Climate Craziness of the Week: Economist Tom Schelling makes NYT’s Paul Krugman look rational

Steve Milloy writes at junkscience.com about this off the rails Nobel prize winner:

Nobel Economist says skeptics are deniers like Holocaust-denier Ahmadinejad

University of Maryland economist Tom Schelling goes off on skeptics… er…”deniers”.

Would Schelling feel better knowing that Ahmadinejad believes in catastrophic manmade global warming?

Also of note from Schelling:

  • Global warming is worse than an Iranian nuclear bomb
  • The president will soon have to take a boat from the White House to go to Capitol Hill

===============================================================

Watch this nutcase here, note the Earth killing bottled water. Gleick will have a cow.

AEI_Capture_Shelling

http://videos.videopress.com/IEXlcir1/screencaptureproject6_hd.mp4

Tom Schelling’s CV is here: http://www.econ.umd.edu/faculty/profiles/schelling

When/if Iran detonates a nuclear device, we should probably ask the surviving people affected which is worse:

a. Instant carbonization of your town and family

b. About a degree of warming over the last century

About these ads

98 thoughts on “Climate Craziness of the Week: Economist Tom Schelling makes NYT’s Paul Krugman look rational

  1. Dr. Schelling, I am quite confident, is unlikely to visit WUWT. Nonetheless, on the slightest of slight chances that you are glancing through this thread, sir, I would like to invite you to a public debate between yourself and myself on the subject of climate change. As you have deemed yourself fit to make such forceful pronouncements regarding climate, surely you know enough about it personally to come teach a humble scribe such as myself, one sorely duped by the various minions of Big Oil, a lesson. It can be at your own academic institution, moderated by fellow-academics of yours, with an audience mostly made up of people on your side. Just a friendly debate on where we are now, climatologically speaking, how we got here, and where we may be headed next. Thank you for your consideration. I can be reached via the comments at my own blog, talkingabouttheweather.com.

  2. I’m glad they’ve de-cloaked on the holocaust denial / climate denial meme – after years of denying the relevance, when challenged about why they call people who disagree with them “deniers”.

  3. The governor of Maryland is Martin “windmills” O’Malley. The University of Maryland is funded by the State of Maryland. Do we honestly think any U. of Md. professor would say anything but “global warming/climate change caused by man is real” or man-made global warming/climate change skeptics are anything other than “holocaust deniers or tin-foil hat wearing kooks”?

  4. A few years ago, Schelling was heard HOPING for some kind of climate disaster to wake everyone up. Krugman, though, is still the champ in this category–his pompous-ignoramus pronouncements are far more frequent and, like RFK Jr., he regularly uses Unabomber-ish rhetoric.

  5. People like Schelling are a disgrace to science and people who promote people like Schelling are worse, a disgrace to society.

  6. When/if Iran detonates a nuclear device, we should probably ask the surviving people affected which is worse:

    a. Instant carbonization of your town and family

    b. About a degree of warming over the last century

    ==========================================================================
    Hmmm….When I was a kid they talked about the threat of a “Nuclear Winter”.
    So maybe the answer to CAGW for this guy is a nuclear Iran?

  7. I believe Ira Glickstein is from U of Maryland? Perhaps he could be teased out of retirement for a rebuttal comment?

    As for “carbonization of your town and family”, that hardly captures the magnitude of the danger. Israel has a massive second strike capability. If they were hit with a nuke, they’d hardly be in a position to defend themselves against a conventional attack, and they have plenty of neighbours who would likely exploit that opportunity. So chances are that the second strike capability would be used to ensure no one else in the area is in a position to fight a conventional war either. Color the mid east aflame and the world’s oil supply completely disrupted, perhaps for decades. Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Yemen and others in the mid east are already teetering on the edge of disintegration into sectarian warfare, there should be no doubt that there’d be a tipping point on that front that would engulf most if not all the mid east. The nuke would kill millions, the energy poverty that followed would kill billions.

  8. Oh my. He is insulting on intend, using the holocaust deniers label.
    He assumes he insults only “conservatives”, so that it must be ok – must he be thinking – as he seem to label himself a liberal. No, Mr Schelling, a Nobel prize is not a free letter to insult whom you dislike, and no, there is no party line in climate.
    You should go and read a bit about sea level rise before you speak great tones Mr Schelling:

    http://www.marklynas.org/2012/04/where-sea-level-rise-isnt-what-it-seems/

    Did he brought any argument? I bet not, I bet only argument from authority, what a difference to Ivar Giaever.
    Sad and dissapointing. But at least he seems to know what a hoax is, that is the only thing that he explained.

