Quote of the Week #15

qotw_cropped

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

153 thoughts on “Quote of the Week #15

  1. #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.

  2. 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?

  3. That’s what I like about pessimists.
    They always crave tragedy to prove themselves right.

  4. 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.

  5. Just goes to show that anyone can win a Nobel prize. After all, Al Gore did it.
    Nobel Prize is less than meaningless…

  6. Let me clarify that, a Nobel Prize is worse than meaningless, it can be dangerous as well.

  7. #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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. Nobel Prize Winner Wishes Death Upon The Midwest. Thanks, hope you have a nice day too, sir. 😉
    Andrew

  11. 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.”

  12. “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*

  13. 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.

  14. >>>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.

  15. 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.

  16. @cbullitt – “BTW, have yø¨seen the “new” Penn State study referrenced in the update here.”
    You mean the new Penn State study, commissioned by the commonwealth, and completed by … PSU’s College of Agriculture??
    Because when I think of climate change studies, I don’t think to call on the meteorologists, climatologists, geologists, etc in the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, I think it’s a job best suited for the Future Farmers of America.

  17. If you just sit back and read the article … both the reponses and the tone of the questioning …….. you realise what a rambling complete load of nonsense it is …. bizarre suppositions about methane releases, random thoughts about the morality of worrying about future generations, wild predictions about future wealth distribution, etc etc. Its all just total and utter bollocks.

  18. “Stefan (06:35:35) :
    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.”
    Your veiw of “small African villages” is very poor, almost armchair like. LiveAid money from the 80’s is *STILL* working in Ethiopia. If only we could get the pigs (IMF, WB, UN etc etc) out of the trough!

  19. Amazing – towards the end he also openly admits that he’s on a religious crusade and expresses his disapointment that he hasn’t been able to get enough of the older, established religions to buy into his crusade:
    “But I get no impression that Protestants and Catholics are sermonizing on the importance of preserving the bounty of the earth, the richness of the species, or preserving the planet as we would like to know it. And I think that if someone could mobilize the church to be interested…”
    He already knows that a reasoned, scientific approach isn’t going to work. He needs not just faith, but the right kind of faith, right NOW!

  20. @Patrick Davis, some money does work, but on a small scale. What we can’t do is shift these places into first world cultures and economies anytime soon. That will take many generations. I’ve lived in Africa. It is not completely unknown to me.

  21. Squidly (05:58:46) : Good point. It’s time to dismantle the Nobel Prize infrastructure – it, too, has become a cog in the political machine. Idiots have taken over the world.

  22. To be exact, it is not Nobel Price, it is Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. As an aspiring economist who wants to avoid the trap of false pretenses I tend to remind myself about the difference. One of the biggest flaws of social “scientists” is that they would like to deal with something as strict as physics so they try to bend social behavior in what they think constitute laws. Unfortunately for most of the time these people create mathematical narratives, pleasant tales with sophisticated formulas added. I think Richard Feynman summarized it accurately:

  23. Strange…how old scientists will act and what they’ll say, if they think a Nobel Prize is a possibility…
    Will old scientists act and say things to protect their “early work”, so they can appear as if…they were right all along?
    Will old scientists glom onto false ideas or repeat false ideas simply because the ideas justify their “early work” that now has been hopelessly out-dated?
    Are there old scientists hoping in the recesses of their brain that a Nobel Prize awaits them, particularly, if they already have an out-sized ego?
    Are there old scientists that defend the status quo at all costs because they think it is the “status quo ‘old bulls’ that will remember them at Nobel Prize nomination time?
    Such are the problems with old scientists with inflated egos.

  24. This is a psychotic pseudo eco-socialist zealotry. No rational thought required. I read yesterday that Wal-Mart intends to rate all products according to how green they are. So, we are truly doomed. This zealotry is contagious ….and growing. I even looked at insulation this weekend….because I believe energy rationing is part of our future.

  25. What is most astonishing is what is saiud in quote #3.
    Whay does he hope that many serious disasters will happen the next 5-10 years so it is proven that the AGW theory is right instead of hoping that no such disasters happen and the AGW theory is disproven and there is no problem?
    Whay does he so badly want the AGW theory to be right?

  26. Others may have pointed this out, but strictly speaking, there is no Nobel Prize in Economics. It is a prize set up by the Bank of Sweden in honor of Mr. Nobel. His prizes were for peace, the sciences, and literature, I believe.
    None of these economists who talk like this – Paul Krugman is another – seem to have any interest in “looking under the hood” at the AGW arguments. They’re not stupid people, and they know how to analyze data. It strikes me as very curious.

