. Water levels 6-8 inches in century, all within historic norms. Islands are NOT sinking due to manmade global warming. Common sense, win-win approaches are great, but government mandates forcing action and deadlines cause more harm than good. The Law Of Unintended Consequences dooms actions like these, much like it did to neo-con warmongers in Iraq.
Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Greens are making extraordinary claims of climate Armageddon. Their proof, basically, is computer models prejudicially set to come to the conclusions they, want. These models have been horrifically innaccurate. There is NO extraordinary proof of a climate Armegeddon. There isnt even ordinary proof. Just self-fulfilling prophecies by people with either a huge vested interest, or cult-like idealogical dogmatic bias.

Rudy, I would suggest that the lefts lack of imagi...

2009-07-02T03:07:57.706-04:00

Rudy, I would suggest that the lefts lack of imagination with this issue is largely due to the large swathes on the right who don't interact at all with the issue, because they have decided that climate change is a 'fraud' despite a consensus amongst scientists that it exists. Without the right seeing the problem, the left isn't forced to debate the issue at all. The real issue comes when people see the Cap and Trade bill as the end. It's a first step down a long long road of government encouragement of more green behavior.

I do think private business could do a lot on it's own to move things forward.

McHugh is Obama's Army Secretary-designate. Don't ...

2009-07-01T22:20:49.982-04:00

McHugh is Obama's Army Secretary-designate. Don't know how else he's voted since getting the nomination, but maybe he (unlike Gregg) decided that if he's going to be in Obama's cabinet he should vote for Obama's bills.

Great article Nate, but I have to disagree with yo...

2009-07-01T23:41:44.202-04:00

Great article Nate, but I have to disagree with your first assertion about morality in the Health Care vote. In Australia where I am living at the moment Health care is discussed economically because the moral basis has been established; every australian by right of their birth is entitled to basic medical care regardless of income or status. This moral question still hasnt been resolved in the US, many of the Republican US senators are still of the beleif that there should be no obligation on government to provide a basic level of care. Once this is settled then it becomes an economic issue.

Matt, the point is that mandates are expensive and...

2009-07-01T22:50:44.264-04:00

Matt, the point is that mandates are expensive and heavy-handed. Mandates will only be widely acceptable if they would demonstrably solve the problem. That's not even close to being apparent for the reasons we both know well. Blowing scads of money for dubious benefit is economically irresponsible, diverting resources from other issues and reducing standards of livng.

Cost/benefit analysis isn't possible until one can properly define the amount of benefit achieved for the cost. It appears close to nil.

And, like it or not, there is plenty of reason to doubt the alarmist case. Them now trying to throw the burden of evidenciary proof on the skeptical response looks desperate.

The people who stand in the skeptic camp aren't stupid or disingenuous. They're rational -- looking at the complexity of the climate issue and seeing CO2 being used as a convenient and unlikely villian being used as a ruse by economic anti-progressives. That's why forward-looking evidence is so important.

Given the far-reaching extrapolations needed to make the alarmist case correct and the unlikely effectiveness and counterproductivity of proposed solutions, it's no wonder there's very little pubic support for such expensive and dubious measures.

Alon, I don't follow Mankiw because I find him too Beltway-centric, which makes such types prone to the old trap of doing the liberal thing more efficiently, rather than standing up for economic freedom. You won't have trouble finding numerous other Republicans liking the concept of carbon taxes in some form, like McCain or Gingrich have also indicated at times. They're not mainstream conservatives. But, if the case for CO2 limits were demonstrably valid (which isn't going to be anytime soon), their idea of auctioning permits would be a good tactic, much as it was for cell spectrum.

Rudy, Without mandates, little will get done to a...

2009-07-01T19:28:34.439-04:00

Rudy,

Without mandates, little will get done to avert global warming. Capitalism is the best economic system ever devised by humanity, but it's based on greed, not altruism.

You want the problem to be solved without cost? Well...everyone wants to go to Heaven, but nobody wants to die.

All the right-wingers who are wailing and pulling their hair and ululating about the economic cost of fighting climate change don't want to consider the cost of doing nothing; nor were they so concerned about the much larger cost of fighting the unnecessary Iraq War. Funny how that works.

@Nate Have you ever checked to see if PAC $ given...

2009-07-01T18:29:16.296-04:00

@Nate

Have you ever checked to see if PAC $ given before a vote has a stronger correlation than PAC $ given after an important vote? I assume your models always use data about PAC $ from before the vote?

If the latter, PAC $ acts more as a bribe/reward. If the former, while still probably a bribe, PAC $ acts more in line with the "free speech" interpretation.

So much Straw-man argumentation by MisterX. Sigh.....