  9. Why is it that so many intelligent people are apparently taken in by CAGW exaggerations? I assume Tom Schelling knows how to read graphs so what does he have to say about all the IPCC projection against reality and in particular their latest leaked graph of temp projections? I assume Tom Schelling knows a bit about models. What does he have to say about the skill of the climate models used by the IPCC?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/09/more-climate-models-fail-a-chink-in-the-armor-at-science/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/10/dr-murray-salby-on-model-world-vs-real-world/

  10. Jimbo says:
    June 10, 2013 at 3:23 pm
    Why is it that so many intelligent people are apparently taken in by CAGW exaggerations?
    ===========
    Jim, I don’t think most people realize how many complete and total idiots are running around..

    …has Guam tipped over yet?

  11. Remember that the Nobel Prize has lately been downgraded: Gore and Obama. Both were strictly political in nature; I wot not but that science and literature are now contaminated as well.

    ["would not doubt"? Mod]

  12. Another useless academic who completely lacks any common sense. Of course there are some academics who live outside their ivory towers and understand something about the real world. But this idiot isn’t one of them.

  13. CAGW is a hoax as defined by the economist – The one world governance/dominance movement is the big push behind CAGW. They are using CAGW and as means to an ends and will continue the hoax until they get enough systems in place to sustain the control. Many scientist are only pawns in the effort to control/delegitimize free markets and people. It’s the fight of our lifetime and there is a good chance that they will lose so they are now trying to destroy the none believers/none conformers. My opinion of course….

  14. A more interesting question is why did he feel duty bound to make such a presentation now? At the point when there is wide agreement that the warming has leveled off for at least 10 probably 15 years. History will look back at these people in amazement, what a way to destroy your own reputation. There must be a reason for him doing this.

  15. Yet another catastrophist projecting from his personal end of life problem. He reminds me of Marshall Applewhite of the Heavens Gate cult.

  16. This video fragment was painful to watch for me, having experienced dear family members succumb to senility over the past years. Anyone with the slightest bit of compassion with the elderly would have made efforts to keep this disgrace out of public view.

  17. For that remark about boating to Capitol Hill, he must have meant AFTER DC capsizes. Now it all makes sense.

  18. I can see his point. In order to avoid the president using a boat to get from the WH to Capitol Hill, let’s simply relocate both to a place where they can spend 16.3 trillion of someone else’s money. This will spare them the trouble of overspending, and the trouble of then prosecuting Americans for tax evasion, and also the trouble of taking a boat.

  19. The nub:-

    “Absolutely they know that the thousands of scientists who have been seriously working on this subject anywhere from 10 to 30 years, that they are not deliberately deceiving the public….”

    Well, anybody who thinks it possible that joint effort of the greatest ever scientific minds could, over a miniscule 10 to 30 year study period, know for certain what drives our climate, has no concept or comprehension of our real world. As well as having no understanding of the very simple but extremely reliable scientific method.

    Please how do I keep my children safe from the misdirection of these ill informed zealots?

  20. I just figured he had spent too much time in the faculty lounge with Herman Daly. The whole premise for that steady state economics nonsense is Global Warming.

    It’s so awful when reality gets in the way of a lucrative and influential model. Rise temps rise!

    Next it will be the catastrophe models incorporated into the MMORPGs that will be seen as the “Truth.” If you get from level to level immersed in it it must be true.

  21. The liberal/conservative part reinforces to me that they’re getting seriously worried about this ship sinking. How many more liberal (as in totalitarian) claptrap “theories” (conjectures) are going down with it ?

    This might be the first time in history that the voting public will actually see their shipwreck live as it happens, albeit slowly. The phrase “Ha ha, remember the global warming hoax” …….. (endless alternative next clauses).

    So here you go Tom (and Jim and Kevin):

    All your life is such a shame, shame, shame.
    All your love is just a dream, dream, dream.
    Open up your eyes
    You can see the flames, flames, flames.
    Of your wasted life.
    You should be ashamed.