  27. I am speechless before the evil of Nobel Prize winners. Is there any award for an Angel of the Bottomless Pit whose Revelation(s) is to bring death and destruction to Americans and other “developed souls” — for their own Good.

  28. The ramblings of a Nobel prize winner – pretty frightening when you consider people like this have the ear of manny who make decisions based on that prize.
    Clinically – this guy is whacked.

  29. “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.”
    This guy reminds me of the kid “Ralphie”, in “A Charismas Story”,
    who dreams of going blind after having his mouth washed out
    with “Lifebuoy soap”.
    Only someone who believe themselves to be superior to the
    rest of us, could get giddy in wishing for human tragedies. I
    wonder if he gets a tingle up his leg too.

  30. All these people have concluded that humanity has become a threat to the planet.
    They are now seeking for a way to make a legal structure for effective action on the subject but in such a manner that the their life is not influenced by the effects.
    What they really state is that they want action but the responsibility for pulling the trigger is in the hands of the political establishment that is in power thirty to 50 years from now.
    All we have to do is wait for the public really to see the consequences of their actions.
    The biggest fear of any politician is a popular uprise of mad, very mad people.
    Our current establishment is two inches away from that to happen.
    If anybody has any doubts one only has to watch the video in this earlier posting:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/18/compelling-video-angry-voters-confront-congressman-who-voted-for-cap-and-trade/

  31. This is exactly why I have likened these people to prophets for the Church of AGW.
    I grew up being dragged to church, and have seen these sorts before… however, Christianity has been essentially ejected from our society. The net result is that the same psychological need that religion filled has to be filled in some other way. Gaia worship? In a way…
    There is nothing new here. It’s always Hellfire and Brimstone, except instead of an angry God it comes from humans or the planet we live on. Either way, unless we repent and change our ways, yadda yadda yadda. Oh, and instead of tithing, we cap and trade. Yep, same old same old.
    I realize many people don’t like the comparison to religion, but it’s just too obvious, and accurate.

  32. Well we all know that there are those at RealClimate who have expressed wishes to
    1: Blow satellites out of the sky because of their variance with ground data
    2: Interrupt the data stream from such satellite with computer generated data that conforms to the religious text.
    And there are others who believe that democracy has to be abolished so that the totalitarian views can be imposed.
    What I want to know is when will the civil war begin?

  33. Your veiw of “small African villages” is very poor, almost armchair like. LiveAid money from the 80’s is *STILL* working in Ethiopia.
    And now the villages receiving that aid have per capita incomes of $3,000 per year and access to electrical power of 3 kwh per person per day? Nope. You have a more efficient (economically) tribal village. Not a bad thing. But not the good donors expected.
    BTW the thieves will always get their rake off of “free” money. It is harder to take money earned because the peasants will resist.

  34. Too bad no one on the Senate committee has the balls to ask if Whacky-Malarkey is fully implemented how much will the CO2 go down and how much will the earth cool?
    Since it’s cooling now and the CO2 is still rising, perhaps the witnesses would like to take a try at explaining that as well.

  35. Well, Mr. Economist, I invite you to Xenia, Ohio to broadcast these concerns. Be sure to really reiterate point number 3 as loudly as possible. They will love you there. It actually brings Jonah to mind, not Jeremiah, but for Anthony’s sake, I’ll leave it for the curious mind to draw analogies.

  36. He doesn’t even have the economics right. There is another big crash headed for the US economy. Then nobody will care about the AGW kooks.

  37. Isn’t instilling FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) a normal function in which terrorists routinely engage? Wouldn’t that make the good doctor a terrorist as well?