2009-07-01T19:21:43.977-04:00

So much Straw-man argumentation by MisterX.
Sigh...those of us who recognize that anthropogenic climate change is the best explanation for recent steep changes in global temperature are well aware that climate is a complex system, and that many changes in climate have no human cause. (We use the term, "Climate Change," as shorthand for "anthropogenic climate change" simply because the latter term is too long and awkward. Deniers willfully fail to recognize that simple and basic fact.)
Climatologists are very specific. They publish estimates of the amount of predicted change over the next century, and its local effects. I haven't seen anything specific in your rant--just a lot of bluster and prejudicial dismissal of anyone who disagrees with you.
We are not impressed.

I don't claim to speak for the right but... First...

2009-07-01T13:58:11.663-04:00

I don't claim to speak for the right but...

First I share the concerns with Markymark. The current model allows pollution as long as you are willing to pay for it. In fact the best return on investment is for the largest polluters to develop cleaner technologies. Imagine how much better it would be if instead of paying a tax all that money would go towards RnD.

That kind of segways into the a possible Republican way of doing things. Some of the bills that floated around basically created a manhatten project and/or rewards program for real energy innovation. A 10 million dollar cash reward for progress on clean coal technologoy for example.

Its the old carrot and stick approach and its extremely ironic to me that the parties are reversed. The democrats are leading the charge with the stick (tax) while the republicans are offering up the carrot (money reward) for actualy technological progress.

All this without even touching all of the tax breaks and giveaways to buy up votes in the midwestern states. Talk about terrible policy. Noone could have read the 400+ pages that were tacked on at midnight the night before the vote.

Rudy, Greg Mankiw and Donald Marron, both Republic...

2009-07-01T14:17:21.824-04:00

Rudy, Greg Mankiw and Donald Marron, both Republicans, have attacked the cap-and-trade bill for missing an opportunity to auction off the permits and generate revenues for the government. Mankiw himself has long called for carbon taxes.

Not all conservatives are Mankiw - some are climate change skeptics, like Inhofe, and some, like Lomborg, claim it won't be a big problem. But those who're proposing counteraction on climate change, instead of claiming that nothing should be done, channel Mankiw and propose carbon taxes.

Add Mitchell (#9 on the most unlikely 'nay' votes ...

2009-07-01T12:38:44.031-04:00

Add Mitchell (#9 on the most unlikely 'nay' votes list) to the list with Stark, Kucinch, and DeFazio as voting Nay because he wanted a stronger bill (see http://mitchell.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=488&Itemid=80). He gives a couple of other reasons as well, but it appears the main concern is that the bill's not strong enough. Arizona possibly has the most to gain of any state from this bill, with some of the lowest per-capita carbon emissions and having near the highest potential for alternative energy production. I'm not surprised that the ideological Flake lived up to his name and flaked out on this vote. I guess he couldn't muster up the courage to vote in the interest of his constituents, but knew it would be a politically bad move to vote along ideological lines.

So much dogma by brainwashed, evangelical-esque ch...

2009-07-01T16:15:36.412-04:00

So much dogma by brainwashed, evangelical-esque chicken-little scare-mongering greens.
Kudos to Rudy for an oasis of rational thinking amongst a sea of dogmatic kooks.
Many here use the term 'cllimate change deniers'. Unbrainwash yourself, and realize that common sense skeptics are 180 degrees the opposite, we are climate change GUARANTEERS! Of COURSE there's climate change. Anything other than room temperature outside, 24/7/52, is climate change. In our huge earth, there is ALWAYS going to be variance in weather. Heat waves, cold spells, floods, droughts, hurricanes, etc etc etc. Now that the variance in warming has reversed, The Green Cult tries to use 'climate change', to take credit for ANY variance in climate. And, they don't restrict themselves to GLOBAL problems, if there is any SHORT TERM variance in a REGION, then Greens extrapolate THAT to a LONG TERM, GLOBAL problem. This is the same tactics that psychics use, sports touts use, neo-con warmongers on the right use, Nostradamus used. Throw out a LOT of predictions, make them fairly vague, and inevitably, you'll get some hits.
Please, Greens, if you are going to be Chicken Littles, at least be specific. Say the SKY is falling, not 'it may get hotter, or colder, or wetter, or drier, or...'

Nate, how could John McHugh have voted for the sti...

2009-07-01T13:12:38.776-04:00

Nate, how could John McHugh have voted for the stimulus when no republicans in the House did? Remember, only 3 repub senators voted for it, but none in the house.

This is an obvious factual error that, surprisingly, no one has caught yet.

@Michael: You can get a layman's explanation of lo...

2009-07-01T12:46:02.294-04:00

@Michael: You can get a layman's explanation of logistical regression here.

