I like contrarians, and consider contrarian a term of endearment. If we believe the investment lore, only contrarian traders achieve success. The myth rings true: to beat the market, one must go against it. To win, contrarians need to believe in their own edge over otters. Which might explain why contrarians lionize individualism. They need to go their own way. Sometimes it works for all the good reasons.
Chace Barber drove logging trucks since the beginnings, to pay for his U. Big, heavily loaded trucks riding up and down mountain forests. Frustrated by the job offers from econ shops, he bought a 1969 Kenworth and started a trucking gig. It failed, after which he started Edison Motors {1}. His company now builds custom electric and hybrid trucks.
I see two main ingredients in his secret sauce. First, that parts from old trucks are all standardized, and thus cheap. During the Cold War the US Army asked contractors to build vehicles with interchangeable parts. This is critical for logging trucks, because when they break, drivers need to fix them on their own in the middle of nowhere. Second, he wants to exploit a known physical effect {2}:
Hard not to root for Chace. He looks and sounds like a true contrarian. The same could have been said of Porter Stansberry, for different reasons, at least at first. When Porter talks about recession, distressed debt or crypto, he sounds like a run of the mill value investor {3}. But when he goes full Climateball mode, we see that going one’s way can reach epic hubris.
Take his Two Men project. It features Larry Fink, from Blackrock, and Michael Bloomberg. Two powerful men, incidentally of Jewish lineages. Let me spare you the financial and mediatic details he offers about the Great Reset of Western Civilization. You already heard a similar tune.
On the Climateball side, many Bingo squares get triggered, among them But Alarmism. But 12 Years, But Modulz, But Data, But RCPs, and But The Poor. You may never guess his smoking gun: Junior’s conspiracy at Forbes’, a company owned in majority by Integrated Whale Media {4}.
So Porter’s recipe reads like this: (1) create websites with fake documentaries and well-known Climateball tropes; (2) after red meat priming, ask Freedom Fighters to subscribe to a newsletter and buy reports on hand picked small cap stocks, which he presumably already owns; (3) profit.
Hard for me not to root for Chace. Hard for me not to dismiss Porter as another crank. Yet Chace’s path carries more risks. Many of Porter’s calls were tremendously profitable over the years. Investing in gas indeed is a no brainer for anyone who followed the energy markets recently. So it’s not exactly a scam.
Why the Climateball talking points, then? Why rant about gas stoves? Why persist in trying to bend hard facts known for decades? As Sage Welch suggests, to resurrect this concern can only help those who wish to bring climate to the forefront.
All and all, we need better contrarians. True contrarians. No time to wait for our milquetoast troglodytes. Become one yourself. Be a contrarian’s contrarian. ABC – Always Be Contrarian.
Notes
{1} Chace raises money over Tik Tok. He only accepts 1K investments. Most of his funding comes from truckers who can recognize the value proposition behind the craftsmanship.
{2} Levin’s channel is pure awesomeness. It belongs in a space shuttle for aliens not to despair on us.
{3} Value investors tend to be contrarian. Think Warren Buffet, Peter Lynch, Carl Icahn.
{4} Oh, Junior. You silly you.
In the ATTP’s tradition, I might as well kick things off.
Since this post cites three podcast episodes, there are lots of side notes. For instance, I omitted the talking points in Porter’s “documentary.” Adding them would have made the post unreadable, and since the master argument is But RCPs, they would lead astray. Due diligence may be paid to some of them in the comments, if only to improve my Bingo.
Sage’s interview with Volts is just absolutely great. I encourage you to give it a listen. Her arguments are convincing and her enthusiasm contagious. If you lived under a rock in 2023, you might not know the background:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-health-risks-of-gas-stoves-explained/
Of course Freedom Fighters turned this into a cultural issue. Even if gas stoves are a high income liberal symbol status. I did not know that the gas industry has been instrumental in creating it.
Speaking of contrarians:
In the Fight Over Gas Stoves, Meet the Industry’s Go-To Scientist https://nyti.ms/3XLzeNH
Oh, Julie:
Source: archived version.
As Mr. Volts emphasizes, one reason why stoves matter to the industry (they fund for example chefs’ competitions) isn’t for the direct gas sales. It’s to keep the infrastructures in place. And as Sage underlines, we could have a better grid if everything was fully electrified.
One does not even need to be against gas to appreciate the point. I mind less gas than oil, just like I mind less oil than coal. The overall game plan should be to preserve our resources. Fossil fuels have a role to play for a while. No need to burn them when we could not burn them. Basic economics.
Trumka might have made a more subtle argument had he said that “Products that can’t be made reasonably safe can be banned.”
I doubt this would have prevented Freedom Fighters from starting a food fight, Mike. As Sage observes, not every Climateball episode is bad for the home team. Sometimes being handed the hot seat is a Good Thing. The gas industry and troglodytes will lose this one anyway, if only because of benzene:
https://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20221021/gas-stoves-can-emit-high-levels-of-cancer-causing-benzene
As I told Meb Faber, whom I contacted to warn him that he was promoting a crank, the acceptable level of benzene in the body is 0.000000%.