  38. I really hope that this guy is right:
    Monday, July 20, 2009
    U.S. Sen. David Vitter denounced a U.S. House-passed global warming bill Friday and predicted it will fail in the Senate.
    “I don’t think there is anything salvageable in this bill,” said Vitter, R-La.
    The Republican spoke to about 180 ExxonMobil Chemical Co. employees and fielded several questions, mostly on energy policies.
    Vitter spent most of his time blasting “cap and trade” legislation that won narrow House approval last month with heavy backing from President Barack Obama.
    Backers said the measure would offer the first enforceable limits on global warming pollution and create millions of clean energy jobs.
    The legislation is supposed to reduce the heat-trapping gases building up in the atmosphere and gradually move America to cleaner sources of energy.
    Vitter said the proposal would ignite a huge energy tax increase — $846 billion by one estimate — and damage Louisiana’s economy.
    He said the measure also stems from a false premise on how much humans contribute to global warming.
    “I don’t think it is clear and settled, the extent of the human impact on temperature trends,” Vitter said afterward.
    The bill includes mandatory reduction of emissions that would raise the cost of energy from coal, oil and natural gas. Other provisions are designed to protect consumers.
    The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the bill would cost the average household $175 a year in 2020. Others dispute that estimate.
    Vitter said the bill faces opposition from most of the Senate’s 40 GOP members and some of the chamber’s 60 Democrats. Bills in the Senate need 60 votes to get around opponents and fatal delaying tactics.
    “It will really come down to getting 60 votes in the Senate,” he said.
    Vitter also said that, without similar action by China and India, sweeping steps by the U.S. on global warming will mean little.
    “It means we won’t have made any impact,” he said.
    Vitter said the bill will get its first look in a Senate committee where he is a member come September. He said he plans to offer at least 300 amendments.
    “I am going to be very, very active in that committee,” he said.
    Vitter told reporters later that he believes “it is always important to try to improve a bad bill.”
    All seven members of the Louisiana delegation voted “no” on the bill when it passed the House on June 26.
    http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/politics/51067097.html?showAll=y&c=y

  39. This is distrubing stuff. Why would anyone want to proceed on the basis of terrible disasters. I read this shortly after having lunch with a friend. I expressed views of a sceptical nature about the evidence, or lack of it, for AGW and was subjected to an astonishing assault that likened those who took a contrary position to ‘holocaust deniers’. Naturally I was pretty upset. Taking an alternative view based on the best evidence available is the intelligent approach isn’t it? My freind advanced not a single intelligible argument or piece of evidence; just an argument along the lines of ‘all the leading scientists (no names) are in favour’ – in other words a pure appeal to authority. Now I read this frightening stuff about wishing for major disasters and “finding ways to exaggerate the threat”…
    Can anyone advise what the best line of argumment might be to politely counter such ‘fundamentalist’ AGW enthusiast positions. I value my friends, but I also value my sanity and capacity to reason and weigh evidence.

  40. #1 – What? Why? They “kill” opps, sorry – abort girls, don’t they?
    #2 – Therein lies the logic of their position – they KNOW there’s no science backing them up, so they have to SHOUT propaganda. i.e., lies.
    #3 – He’s “wishing” Americans die, so that…… ? we will save ourselves…. from what? A warmer climate? Or so more Chinese are born? Wow, I think he needs to get on the Yellow Brick road… in search of a brain.
    OT, it’s noon on July 20th in Central Florida and the temp outside is 73F and the dew point is in the 40s. Low tonight will be in the upper 60s….
    Yes, but…. The total of ALL weather IS climate.

  41. WAITING FOR THE ECLIPSE: On July 22nd, the longest solar eclipse of the 21st century will take place in Asia. Traveling photographer Olivier Staiger took this picture from Shanghai, where he is waiting for the lights to go out:
    http://www.spaceweather.com

  42. Curiousgeorge (06:10:57) :
    What is wrong with these people? Is it some kind of genetic defect?

    There is nothing wrong in them and this is the scariest part. They have an absolutely clear agenda, of course they believe it is for the democratization and welfare of humanity, for the disappearance of poverty, for the convenient application of evolutionist “struggle for the survival of the fittest” (they, of course), etc.
    Revolution their predecessors have been generously applying to humanity to make an ideally secular world, since the french revolution, an idealistic “New Brave World”, where we, those inferior and nasty people will be classified as “gammas” and be their faithful and forbade to think servants.

  43. wws (07:01:05) :
    Amazing – towards the end he also openly admits that he’s on a religious crusade and expresses his disappointment that he hasn’t been able to get enough of the older, established religions to buy into his crusade:

    Perhaps the NOAA needs someone with a degree in divinity to keep this religious crusade going…
    But, oh wait, They have one, Eugene R. Wahl’s last degree is divinity.
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/cv/cv2-wahl.html

    1998 M.Div. (Divinity), Church Divinity School of the Pacific–Episcopal

    And this guy is running computer climate models.

  44. It should be said in defense of the Nobel price, that there is no Nobel price in Economics, but the “Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics” given by a group of Swedish banks unrelated to the Alfred Nobel foundation. Even Nobel relatives are fighting to clear his name: http://tr.im/tbD6
    Alas, I have no excuse for the peace Nobel price, which is given by the Nobel foundation

  45. If you really care about the “unborn Chinese” you’ll let there parents get rich having an industrial revolution.
    But that would be bad for the PLANEEEEEEEEEETTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  46. And of course note that he thinks we should, but utterly fails to recognize that without restricting the developing world, the dreaded AGW is supposedly unstoppable.