    – Counting Crows

  22. Anthony I’d be careful here
    This is a hoax surely.
    This is an actor masquerading as Dr Schelling a man reputed to have a brilliant intellect.
    Given his appearance and the rambling, nonsensical content of his speech the hoaxers are clearly trying to portray him as doddering, vain (check the comb over),and possibly on the verge of dementia or perhaps reacting badly to prescribed medication.
    I fear you will be hearing from the lawyers of the ‘real’ Dr Schelling before long.

  23. He’s 92. James Lovelock is 94 and he recanted all his CAGW nonsense and criticized the models, the science, the hype…. – a gigantic feat for someone of an age when the brain starts to set like concrete. There is no question this man is senile. There is no question that he really isn’t and wasn’t that bright despite a tinkling chest full of awards. With the Nobel Committee completely commandeered by marxists, he received his prize in 2005, the infamous decade of asterisked prizes which I call the CrackerJack^TM prize period.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cracker_Jack

    Wiki refers to it as being touted as the first junk food. I love the stuff. I was surprised to read the all natural ingredients on the package.

  24. Here is my stance.

    The holocaust happened. Over 6 million Jews were murdered by the Nazis. Many others killed too.

    Co2 is a greenhouse gas without which life as we know it would be impossible.

    I don’t smoke cigarettes but I do drive a diesel powered car.

    I have never had any stocks in fossil fuel or tobacco companies (unlike Pachauri & Gore past).

    I do not represent fossil fuel or tobacco companies in any way, shape or form.

    I am a firm adherent of Charles Darwin and evolution.

    I appreciate & am grateful for the energy from fossil fuels and nuclear power.

    But I am sceptical of the IPCC projections for 2100 for temps, sea levels and climate in general. My perception is that there is a lot of climate exaggeration going on which is publicly funded. (Have you noticed how their predictions are almost always BAD not good?)

  25. The truly sad part about this person is he is neither extreme nor uncommon to the doomsday cult of warming… the only uncommon thing is unlike say algore this person is willing to speak from the “heart”. He’s the poster child of the cult.

  26. “Absolutely they know that the thousands of scientists who have been seriously working on this subject anywhere from 10 to 30 years, that they are not deliberately deceiving the public….”

    Mmmmm. Interesting that. Lysenko et. al. managed the same thing.

    Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005
    “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….”

    Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009
    ‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’

    Mike’s nature trick, keep the paper out somehow, stall FOIA, why give data so you can find something wrong with it, fire editors not towing the party line etc. There is absolutely no suggestion of deceiving the public. / sarc.

    Public deception is precisely what this is all about.

  27. TomRude says June 10, 2013 at 4:10 pm

    Looks like there is after all a shelf date on Nobel recipients…

    On at least the economists they nominate … no guarantee he was properly ‘bolted down’ to begin with. Look at the NYT’s Krugman …

    .

  28. If you have to make remarks about his age, please try to temper it by acknowledging the plain fact that some do their best life’s work past the age of 70. For example, Noah Webster. And being past 70 doesn’t mean you can’t have a beautiful right hook (:

    http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=buzz+aldrin+punch&mid=336DCAB45D74F9485FFB336DCAB45D74F9485FFB&view=detail&FORM=VIRE7

    (Bill Gates of course hates to have to point out that living into your 70’s isn’t really natural, and human longevity will soon cost too much to sustain…
    “We’re inventing ways of doing new things that cost $300,000 and take people in their 70s and, on average, give them an extra, say, two or three years of life. And then you have to say, given finite resources, should we fire two or three teachers to do this operation?” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/17/bill-gates-death-is-something-we-really-understand-extremely-well/ )

  29. I’m sorry, but I just don’t see how the Skeptic side can ever recover from such an onslaught from such a brilliant man. His brilliance shines as the brightest star, a North Star to guide us to the RealClimate truth, keeping us from the certain destruction resulting from questioning said Truth.
    Perhaps if we repent now, our sins may be forgiven.

  30. There is a fine line between genius and madman … Schelling hasn’t achieved genius.

  31. I believe that economics is the only self-styled “predictive” science that looks bad compared with astrology.

    Schelling demonstrates why.

  32. If his comments didn’t have the potential for real impact, I would just feel pity for this man and his rambling delusions.

