They don't describe the graphic very well in the article, but they do link to the source data [1]. The "Expected" line seems to refer to a historical average. Since the starting point of the graph coincides with the beginning of congestion pricing, we would expect a difference between the two values at that point.
You're using "Orwellian" in an Orwellian way. What do mass deportations have to do with this bizarre sudden policy change that leaves people scrambling with a 15 hour window? You're claiming this is exactly what people had in mind when they voted?
Anyone who had paid attention to Trump’s track record should have expected chaos. Along with the ability to pay Trump to be spared from the chaos. Temporarily, at least.
Before the election, the New York Times did a great podcast on how politicians have promised one thing to the voting public( low immigration) while doing a different thing (high immigration) since the 1965 Hart-Cellar Act: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/29/podcasts/the-daily/electi.... Even the New York Times recognized that the election was about maintaining the status quo—where “measured” policies always just seem to result in more immigration—versus Trump’s promise for dramatic change.
While dramatic change to H1b wasn’t specifically on Trump’s platform, unlike mass deportations, which was second, it’s within the spirit of the dramatic change Trump promised: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/platform.
Note that the data are not reported raw, though. While the sample does not match the population, it is post-stratified and weighted to reflect the US population. (See the last two pages of your link for the study methodology.)
It should also be noted that there are some pretty big flaws in the analysis. They mention "the distribution of firms using ADP services does not exactly match the distribution of firms across the broader US economy," but make no attempt to adjust their analysis for it. They also drop 30% of the data for which there is no job title recorded. With such a skewed sample, it's hard to tell how the analysis is supposed to generalize.
I wouldn't say "well above" when the curve falls well within the error bars. I wonder how different the plot would look if they reported the median as their point estimate rather than mean.
Your "Swedish" source appears to conclude that the wealth tax is effective, but suffered from loopholes and lack of enforcement. Why not fix those rather than follow your "real plan"?
Also your UK link does not support your argument:
> Weaker-than-expected tax liabilities from additional rate taxpayers are not necessarily an indicator of an unexpectedly low yield from the 50p rate. Incomes for those earning above £150,000 could be depressed for other reasons. For example, high income earners are more likely to derive a higher proportion of income from savings, dividends and other investments – and these have been much weaker in recent years than employment income.
So no acknowledgement of the fact that your questions are answered even before the paywall? The conferences (and organizers thereof) listed also include International Society for Research on Aggression (ISRA), the International Conference on Comparative Cognition, and then the article goes on to add
"The International Association of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy has cancelled its conference, originally planned for August 2025 in Nashville, Tennessee, because cuts to federal funding meant it was “no longer financially viable”. The 2026 Cities on Volcanoes conference in Bend, Oregon, has been postponed to 2030 or 2032. The International X-ray Absorption Society cancelled its upcoming 19th conference in Chicago, Illinois, which was scheduled for July this year. “
Your argument that there is an agenda is not compelling.
Yes there are a couple of examples closer to the bottom. I admit to getting stuck in the fluff.
FWIW e.g. the IACBT conference was cancelled more than 2 months ago. 2026 Cities on Volcanoes (COV13) was cancelled almost 3 months ago. Having that information would also have been helpful.
EDIT: I misread the cancellation date of the COV event, it was last month and not 3 months ago. I still want to know and it wasn't mentioned.
I spent quite a bit of time trying to look for more data to see if something makes me change my mind. I looked at how many conferences are happening in the US. I looked at the agenda to see how many foreign speakers participated. I tried to use AI to help me spot trends.
So far I'm still ok with my initial judgement that the story serves an agenda and is not real news. Or if it's news then it's low quality/poor journalistic excuse for news. Real news should give the facts, it should give the relevant background, it should do so in a way that attempts to be as unbiased as possible, not push a view point, and it should provide enough information that intelligent readers can make up their minds based on evidence. The opposite of news is coming in with an agenda or a thesis and then cherry picking things to support your viewpoint while not providing any information that can serve to falsify your viewpoint.
Maybe if I saw the article in its entirety I'd change my mind, but I doubt it. It seems the journal has an editorial position/agenda here and is seeking to drive that forward. The journal has run many "news" articles on these topics which this article prominently links to:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00859-w "‘Anxiety is palpable’: detention of researchers at US border spurs travel worries" (also worth noting that afaik those "detentions" didn't happen, people were refused entry)
This also doesn't mean that the assertion is false. I don't have enough data to say one way or the other. It is possible that many people are worried to travel to the US. Maybe they're Nature readers. So it is possible that many conferences are cancelled and moved and that is significant. But this is still a political opinion piece and not a news story.
I know you can't be serious, but are you also trying to imply that the incoming administration, staffed from top to bottom with oil industry insiders, won't affect our trajectory?
[1] https://metrics.mta.info/?cbdtp/vehiclereductions