  47. “…probably you have to find ways to exaggerate the threat.” Great idea. Perhaps if they could just get the MSM on board, touting every storm, hurricane, forest fire, etc. as being caused by (manmade) climate change, and be sure to say how much worse things can and will get, then they could get the populace sufficiently alarmed. Oh, and perhaps get rid of the MWP, to give the appearance of a sharp upwards spike in temperature last century. Also, if they could get a government scientist, perhaps working in the space field to work as an advocate for these exaggerated threats, lending much-needed credence to them. If at all possible, if they could get an international group together based on the idea of these exaggerated threats and how best to deal with them, that would be great too.
    Yawn. What year is this anyway?

  48. Wishing for manifestations (deadly ones, no less) to evoke an emotional, if not irrational response. Like images of slabs of ice falling off glaciers and cartoons of a 20′ sea level rise flooding Florida. Dramatic and terrifying images that prove nothing.
    I guess this is how desperate AGWers are becoming. Wishing for people to die so they can be right.

  49. Even with the best and most honorable of intentions, the inescapable fact is that scientists are also human beings. Human beings are, by nature, incapable of being completely objective about something they believe in.
    It follows that any scientist who believes in AGW is probably less than objective, and that the more passionately they believe in the hypothesis, the less objective they’re likely to be.
    In the light of this, perhaps climate research should be left to the skeptics or, at the very least, all peer review should be carried out by skeptics.

  50. Off Topic but too funny not to share, plus a potential quote of the week:
    http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/eij/article/the_vindication_of_a_public_scholar/
    “The Vindication of a Public Scholar
    Forty Years After The Population Bomb Ignited Controversy, Paul Ehrlich Continues to Stir Debate”
    — gotta love it, I think the author’s next article is a vindication of Ptolemy.
    –Best line in article
    **In retrospect, Ehrlich feels that The Population Bomb was “way too optimistic.”**

  51. Michał Gancarski (07:09:45) :
    Thank you for the Feynman video. My grandfather expressed the same idea in the following way: “Son, the world is full of people who know things that just aren’t true.”
    By they way, I assume the “prize-winning economist’s” interview was “fear-reviewed” to ensure it contained the proper amount of AGW alarmism.

  52. Has anyone ever sat down with an economist and had a conversation? Everything is theoretical (a euphemism for made-up). Kinda like AGW and midwest tornados. Oh, wait. Tornados are real. It’s easy (guilt free) to wish hardship on your own people when your consuming thoughts are based in theoreticals.
    There’s an old joke about a group of people stranded on a deserted island. They have canned food but no can opener. The economist says, “Don’t worry, I know just what to do. Imagine we had a can opener…”
    Yeah, there wasn’t much laffer, I mean laughter, when I heard it 25 years ago either.

  53. Robin, re your true believin’ friends: You have to realize that your task is the same as [snip ~ no general religion bashing ~ ctm]
    Practice on some of those, and then you can try talking to some of the AGW types, because it’s the same thing going on. Their biggest lies are the lies they tell themselves about how they are following science and rationality, when in fact they are pursuing a purely faith based enterprise based on the fact that it’s what everyone else is doing and they want to sit at the cool kids table.
    What’s worse, if you ever do successfully point this out to them, they will hate you for it, hate you with the heat of a thousand suns, because that’s what always happens to someone who makes someone else see their own lies and hypocrisy.
    You have to realize that you are dealing with Religion, not science here.
    And Codetech – to comment more on your observations about this new faith filling a psychological need for people who’ve fallen away from more traditional paths: you could have added with the fire and brimstone speeches, it’s never just something bad that will happen – it’s all because YOU MUST BE PUNISHED FOR YOUR SINS!
    REPENT, OH YE SINNERS OR YE WILL PERISH IN FLAME!!!
    yep, that’s pretty much the AGW argument cut down to it’s basic core elements.

  54. How about this one….!!!!!
    20 July 2009
    The Next IPCC
    Speaking of the role of the next IPCC assessment report, due in 2014, its chair again strongly suggests that the role of the assessment process is to legitimate political decisions:
    The group’s chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, said he believes governments will look to the report for “validation … of their own decisions” being made now.
    “But what if they make bad decisions?”
    Posted by Roger Pielke, Jr. at 7/20/2009 08:35:00 AM
    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/07/next-ipcc.html

  55. Thomas Schelling was born in 1921 and is therefore 87 or 88 years old! He also specialized in game theory and the theory of decision-making and, if I recall correctly, was an architect of our brinkmanship approach to dealing with the Russians over Cuba. Hence he may be addicted to the precautionary principle, an important component of game theory.
    I seriously doubt that he has looked at any of the data around climate and is simply assuming that the establishment scientists know what they are talking about.

