Dan Mepham

[Stephen McIntyre @ClimateAudit]

here's a plot of US trade balance for 2000-June 2026 in automotive sector compiled from monthly US data, showing the major trading groups: Canada, Mexico, Japan, South Korea, EU and Other.
It is impossible to look at this data and arrive at the conclusion that Canada is the problem.
There are long-term large structural automotive trade deficits with EU and Japan, and now South Korea. All three groups are large automotive exporters with virtually no imports. There's an obvious reason why they didn't retaliate to US tariffs: why bother? they don't import any US automotive anyway.
The big structural change in past 25 years has been the development of an enormous Mexican surplus in automotive. Mexico imports of US automotive are minute in comparison to their exports, so, once again, why bother retaliating.
Canada, on the other hand, is a very large importer of US automotive - the largest in the world. Its automotive industry is integrated with the Michigan industry. Both are adversely impacted by the huge Mexican export trade.
But whatever else this data shows, it doesn't show that Canada is "ripping off" anybody.

[Bryan Breguet @Prominent_Bryan]

My actual, serious proposal for OAS, knowing full well that an actual decrease is likely impossible

1) Lower the threshold to claw it back every year for the next 10 years. Maybe a few thousands a year. The current threshold of 93k is insane.

2) Do not index OAS to inflation for a few years at least

3) Look into some form of asset testing. We really can't afford to give over $800 a month to people who own a 2m dollars home, it's absurd. Maybe do it like deferred property taxes: if you receive OAS, we'll come and get it back when you sell your home

4) Use some of the savings to top up GIS (which should also be asset tested), you know, the program that actually targets poor seniors.

5) Raise the age like Harper did

Alternatively we can go big and basically scrap OAS and replace it with a top up CPP like @BagelPolling is suggesting, but it's a much bigger reform. My proposals here, especially points 1) and 2), are fairly simple.

[Christopher Adlam @cadlam]

Capacity factor of Ontario's wind fleet for the last 15 days was 10.7%.

190,746 MWh generated from 4,943 MW of installed capacity; an average output of 529 MW.

From the 8th through the 16th average output was 393 MW 7.9% CF.

Pickering generated ~722,000 MWh over the same 15 day period.

[🇨🇦 Antonio Tweets @AntonioTweets2]

He’s 100% Correct.

[The White House @WhiteHouse]

BREAKING: The Trump Administration announces the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, putting REAL FOOD back at the center of health. 🇺🇸

https://t.co/tkGF01onpm

[Dan Mepham @Dan_Mepham]

@EthicalSkeptic @ReflexTestSite @ChrisCurione I asked Grok for a summary of all known written accounts containing exterior descriptions w mentions of the tura casing specifically. It reported many pre-1300 reporting intact casing while post 1300-ish noting missing. Seems one could do s PhD just cross checking this.

[Dan Mepham @Dan_Mepham]

@EthicalSkeptic @ReflexTestSite @ChrisCurione Agree the drawing does not appear to be meant as highly accurate. I skimmed the book only, but it does offer dozens of pages of exterior and interior descriptions. Im not able to verify all of it but it seems a lot to "bullshit" entirely without ever being there.

[Dan Mepham @Dan_Mepham]

@EthicalSkeptic @ReflexTestSite @ChrisCurione So you mean the book itself is not real? Or that he manufactured the account in the book? (That the book exists from that time period seems to be true...but what do I know)

[Dan Mepham @Dan_Mepham]

@EthicalSkeptic @ReflexTestSite @ChrisCurione What do you make of John Greaves book Pyramidographia, 1646, where he notes Khafre as "white, smooth and equal. The whole fabric seeming very entire, free from any deformed ruptures or breaches." https://t.co/h8OsdTJVJD

[Jonathan Haidt @JonHaidt]

Testimonials are coming in from teachers about their newly phone-free schools, and the amazing things that students are now doing. Like taking notes, completing their assignments, then talking to each other.

"Was it this easy of a solution the whole time?"

[Dan Mepham @Dan_Mepham]

@IvensDad I know nothing abt this stuff, but would the mayday indicate something abrupt, vs pilots struggling with an oversight?
Also, reports the RATbwas deployed?
OTOH there is a vid out there showing the entire takeoff from behind and shows no smoke/emissions from engines (bird strike)?

[Niall Ferguson @nfergus]

I am in violent agreement with @tylercowen. And so is Adam Smith.

[Nassim Nicholas Taleb @nntaleb]

I only spent a few years in international finance, but I have a certainty that it is Howard Lutnick (Comm Sec.) who doesn't understand how cross-country transactions work.

At the core, it's not Zero Sum: all sides benefit from trade, unless America First means America Poorer.

[Dan Mepham @Dan_Mepham]

@MeghanEMurphy Is it possible that Poilievre was not a good choice as leader, and appeared appealing only in contrast to Trudeau?