Basically, when you have a binary dependent variable (outcome variable), you can't use ordinary least squares regression. So with logistical regression you estimate the probability that the outcome will be a 1 or a 0 -- in this case, where 1 is for a vote in favor of the bill, 0 a vote against.

So Nate, where did Kaptur come out. Making kielba...

2009-07-01T17:25:37.425-04:00

So Nate, where did Kaptur come out.

Making kielbasa is sometimes so much more interesting.

Now that you've created the model, I would hope th...

2009-07-01T12:13:16.407-04:00

Now that you've created the model, I would hope that you will enlighten us as to how it would predict that a Senate vote on this bill would turn out. Now I know that the Senate won't vote on this exact bill, I'm sure they'll come up with their own, even more watered down, version, but I'm interested to know what your model predicts.

Markymark, I think the right could be and has been...

2009-07-01T11:47:02.132-04:00

Markymark, I think the right could be and has been induced to support things that encourage development of alternative energy sources, including R&D tax credits and other things that would not negatively affect the economy or individuals' cost structure.

The problem is, the alarmist crowd and the political left insists upon heavy-handed mandates to force desired behaviors and turns tax incentives upside-down by punishing their view of bad behavior rather than rewarding good behavior.

Anything that would serve to force the cost of living or the cost of doing business up will be a non-starter with the right and, I believe, increasingly with the public at large. The polling is clear.

The intractable problem is that the political left wants a new revenue source that it can pretend isn't taxes, and incentivizing behavior costs tax dollars rather than creating more.

I would agree with Rudy that a vote against Cap an...

2009-07-01T11:30:27.488-04:00

I would agree with Rudy that a vote against Cap and Trade is not necesarily an evil thing. But that is the problem with many on the far right choosing not to touch the issue and throw there weight behind the climate change deniers. I find it sad that the right has failed to come up with serious alternative strategies that invite a serious debate on the issue. I am not personally convinced that Cap and trade is a sane way forward to encourage sustainable economic activity. I think that it might yet be the worst type of incentivizing. I am not sure that it encourages long term regeneration of economic activity and instead I worry that it is going to allow a carbon based, pollution based economy to continue. But without the right joining the debate, the debate won't really kick in.

@ Michael It's similar to a ordinary least square...

2009-07-01T10:59:32.893-04:00

@ Michael

It's similar to a ordinary least squares regression (the normal kind of regression) only instead of allowing for multiple variables to predict a continuous outcome variable (say progressive to conservative on a 10 point scale) a logistic regression model allows multiple variables to predict a binary variable (say a yay or nay vote).

Also, I don't think logistic regressions have Rsqr, only psuedo-Rsqr?

Economist being hammered for climate change report...

2009-07-01T10:49:56.297-04:00

Economist being hammered for climate change report at EPA. Maybe economists should stick to the economy?

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/climate_skeptic_i_was_hoping_people_at_epa_would_p.php

NATE! I absolutely love everything you do, but wh...

2009-07-01T10:23:18.753-04:00

NATE!

I absolutely love everything you do, but what the F@#! is a LOGISTICAL REGRESSION MODEL?!?

This attempt to try to frame the climate debate on...

2009-07-01T10:22:49.921-04:00

This attempt to try to frame the climate debate on good-versus-evil lines isn't quite right. It's really more a follow-the-money case, with strange bedfellows between rent-getters among industry promoting cap-and-trade and too much ideology-driven science glommed onto by economic anti-progressives.

It is immoral to waste finite financial resources trying to "solve" a problem by means that all agree would just be of impotent effect.

Nate, Very interesting post, as we have come to e...

2009-07-01T09:59:56.200-04:00

Nate,

Very interesting post, as we have come to expect.

But one important thing: it's not just about Bangladesh. Two weeks ago, a prestigious federal science body put out a report about expected impacts of climate change IN THE U.S. The report, which is loaded with great graphics, is at www.globalchange.gov. There is a very good Powerpoint at this link that has many of the best bits: http://globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/newsroom.

Among the findings -- by the 2080s or so:

• Summer in Michigan will feel like it does today in Texas.

• Areas of Texas that now have 10-20 days per year over 100°F. will experience more than 100 such days by the last two decades of this century.

• Chicago can expect to experience heat waves as severe as the killer 1995 event up to 3 times per year.

• In the Gulf Coast region, approximately 2,400 miles of roads and 250 miles of freight rails are likely to be permanently flooded. This area is home to many of the nation’s largest ports and to much of the nation’s oil and gas industry.

• Key West (and all of the Florida Keys), the Everglades, and Florida’s barrier islands like Sanibel are likely to be underwater by the end of the century.

• The Southwest, including cities like Los Angeles and Phoenix, will face worse and more frequent droughts, as spring rains decline by as much as 40-50%, snowpacks shrink and melt earlier, and water is more rapidly evaporated by high temperatures.