  56. I hope someone is keeping a record of all this stuff for publication. I know it is a bit immature to say “I told you so!” but with this, the greatest threat ever to democracy and freedom, greater than the World Wars or nuclear threat of the cold war, or any other mad scheme that has come along to test us, we will need to do a reckoning to try to renovate corrupted science for the future and to define in its starkness the near-miss of this self-inflicted planetary calamity.

  57. @Robin
    One issue I might raise is that the scientific consensus is that current genetically modified crops are safe to eat. Does this mean environmentalists support GM?
    If so why do they tear up GM crops? Why do people ignore the consensus and give GM a bad name? Don’t they trust scientific opinion? If not why not?

  58. Here a quote from Lemon responding to a warmist remark:
    “The best you can do is point to an “expert” and call me a Dumbass?
    I can find an “expert” who suggests we burn all the trees and coat the ocean floor with charcoal”.
    “Global Warming – or whatever phrase you’re using today – is a modern day “Sky is Falling” deal with lots of Chicken Littles who are making tons of money from tryign to scare people.
    The big fallacy is that the whole argument hinges on CO2 causing global warming.
    Well, it has never done so in history of the world and has not done so in the last 8 years when CO2 has gone way up, and temps have stayed the same or declined”.
    http://canadianbluelemons.blogspot.com/2009/07/lord-black-pipes-in-on-climate-liars.html (look at the responses)

  59. Patagon (09:48:15) :
    It should be said in defense of the Nobel price, that there is no Nobel price in Economics, but the “Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics” given by a group of Swedish banks unrelated to the Alfred Nobel foundation. Even Nobel relatives are fighting to clear his name: http://tr.im/tbD6
    Alas, I have no excuse for the peace Nobel price, which is given by the Nobel foundation
    While were at the renovation and revitalization of Science (my post above) we should also create an alternative prize to the Nobel. The NP has lost all credibility with its reckless awards – Arafat-Rabin (peace in Israel), IPCC (the AGW mess), Koffey Annan (1million Rwandans dead on his watch and his son hooked up to the oil for food program scandal), etc.

  60. Oops should have put quotes around Patagon’s post “It should ……Nobel foundation”

  61. One wonders how bad a calamity he would wish for before it dawned on him to wish to be wrong.

  62. “We’re going to have to find some institutions that determine which developing countries get the assistance, and how much. And we’re going to have to have some intermediate organization to administer the funds and ensure that they are used for what they are intended for.”
    What could possibly go wrong?
    ::rubbing hands together:: Get your resumes ready peeps. Oh wait, we’re not part of the elite, leftist, Nobel Prize winning crowd that plans to run everything.
    Nevermind.

  63. Bernie (10:43:25) :
    Thomas Schelling was born in 1921 and is therefore 87 or 88 years old! He also specialized in game theory and the theory of decision-making and…
    It is fascinating to study game designers and their obsessive addiction to brinkmanship. Anytime you see an event teetering on minutia (hanging chad, a single at bat, survivor, etc) you are seeing the games designer. They discard normal behavior in favor of “a close finish.” Mechanical excitement. It takes little intelligence to see these games designers and misanthropes the same. One concludes they are so thoroughly unacquainted with real human behavior – they must be impostors. Or posers at best. Misanthropy on this scale reveals a disturbed mindset alienated from reality.

  64. I don’t know much about climate control, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night, so I know this is a bunch of bunk baloney.

  65. Ron de Han:
    Great post re the record low highs in Mich this weekend.
    My good buddy Joel Goldberg who runs the website michwine.com tells me that his sources indicate that this years grape crop in N. Mich has been “devastated” by the low temperatures we have experienced over the last six months. I suspect the same thing is occurring in Ont where the vineyards are a HUGE part of their economy.
    Ironically, the state of Mi wants to push more acreage into vineyards. With the possible onset of severe global cooling given the length of the current Solar Minima [per David Archibald] anyone initiating a vineyard venture in this state at this time is courting financial disaster.

  66. Just to put the AGW cap and tax business into perspective (potential financial costwise ): “Neil Barofsky, the inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, plans to deliver his report Tuesday to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.” In which he will say that the TARP and associated Govt programs will cost us about $23.7 TRILLION . http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/20/watchdog-financial-bailout-support-reach-trillion/
    So add the cost of the Cap & Trade Blackhole, and the “Meds for Everyone Plan” cost. I figure about $50TRILLION by the time it’s all added up. I wonder how many barrels of tar, and bags of feathers we could buy for that?