[Dan Mepham @Dan_Mepham]

@Martyupnorth_2 Do you think any part of this is on Poilievre? Message not resonating? Not offering enough detailed policy or how he would deal with Trump?

[Dan Mepham @Dan_Mepham]

@LoonieDoctor IMO the swap fee makes it a lot less attractive. Current yield on S&P500 is barely 1.3%, so your upside assuming 53% tax bracket is converting that 1.3% from 53% to 27% CG tax, IOW saving 27% of 1.3% = barely 0.3%, not enough to cover the swap. An EAFE fund might be attractive..

[Dan Mepham @Dan_Mepham]

@engineers_feed We should endeavor to be entertaining, such that the people running the simulation would like to keep ours running.

[Chris Martz @ChrisMartzWX]

I am picky with terminology, so let me explain. . .

I strongly urge people to stop calling anthropogenic global warming a “hoax” or “scam.” It's not. There is indeed a legitimate underlying scientific basis.

While a consensus of scientific opinion is irrelevant, as Dr. Judith Curry and Dr. Roy Spencer have pointed out, there is general agreement within the scientific literature on these three things:

➊ Global mean surface temperature (GMST) has risen about 1.2°C since 1850. The warming since 1980 is about as equal in magnitude and rate as the early 20th century warming from 1910 to 1945. In general, it has been warming for >250 years. 📈

🔗https://t.co/8ucNvsCcnJ

➋ Burning of coal, oil and natural gas for energy has increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) levels by ~51% since 1850. We know this because there is an isotopic fingerprint in the decrease of C13/C12 ratios. While this is not uniquely indicative of anthropogenic origin, it is a pretty solid indicator. 🏭

🔗https://t.co/syhrCIVUyE

➌ Earth's average surface temperature is a function of energy gain versus energy loss. Given there is a radiation spectrum on CO₂ in the infrared (IR) band of the electromagnetic (EM) spectrum, all else constant, adding more of it to the atmosphere should reduce the rate of cooling by emission of IR to space. In effect, it induces a cooling tendency in the stratosphere and a warming tendency in the troposphere. This has in fact been observed. 🌈

Beyond this, there is no agreement on:

➊ How much warming is man-made? The claim that virtually all of the warming is anthropogenic is based squarely on modeling studies. The IPCC's “best estimate” of greenhouse gas (GHG) contribution to GMST change since 1850 is +1.5°C ± 44%, and their “best estimate” of aerosol forcing is -0.5°C ± 100%. That doesn't sound like “settled science” to me.

🔗https://t.co/s53LheMllu (pp. 439-441)

➋ The exact equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) �� a measure of how much warming results from doubling CO₂ concentrations once a new local equilibrium is achieved — and amount of warming left in pipeline for the 21st century. 🌡️

➌ Is warming dangerous for humanity and life on Earth as a whole? Is it a net benefit or a net drawback? This is not a settled matter, regardless of what experts say. The findings in the body of literature are mixed. It does not unequivocally support their notion that warming is catastrophic or even bad. 🤷‍♂️

➍ What are the best measures for adaptation and/or mitigation? How should energy policy be handled? Do we change zoning codes? Do we construct seawalls to combat creeping sea level rise? What is the cost-benefit analysis of decarbonization efforts?

So, there is in fact a legitimate scientific basis behind global warming theory. The basics are pretty well understood; the devil is in the details and the science is far from settled. ❌

The case isn't closed. That book remains wide open on the table. 📖

However, what is indeed a scam is the push for ���Net Zero” CO₂ emissions by 2050.

A legitimate scientific issue has become captive of a Malthusian religion by power-hungry elected officials and unelected bureaucrats. Climate policy is an anti-capitalist, anti-human movement. These people push for one-world governance where you are told what you can and cannot eat, what appliances you can and cannot buy, where you can or cannot travel and want to force us to adopt a carbon credit cap and trade system in a cashless society. The policy is the scam, not the basic underlying scientific theory.

[chris keefer @Dr_Keefer]

The Uses and Abuses of Ontario's Nuclear Fleet in the Australian Energy Debate are Many. Lets dive in for a deeper understanding.

Ontario’s electricity system is often cited as an example of an affordable, low emissions, generation mix, particularly by Peter Dutton, leader of the official opposition in Australia.

Opponents of nuclear energy within Ontario, like Professor Mark Winfield, rely on arguments based on exaggerated cost and delay while ignoring the obvious benefits of nuclear as a cleaner and reliable energy source which has powered a booming economy all while phasing out a substantial coal fleet.

[Dan Mepham @Dan_Mepham]

@nobulart This database is cool. A maybe dumb question: the checks indicate confirmation, but does the absence of checks indicate unknowns, or known lack of presence, or either? If both, would there be value in separating those two? 'Not sure' vs. 'Confirmed No' could be indicative...