  33. “Schelling is best known for his books The Strategy of Conflict and Micromotives and Macrobehavior.” Those interest explain almost everything.

  34. Wow…. Just wow…..

    Schelling and Krugman are the typical clueless “intellectuals” that are advising federal government officials on economic and environmental matters, which explains why the US economy is on the brink of collapse.

    Hopefully, when CAGW is officially exposed as the hoax that it is, it will instigate a fundamental decentralization of Federal government control, leading to the abolishment of; The Federal Reserve, EPA, Energy, Education, HUD, Labor, FHA, Fannie/Freddie, Homeland Security and Agriculture.

    ALL these functions should be turned over the states as the Constitution dictates in Amendments 9 and 10.

    I’m just getting sick and tired of seeing people like Schelling and Krugman help destroy the US. If state leaders wish to listen to these nut jobs and implement destructive rules, regulations, taxes, and mandates, fine, people and businesses can move to another state but when central governments listen to these insane people, the only option is for people to move out of country.

  35. An economist with a Nobel prize he is. No science education, learnt about climate in four weeks when he got a political appointment. Lacks ability for critical thinking and does not understand what he is talking about. He has a high opinion of himself and thinks that is enough to be a climate expert. I certainly would not take his course. Remind me that Nobelists do not know any more than laymen do of fields outside their competence. He is a living example of this.

  36. What I find most absurd is the ignorance of levels of disagreement of the loudly purported but hardly evidenced consensus view of climate science conclusions. How can one logically reconcile only recognizing the existence of two categories within the climate debate as if there are only climate scientists and “climate deniers” when there are climate scientists SKEPTICAL of the greatly asserted but pitifully evidenced consensus view? There’s a difference between “denying” the GHE and being skeptical that a small increase in GHG concentration necessarily raises the Earths temperature dangerously. To use his analogy, if a historian after considerable research announced a conclusion that a particular Nazi concentration camp had actually killed 20% less Jews than previous historians believed would he be a Holocaust Denier? Of course not, that’s absurd. Similarly it’s absurd to lump skeptics with deniers …. unless you’re a propagandist.

  37. “Absolutely they know that the thousands of scientists who have been seriously working on this subject anywhere from 10 to 30 years, that they are not deliberately deceiving the public….”
    ===========
    No, like ulcers, they were deceiving the public by accident. It is human nature for those in authority to blame the common man, to separate them from their wallets. And for the common man to blame those in authority. to separate them from their heads.

  38. davidmhoffer says:
    June 10, 2013 at 3:09 pm
    Color the mid east aflame and the world’s oil supply completely disrupted, perhaps for decades.
    ====
    Luckily the US government will have foreseen this and ensured an ample supply of oil by building a pipeline to Canada. Otherwise, the US will surely be drawn into the mess trying to protect its supply of middle east oil. If you think the lineups during the Arab oil embargo were bad…. Think WWIII.

  39. As their religion is attacked, they grow more and more desperate. We have already had suggestions of gassing, mass executions, and now we have a a-bomb comparison. Does anyone wonder how the Nazis did what they did now? We have learned nothing.

  40. Looked up his age, and now I just feel sorry for him, and angry at the manipulators who rolled the wheelchair of this broken down 92 year old man up to the table so they could use his name.

  41. Arno Arrak says:
    June 10, 2013 at 6:21 pm

    Economics is not a science. Getting a doctorate in economics requires no serious science courses. Krugman is the proof that economists presume to speak as scientists. Piffle.

    • @Theo Goodwin – Economics is unique in that it does require hard science, but is also composed of social sciences. There are laws (versus theories) that are immutable and unchanging. A serious economist is as good a statistician as you will find. Which is math, the hard core kind.

      But it does not include Physics, Chemistry, or Biology.

      Still, do not judge a discipline by one incompetent moron. After all, Mann has a degree in Geology (or some other hard science) and knows less than this man.

  42. Jimbo says:
    June 10, 2013 at 4:37 pm

    That pretty much sums me up too (except my F250 is a V10, not a diesel ;)

  43. Theo Goodwin says:
    June 10, 2013 at 7:34 pm

    Arno Arrak says:
    June 10, 2013 at 6:21 pm

    Economics is not a science. Getting a doctorate in economics requires no serious science courses. Krugman is the proof that economists presume to speak as scientists. Piffle.