  67. bluegrue (06:04:46)
    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.
    The rest of the interview is indeed interesting. Schelling pretty much concedes to a point that I’ve made many times, that a strategy that maximizes economic growth will lead to better outcomes for most of the world than any efforts to control the climate, even if there was the slightest possibility that such control was achievable. That is, of course, for the “poor”, for whom more than half a century of money down the rat hole has been so successful at improving their state, that we need to commit to another century or two of the same failed model, so the leftist elites don’t run out of things to hock the rest over. One might think that a Nobel winning economist would suggest expanding the model of India and China, where allowing the intrusion of market principles into what had been complete command economies has led to the largest growth in the middle class in the history of the world, would be the best plan for the poor of the world, but like all good Socialists, he’s sure that the utter failure of their system to improve the lot of any its’ victims was a result of it not being quite big enough. If we let them control the entire world, then it’s just got to work this time, right? But for me the money quote which truly captures Mr Shelling’s economic genius is this, “Yeah, except that if the developed countries — the OECD or something like that, plus Japan — if they are really serious, they’ll tell India and China and Brazil, “we’re going to provide enormous assistance to help reduce your dependence on fossil fuels. And we don’t expect you to pay for it yourselves. We will pay for it because we’re rich and you’re not”. I would have thought that a man who has spent over a half century studying economics might have noticed that the US federal deficit has just surpassed $1 trillion for 3/4 of the fiscal year and that the biggest source of the money we’re borrowing to keep our house of cards from collapsing faster than the WAIS is…. wait for it….CHINA!

  68. Nobel prize?
    Not so much. algore and Arafat the cultural misfit.
    Nothing Noble about it.
    It is a political prize design to flatter certin people.
    Back to china. Yes I care about their unborn. More than they care about the human rights of the current chinese.
    They reduced aerosols during the Olympics by closing factories. Firing people works well enough for America to adopt the practice.

  69. Perhaps if the Chinese placed more value on unborn Chinese I might possibly, maybe, on a frosty day in a very hot place, be inclined to consider it.

  70. coloradocelt (13:07:49),
    Having the weatherunderground referee your challenge is about as partisan as anyone could get. So go ahead, issue your challenge — but I will be the referee.
    C’mon, I dare you.

  71. This is slighty of topic but non the less important.
    If you think 2 trillion dollars is much for a bail out, think 23.7 trillion US dollar for the real price tag. This is all public money.
    This is the biggest robbery in history.
    Comment by Ron de Haan
    Monday, 20 Jul 09 @ 4:31 PM
    Sane or insane:
    Insane has won….!.
    Bailouts could cost U.S. $23.7 trillion.
    This is more than the costs of all the wars the US have fought, including the entire Space Program….
    By EAMON JAVERS | 7/20/09 3:19 PM
    Barack Obama’s Treasury Department says less than $2 trillion has been spent so far on bailouts.
    A series of bailouts, bank rescues and other economic lifelines could end up costing the federal government as much as $23 trillion, the U.S. government’s watchdog over the effort says – a staggering amount that is nearly double the nation’s entire economic output for a year.
    If the feds end up spending that amount, it could be more than the federal government has spent on any single effort in American history.
    For the government to be on the hook for the total amount, worst-case scenarios would have to come to pass in a variety of federal programs, which is unlikely, says Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the government’s financial bailout programs, in testimony prepared for delivery to the House oversight committee Tuesday.
    The Treasury Department says less than $2 trillion has been spent so far.
    Still, the enormity of the IG’s projection underscores the size of the economic disaster that hit the nation over the past year and the unprecedented sums mobilized by the federal government under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama to confront it.
    In fact, $23 trillion is more than the total cost of all the wars the United States has ever fought, put together. World War II, for example, cost $4.1 trillion in 2008 dollars, according to the Congressional Research Service.
    Even the Moon landings and the New Deal didn’t come close to $23 trillion: the Moon shot in 1969 cost an estimated $237 billion in current dollars, and the entire Depression-era Roosevelt relief program came in at $500 billion, according to Jim Bianco of Bianco Research.
    The annual gross domestic product of the United States is just over $14 trillion.
    Treasury spokesman Andrew Williams downplayed the total amount could ever reach Barofsky’s number.
    “The $23.7 trillion estimate generally includes programs at the hypothetical maximum size envisioned when they were established,” Williams said. “It was never likely that all these programs would be ‘maxed out’ at the same time.”
    Still, the eye-popping price tag provoked an immediate reaction on Capitol Hill. “The potential financial commitment the American taxpayers could be responsible for is of a size and scope that isn’t even imaginable,” said Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee. “If you spent a million dollars a day going back to the birth of Christ, that wouldn’t even come close to just one trillion dollars – $23.7 trillion is a staggering figure.”
    Congressional Democrats say they will call for Treasury to meet transparency requirements suggested by the inspector general, said a spokeswoman for the Oversight committee. “The American people need to know what’s going on with their money,” said committee spokeswoman Jenny Rosenberg.
    I think you are all screwed.