Not following all the particulars, but I think you are probably correct. I used to like propane for cooking because of the fast heat and great control, but I think my current induction cooktop paired with the convection oven is really the best of all world for my household
Good point about induction stoves, Mike. Sage mentions them. She also mentions heat pumps. The connection is two-fold. First, they’re simply good, if not better tech. Second, they rely on an electricity grid. Every Climateball episode should give us a good reason to talk about heat pumps:
https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/heat-pump-systems
Then we need to talk about building better infrastructures.
@-W
“Then we need to talk about building better infrastructures.”
Almost by definition infrastructure are singular monopoly systems.
They are never built or profitable for an entrepreneurial actor to build, they always want to exploit an existing infrastructure to sell their product. Cars, trains, phone calls and energy use are all examples.
When these technologies were new the various players sometimes all tried to build their own infrastructure. look at the plethora of train lines, telephone wires, and electrical supplies in the early days of these developments. Eventually they had to be taken over by communal governance and financed and built from public funds. In social democracies these funds came from redistribution of wealth taxed from business.
Advocating for better infrastructure is an uphill battle in societies where ‘individualism’ and companies have the dominant position. However much, better infrastructure may improve the reach and profitability of commercial enterprises, the initial cost will always be strongly opposed by those who foresee their immediate profit being taxed to pay for them.
In other words, better infrastructure is largely a political/economic problem.
Izen,
The problem you underline has reached the mainstream audience recently:
You may also like Russell’s new post at Judy’s:
Source: https://judithcurry.com/2023/01/29/green-energy-dont-stick-granny-with-the-bill/
Coming from a guy who
worked forshould know about Alabama Power, which is owned by the Southern Company, to speak of my granny like that is rather grand.My granny does not seem to like it.
Neither does my grand dad, it seems.
ADD. After rechecking my source, looks like I mistook the Alabama Electric Cooperative for Alabama Power. Sorry about that, Russell.
Gas stoves were hugely important for marketing gas connections to people; gas stoves provide a tangible ‘benefit’ visibly associated with the fuel that people interact with every day, whereas central heating is just something that happens behind the scenes with an anonymous heat source. Gas stoves were a cool and desirable new product, but no longer.
Just part of a big problem that fossil fuels face: economic or not, they are becoming unfashionable and on-the-nose. You lose the battle in peoples’ heads well before you start losing in the market. Like tobacco, the fossil strategy will probably be to try to focus on the developing world…
In Australia, all the grannies have solar. Not just because so many people have solar, but also because the older generation are increasingly the ones who own most suburban real-estate. The younger generation, who can afford only to rent, are paying big bucks for (mostly) fossil-powered electricity, despite Australia being one of the major fossil exporting nations…
> You lose the battle in peoples’ heads well before you start losing in the market. Like tobacco, the fossil strategy will probably be to try to focus on the developing world…
Good point, Ben. There are still grannies to fleece around here:
https://www.volts.wtf/p/the-right-wing-groups-behind-renewable#details
Also our planning engineer tilts at windmills right after 2022 happened:
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/10/28/exxon-and-chevron-made-record-profits-as-gas-price-gouging-hit-californians/
I just wish, that in this day and age, that people would be kinder to otters.
Contrarians are ill-defined for physics problems that are not completely explained. Instead of contrarians you get competing models of varying degrees of acceptance. Some models may be favored, some may be underdogs, some trash. In climate science, the mystery behaviors include AMO, ENSO, IOD, QBO, MJO, SSW events, PDO, NAO, TIW, and ITCZ asymmetry. The tell is when you find papers on these topics that apply machine learning to try to discover patterns or connections. The ML strategy is partly to try anything, including paths considered contrarian to common sense and to stress the limits of over-fitting, just to see if anything pops out of the non-linear space of connections. So if anything is discovered it will likely come out of contrarian-space — in other words, the solutions will come from what was once deemed contrary to conventional wisdom.
Paul,
A contrarian runs against what is usually called the established view. Most if not all established views in science are incomplete. In fact as soon as a theory includes arithmetic it cannot.
But you rightly emphasize that there are cases where there is no real established view. Two mainstream views could compete for a while. Then being a contrarian becomes relative to the crowd you meet.
Also, what you call the contrarian space is what I think allows contrarians to never lose:
New invited essay worth a look suggesting that climate science entering into the economics realm makes it a less rigorous discipline. Concludes that it may lead to further polarization : “Post-normal conditions lead to changes in the scientific organization – programs, perceived leading scientists – which feed back into societies to support a priori world views (climate catastrophe and fake news).”
The peer-review discussion provides some more context
@-WHUT
“Favorable climate has been associated with economic growth, …”
I would suggest that a STABLE climate is associated with economic growth, and a varying and/or unstable climate is associated with societal problems.
A related retweet from AT:
Disclosure: I asked Matt & Chris to “degurufy” Porter. They might demur (Matt still regrets my suggestion to analyze teh Dilbert) as it might be a case of pure grift.