    Don’t tell that to Ross McKitrick…

  44. speaking of crazy, this will surely (not) impress the 99%:

    10 June: Reuters: Elite flyers pressure United Airlines to act on climate change
    A group of United Airlines’ most frequent flyers, including billionaire investor Tom Steyer, on Monday called on the big airline to stop blocking climate change actions.
    United Airlines Inc has opposed “multiple efforts to curb climate change pollution, at home and abroad,” the group, Flying Clean, said in a letter to Chief Executive Jeff Smisek.
    Flying Clean, launched by several nongovernmental organizations seeking to reduce carbon emissions from airplanes, sent its letter ahead of United’s annual shareholder meeting on Wednesday in Arlington, Virginia. It had 85,000 electronic signatures including 2,700 elite frequent flyers…

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/10/airlines-climate-united-idUSL1N0EJ24H20130610

    Flying Clean Alliance

    http://www.flyingclean.com/flying_clean_alliance

  45. Economics deals with humanity, which contains so many variables it must be deemed a chaotic system. Therefore a good economist is much like a good meteorologist. He does not distort or fudge the data from the past, but rather uses it to create analogs. These analogs give us some idea how things will develop in the future, but no certainty. The further you go into the future the more likely a butterfly flaps its wing some place, and creates reverberations in chaos which produce an unexpected result.

    A less-than-honest economist is a bit like a fellow trying to sell the Brooklyn Bridge. They do fudge the data, and then claim success is a “sure thing.” In order to stop such people from taking advantage of naive investors, there are audits, and rules concerning the handling of statistics.

    And that is where people like Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre step in.

  46. The good professor gives us another fine example showing the vast difference between academic credentials and intelligence.

  47. Jimbo says:
    Why is it that so many intelligent people are apparently taken in by CAGW exaggerations?

    This is somewhat understandable in intellectuals without much science education, but surprisingly often it also happens to academics who themselves work in a natural science field. I’ll propose an answer for the latter.

    People choose a career in academia to achieve happiness. There are two ways to be happy in academia:

    1. You are well-meaning, enthusiastic and genuinely convinced that your scientific ideas are worth pursuing. This will only be the case if you produce more ideas than you eliminate by way of critical thinking. One way to achieve this (1a) is to have genuinely good ideas; another way (1b) is to lack critical thinking skills. So, well-meaning scientists are often not very strong in the critical thinking department.

    2. You are a cynic who views everything in life as a game, and you delight in the ease with which the game of science can be played and manipulated with gimmickry and shysterism. In doing so, you derive pleasure from playing your well-meaning but critically challenged (see 1b) colleagues for the fools they are.

    This sounds harsh, but it is my considered opinion after working in academia in various places and for almost 30 years; I feel no compunction in signing my name to it. From observing the antics of climate science and scientists, you may be able to form an opinion as to whether and how this explanation might apply to the whole debacle.

  48. The Prize in Economics of course is rather controversial itself and is not part of the Nobel will. But I think we have to give it to Hayek for his insights:

    In his speech at the 1974 Nobel Banquet Friedrich Hayek stated that if he had been consulted whether to establish a Nobel Prize in economics he would “have decidedly advised against it”[23][27] primarily because “the Nobel Prize confers on an individual an authority which in economics no man ought to possess… This does not matter in the natural sciences. Here the influence exercised by an individual is chiefly an influence on his fellow experts; and they will soon cut him down to size if he exceeds his competence. But the influence of the economist that mainly matters is an influence over laymen: politicians, journalists, civil servants and the public generally.”[27]

    Yes, very insightful and very true. Now how many self-important people would have said that upon occasion of an award?

  49. I’m reminded of a quote from President Truman.

    “If all the economists were laid end to end, it would be a good thing”

  50. I find it extremely sad that various people ‘friendly’ with this old man are most wickedly encouraging him to make really nasty public statements. He should be left in peace to enjoy his retirement and not used in this utterly undignified manner.
    If he is, in fact, sentient, which this evil diatribe would suggest he is not.