  72. I would say if the solar indicators don’t start an upswing really soon, he may well get his disasters when things start really chilling off, just because of blizzards instead of tornadoes.

  73. As a Keynesian Schelling wants tornadoes to destroy property in the United States so the rebuilding will boost the economy.
    The entire premise of fixing AGW is built on the fallacy of the broken window, except the poor Keynesians don’t understand the fallacy part.
    “Economics is haunted by more fallacies than any other science known to man.”
    — Henry Hazlitt in
    Economics in One Lesson
    Mr. Hazlitt was correct nearly all the time, but he didn’t live to see the “science” of AGW, or he might have added “with the exception of AGW” to the end of his quote.

  74. 1. Squidly (05:58:46) : “…anyone can win a Nobel prize…Nobel Prize is less than meaningless…”
    It’s less than that. You can’t even use it to grow roses.
    2. Curiousgeorge (06:10:57) : “What is wrong with these people? Is it some kind of genetic defect?”
    They are liberals. They judge themselves by their intentions, not their actions or the results.
    3. Milwaukee Bob (09:25:22) : “#1 – What? Why? They “kill” opps, sorry – abort girls, don’t they?”
    No, no. Since it’s all about something called ‘choice,’ I think they simply dechoosify girl babies.
    4. Ron de Haan (10:42:35) : …Rajendra Pachauri said he believes governments will look to the report for “validation … of their own decisions” being made now…”
    That and validation of their own delusions.

  75. Schelling is one of my old instructors from the JFK School. Aside from the fact that he’s a poor instructor and a bit of a weirdo (the hyper-long striding nerd walk, the crew cut, eyes always fixed on the ground in an attempt never to make eye contact), he never met a leftist fad he didn’t like.
    Of course, the K-School is full of these types (think Robert Reich), and they now populate the Obama administration. It’s a big lefty bubble, and Schilling floats around in it like all the rest.

  76. Of course Schelling is really stupid. That’s why he got the Nobel prize and none of you on this blog did.

  77. Jim Papsdorf (12:53:01) :
    Ron de Han:
    “Great post re the record low highs in Mich this weekend.
    My good buddy Joel Goldberg who runs the website michwine.com tells me that his sources indicate that this years grape crop in N. Mich has been “devastated” by the low temperatures we have experienced over the last six months. I suspect the same thing is occurring in Ont where the vineyards are a HUGE part of their economy.
    Ironically, the state of Mi wants to push more acreage into vineyards. With the possible onset of severe global cooling given the length of the current Solar Minima [per David Archibald] anyone initiating a vineyard venture in this state at this time is courting financial disaster”.
    I am afraid courting financial disaster will not be limited to initiating a vineyard venture.

  78. Skeptic Tank (10:00:10) :
    “Wishing for manifestations (deadly ones, no less) to evoke an emotional, if not irrational response. Like images of slabs of ice falling off glaciers and cartoons of a 20′ sea level rise flooding Florida. Dramatic and terrifying images that prove nothing.
    I guess this is how desperate AGWers are becoming. Wishing for people to die so they can be right”.
    Right.

  79. Robin (09:09:59) :
    “This is distrubing stuff. Why would anyone want to proceed on the basis of terrible disasters. I read this shortly after having lunch with a friend. I expressed views of a sceptical nature about the evidence, or lack of it, for AGW and was subjected to an astonishing assault that likened those who took a contrary position to ‘holocaust deniers’. Naturally I was pretty upset. Taking an alternative view based on the best evidence available is the intelligent approach isn’t it? My freind advanced not a single intelligible argument or piece of evidence; just an argument along the lines of ‘all the leading scientists (no names) are in favour’ – in other words a pure appeal to authority. Now I read this frightening stuff about wishing for major disasters and “finding ways to exaggerate the threat”…
    Can anyone advise what the best line of argumment might be to politely counter such ‘fundamentalist’ AGW enthusiast positions. I value my friends, but I also value my sanity and capacity to reason and weigh evidence”.
    Well you could offer him a gun so he can shoot himself if the disasters hit.

