There are so many to choose from in this interview, I suppose I’ll just have to list them all. But #3 is the most profound.
From the Atlantic:
An Interview With Nobel Prize-winning economist Thomas Schelling, Part Two – Conor Clarke
#1 …And what I don’t know is whether Americans are really willing to understand that and do anything for the benefit of the unborn Chinese.
#2 It’s a tough sell. And probably you have to find ways to exaggerate the threat. And you can in fact find ways to make the threat serious.
…
#3 But I tend to be rather pessimistic. I sometimes wish that we could have, over the next five or ten years, a lot of horrid things happening — you know, like tornadoes in the Midwest and so forth — that would get people very concerned about climate change. But I don’t think that’s going to happen.
h/t to Tom Nelson
Wouldn’t it be a whole lot easier if the threat were real?
#1. He’s right. I do not care about the unborn Chinese
#2. I’ve seen evidence of exaggeration for years
#3. I live in the Midwest (Oklahoma, you know Tornado Alley), thanks a lot for your concern.
Perhaps, being an economist and all, he could ponticifate on auto repair too, I can’t wait to hear what he has to say about the state of household plumbing. It’s a good thing he is an expert on topics outside his field of study. What does he think about Michael Jackson?
Don’t you just love these humanitarians?
Well done Doctor JJ. At least they’re starting to be honest about their perfidy.
BTW, have yø¨seen the “new” Penn State study referrenced in the update here. It still has the 3-7 degree thermageddon prediction in it. They just keep churning out the same refuted numbers, as if nothing has happened in the mean time.
http://cbullitt.wordpress.com/2009/07/19/us-to-china-do-it-again-harder-well-pay-your-agw-tab/
That’s what I like about pessimists.
They always crave tragedy to prove themselves right.
It sure is easy for old millionaires who’ve used more then we ever have to preach to us about how we should do without.
LOL @ur momisugly tarpon! brevity is the soul of wit, my friend!
Just goes to show that anyone can win a Nobel prize. After all, Al Gore did it.
Nobel Prize is less than meaningless…
Let me clarify that, a Nobel Prize is worse than meaningless, it can be dangerous as well.
#4 I think there’s a significant likelihood of a kind of a runaway release of carbon and methane from permafrost, and from huge offshore deposits of methane all around the world. […] and it could become very serious. Q: And you mean serious for everyone, including the United States? A: Yes, for almost anybody.
#5 So if we [Americans] can double our GDP in the next 70 or 80 years, even if we lose some of our GDP from climate change — even if we lose 10% of our GDP from climate change — we’re still ahead so much that the effect of climate change wouldn’t be noticed. But it would be pretty disastrous in a lot of the less developed parts of the world. And that’s why I think it’s crucially important not to demand anything of China, India and so forth that will significantly impede their economic progress.
#6 Q: And when you say, “exaggerate the costs” do you mean, American politicians should exaggerate the costs to the American public, to get American support for a bill that will overwhelmingly benefit the developing world? A: [Laughs] It’s very hard to get honest people.
Sorry for being harsh, but IMHO #2 and #3 border on quote mining. For anyone actually being interested in the context, go and read the last Q & A of that interview.
Thomas Schelling certainly is holding up the dismal part of the dismal science. He should lead the way and show the rest of us the way over the cliff. I’ll decide to follow him or not depending on how well he does.
This is a great example of how taking a moral stance corrupts an analyst’s objectivity. For example, now that Jim Hansen has descended into civil disobedience, how can one not wonder to what extent he is willing to sacrifice his scientific reputation (to say nothing of data he may control) for his cause? Moral judgments jaundice an analyst’s thinking.
Nobel Prize Winner Wishes Death Upon The Midwest. Thanks, hope you have a nice day too, sir. 😉
Andrew
Also quoted: “If I were to come clean to the American public I would say that, except for a very low probability of a very bad result … we are probably going to outgrow any vulnerability we have to climate change. … You know, very little of the US economy is susceptible to climate.”
What is wrong with these people? Is it some kind of genetic defect?
“But I don’t think that’s going to happen.”
Oh, good, he agrees with us.
To wish for calamities is an evil thing.
Inciting to riot.
“Cuff him and stuff him.”
“Book him Dano!”
What an idiot!
“Curiousgeorge (06:10:57) :
What is wrong with these people? Is it some kind of genetic defect?”
Nothing. They are just punch drunk on…*insert any taxpayer funded outlet*
INteresting how he’s wondering about how to go about redistributing money to the third world. Because, you know, throwing money at them will solve all their development problems. Really. It will. Trust me.
But we shouldn’t be listening to economists. We should be listening to psychologists, people who have studied human development. If you have lived in a small African village all your life, the local culture and psychology is going to be a world of difference from western middle class values. Then comes along a western middle class economist and tells you the reason you’re poor is because you’ve not had access to enough money… and they thing giving you money will grow your country’s infrastructure.
Once again, ignorant westerners who know nothing about the rest of the world, think they know how to develop the third world.
We sent them money before… that didn’t work… so obviously we need to send them much more.
Llanfar (06:25:59) :
To wish for calamities is an evil thing.
In most cases.
>>>They always crave tragedy to prove themselves right.
Sounds like the prophet Jeremiah to me. He wanted god to destroy his people to prove that they were not worshipping his benevolent god in the right manner.
That’s all we need, Al Gore as a modern incarnation of Jeremiah.
I think you’re mischaracterising Jeremiah. He didn’t want his people destroyed, he was warning them of the coming siege so they wouldn’t be destroyed. He also wrote or compiled Lamentations, mourning the loss of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple (apparently quite a beautiful place) whereas Al would likely revel in the destruction of the modern world through whatever means (destructive warming or destructive government) and write happy songs about the glorious future the destruction would bring.