  51. Michael Palmer says:
    June 10, 2013 at 8:45 pm
    Jimbo says:
    Why is it that so many intelligent people are apparently taken in by CAGW exaggerations?
    —————————————
    I think it is much deeper and possibly insidious; there is a vast momentum and invested emotions in the AGW camp. It was taught in high school science to me. When i could not imagine how 400 molecules could dramatically heat up a million i was dismissed.
    My curiosity was crushed by conformity; a very human phenomena. The process was not and is not at all scientific.

  52. Kajajuk says:
    June 10, 2013 at 9:21 pm
    “Economists are deniers.
    Infinite growth? That could work…”

    Modern monetarism was basically introduced by Milton Friedman, who was otherwise a nice fellow, he helped Nixon get out of Bretton Woods, removing the Gold backing.
    Since then, GDP tracks the growth of the moneysupply nearly Dollar by Dollar, it’s that simple. Want more growth, print more dollars.
    (Meanwhile, through technological deflation, we become more wealthy in terms of functionality anyway but this has to do with ´technological inventions , not with the GDP number)

  53. Lars P. says:
    June 10, 2013 at 3:15 pm
    “Oh my. He is insulting on intend, using the holocaust deniers label.
    He assumes he insults only “conservatives”, so that it must be ok ”

    Well the liberal statists need CO2AGW as a means to an end, to justify further expansion of the absolutist NSA state.

  54. “As unlikely as this may sound, we have lucked out in recent years when it comes to global warming… The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. ” – Justin Gillis (New York Times, June 10)

    Justin’s disappointment is palpable. How unlucky we are not to be on the fast road to destruction.

  55. Iran is in favor of the idiot theory of AGW, that’s true.
    At the same time, Iran is making very interisting research in nanotechnology to fight cancer. They never declare war to anyone.
    There is 60% of female students in scientific field and the Iranian scientific publication in the middle east is second right after Israel .
    Do they have the capability to make nuclear bomb?
    Well the first atomic bomb has been made 70 years ago. Due to the precision of the machines and the electronic control we have, it is much easier to do it today.
    How many people writing in this forum can design an atomic bomb ?
    Certainly many.
    If they know how to do it, does it mean they are going to do it ?
    I do not think so.
    Iranians sign an armistice with Iraq because they have been bombarded by them with chemical. They refuse to retaliate with the same arms (which they own) .
    If, during a war, they decide to sign an armistice in stead of using a WMD, is it logical to thing that they are going to develop a nuclear WMD ?
    So far all the nuclear sites in Iran are open and monitored by an UN organisation, the IAEA, which dispose of video cameras and real time measure instruments.
    Despite the fact that the names of scientifics have been given to the mossad, who killed allmost all the scientists of the list, IAEA NEVER found concrete proof of enrichment greater then 20%.

    I presume that Iran wants to use the notion of AGW to justify the research on nuclear field.
    The truth is that if you do not master nuclear physics you cannot go very far in science nowadays.

  56. I think the appeal of AGW to economists is that it’s a purely model-based field working with very complex systems over a very long period. There is a brotherhood in the belief that you can not only lasso reality with your model but that you can alter it- usually through the action of a government.

    Note that the American government is currently deploying (without much success) a massive-government-spending economic model which was used 80 years ago (without much success) and which has long since been debunked by many economists.

  57. EW3 says June 10, 2013 at 9:01 pm

    Sorry, it appears that John Kenneth Galbraith said this…

    I enjoyed it when JKG would meet WFB (William F. Buckley) on his WFB’s program Firing Line and walk away from the session (IMO) with his ideas and ideology thoroughly minced (literally: cut or chopped into very small pieces, subdivided into minute parts, pronounced in an affected way with studied elegance) …

    Oh – preserved for posterity even!

    .

  58. policycritic says:
    June 10, 2013 at 10:14 pm

    What are the cognoscenti going to do now with this NYT admission:….

    This year, so far at least, has been marked by a distinct change in the attitude of the main stream media. Whereas before they would have backed the CAGW camp they are now asking questions. Sceptics have been doing this about the flat temps for over 5 years and even Phil Jones raised his concern in a 7th May, 2009 email when he remarked:

    ‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’

    His 15 years is now up. The longer the standstill the weaker the consensus will be. Scientists have to think about their futures and reputations. The media don’t want to be seen as fools so it’s better to start asking questions which they can pull up later to show they really were sceptical all along. ;)

  59. Let’s look it up. If one is a “denier,” obviously they aren’t some old world coin. Here’s what Dictionary.com has to say about the word “deny” (as “denier” in the given context isn’t actually a word) :

    1. to state that (something declared or believed to be true) is not true: to deny an accusation.
    2. to refuse to agree or accede to: to deny a petition.

    Hmm… not so bad after all. Sticks and stones and all that. If you’re calling me names – you’ve already lost the debate.

  60. Schelling is another example of the ignoranuses (not a typo) masquerading as “cholars” that should be removed from their posts after we win the Second War of Independence and start the de-Nazification process. Where does he get off thinking he knows anything about climate?

    This guy is in the same league as my former history prof colleague who said the Soviet system was so much more humane and efficient than ours in the US. As for Holocaust deniers, this mollusk is denying the Holocaust that will resuolt from decarbonizing the world economy. He’s the real Holocaust denier.

  61. Until about 1870, Constitution Avenue was part of a canal system between the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers that ran down the Mall near both the Capitol and the White House. Since Schelling is undoubtedly a subscriber to mammoth sea level rise, it is clear why he would suggest Obama could take a boat.

  62. JimBrock says:
    June 10, 2013 at 3:34 pm

    Remember that the Nobel Prize has lately been downgraded: Gore and Obama.

    Not to mention Yasser Arafat…

  63. You call people who question your math homework “Nazis” for, basically, one of two reasons. Number one, you’re a mental five-year-old and you just say whatever extreme thing comes to mind to Make It Stop, or you’re deliberately making someone an UnPerson so you don’t have to consider their ideas.

    I do sometimes wish the human race was, like, maybe 20% less interesting, as a psychological study. Maybe 30.

  64. Jeff Alberts says:
    June 10, 2013 at 7:41 pm
    Theo Goodwin says:
    June 10, 2013 at 7:34 pm

    Arno Arrak says:
    June 10, 2013 at 6:21 pm

    ‘Economics is not a science. Getting a doctorate in economics requires no serious science courses. Krugman is the proof that economists presume to speak as scientists. Piffle.

    Don’t tell that to Ross McKitrick…’

    One can be an economist and a good scientist, as McKitrick is. My point is that becoming an economist does not make one a scientist.

  65. Michael Palmer says:
    June 10, 2013 at 8:45 pm

    Very well said. Everyone would do well to reflect on your insights.

  66. philjourdan says:
    June 11, 2013 at 8:00 am
    “@Theo Goodwin – Economics is unique in that it does require hard science, but is also composed of social sciences. There are laws (versus theories) that are immutable and unchanging.”

    Economics uses serious mathematics. But economics has produced no laws of human behavior. The closest they have come is “The rich live on the high ground.”

    • @Theo Goodwin – if you are talking about a “law” of an individual behavior, you are correct. Nor does it pretend to. But it does deal with societies (mobs, masses of people, ,whatever). And they have laws. The law of supply and demand for example. These laws are like theories, in that they are proposed, and never disproven. It may be impossible to predict the behavior of one person, but it is not impossible to predict what societies do I(mobs, masses, etc.).

  67. Perhaps this is a good time to recall the wise words of another winner of the Economics Prize in memory of Alfred Nobel, Friedrich Hayek, in his Nobel banquet speech of 1974.

    http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1974/hayek-speech.html

    Some apposite quotes which show remarkable prescience:
    “… the Nobel Prize confers on an individual an authority which in economics no man ought to possess.”
    “… the influence of the economist that mainly matters is an influence over laymen: politicians, journalists, civil servants and the public generally.
    There is no reason why a man who has made a distinctive contribution to economic science should be omnicompetent on all problems of society…”

  68. Thomas Schelling’s contributions to economics have by and large been of great value.

    His views on “climate change” are of no positive value at all.

    He’s apparently held to some variant of them since 1980. So I don’t think the awful remarks he made on this video can be chalked up to Alzheimer’s.

  69. And now for something “completely different”…

    I am fascinated by parts of this thread. I love the economists as scientists; got me thinking of comedy.

  70. My gooshness!! What has that ‘Dr’ been smoking…? And/or combined with 1+ kg of LSD…? It just cannot be for real, or…?

  71. Considering that the only predicted consequence of increased CO2 that has actually come to pass is increased agricultural output, it would behoove Dr. Schelling to shut his gob, right quick.

Comments are closed.