  80. coloradocelt (13:07:49) : If they get their data from the same corrupt weather stations that feed GISS, it’s a suckers bet.

  81. Schelling may have a Nobel prize in economics, but he doesn’t know a thing about climatology. As the poles warm and there is less difference in the temperature gradient between them and the equator, there is less transfer of energy between them. That means that storms such as tornadoes become less severe and common not more so. The most severe tornadoes are generated when the gradient is steepest which occurs when cold polar air masses impinge on warm equatorial air masses such as during the ice ages. Just check the ice cores to see where the concentration of dust is the greatest. It is during the coldest part of the ice ages.

  82. Nobel Prize winners are looking worse and worse. For a few years I thought it was just the Peace Prize winners, but lately it seems as if it’s all of them.

  83. AGW is a social movement that uses climate science the way eugenics used evolutionary science. The interview only underscores this dangerous reality.

  84. coloradocelt (13:41:43),
    You brought this up in the first place. Now you want others to write your letters for you??
    I was merely pointing out the AGW agenda you’re promoting. There isn’t much difference between having the weatherundergound, or Al Gore doing the refereeing; it’s a stacked deck.

  85. I’ve been listening to the real-time replay of the Apollo 11 mission radio. I was only 5 months old then. I grew up and still live where I could look out my window and watch a rocket go up. I find it very hard to believe that so many people think the whole thing was a hoax. I find it even more frustrating that many more people believe that a hoax is real. Most landing deniers can be easily dismissed by the proper application of physics. It is too bad climate science is not as advanced.

  86. Anders L. (14:32:00) :

    Of course Schelling is really stupid. That’s why he got the Nobel prize and none of you on this blog did.

    Your last sentence is wrong. Care to make a correction?

  87. What’s the big deal; they say right in the story, that the clouds are formed up high when it gets cold enough (up there) and the sun is stil shining on them.
    So get out your #2 pencil and fill in dot (c), and you’ll get a pass in illumination engineering.
    I see these clouds almost any day of the week going home from work; yes I do have a job, and I go home late so I can earn enough to pay taxes to fund all these otherwise out of work statisticians, to study why we can see light; it’s very simple; if we can’t see it it isn’t light; by definition. End of story.

  88. So if we can double our GDP in the next 70 or 80 years. . .
    That is a growth rate of less than 1%. 70th root of 2 if you have a hand calculator, Prof Schelling. Great minds like his, well, Thumper’s mom’s rule applies.
    . . a very bad result — which is the disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet, which would put Washington DC under water
    If only.
    The rich counties — especially the United States — do so little in the way of foreign aid right now.
    Okay, he’s clueless. Move along, nothing to see here.
    And about Nobel prizes –
    Jimmy Carter negotiated a peace between Egypt and Israel that stands to this day. They gave Nobels to Sadat and Begin, dissing Carter who actually deserved it. Got him thinking, how do you get one? He taught Sunday school, didn’t work. He built houses for the poor, didn’t work. He monitored rigged elections in Latin America, didn’t work. He jumped on the Palestinian bandwagon, didn’t work. Finally he started trashing America in speeches abroad. Bingo!
    Climate profiteer Al Gore has been trashing America every time he goes overseas. Bingo. It wasn’t (urban legend) for his tireless AGW efforts to boost his stock holdings.
    Note that Bill Clinton and Obama are following the same overseas route. Obama’s got a lock fer shure.
    I don’t stand a chance.

  89. I think this illustrates the worst aspect of being an alarmist: You’ve backed yourself so far into the doomsayer’s corner that you find yourself in the unenviable position of having to ignore good news and wish-for/celebrate bad news. Pitiful.

  90. The problem isn’t the Nobel Prize. The problem is the extraordinary assumption that a Nobel Prize makes the winner an authority in subjects he or she has not studied.
    Yesterday I was reading about Michael Collins and his role in the Apollo 11 mission and how proud he was of his part. But what was interesting for me (and this mirrors what other astronauts have said) is Collins’ denunciation of “celebrity culture” where people are “famous for being famous”. He didn’t think that Apollo astronauts were heroes or celebrities, but as people who had a tough job and did it to the best of their ability.
    The problem is the celebrity culture that has infected science, especially climate science, allowing highly educated people in a particular discipline to pontificate in subjects they have no idea about (like economics, for example). When I read the IPCC reports I am struck by how amateurish are the descriptions of real world social and economic processes, indicating that the authors are seriously out of their depth.
    Certainly I find James Hansen talking about the need for a carbon tax as informative and compelling as Pee Wee Herman talking about nuclear physics.

  91. Gary Hladik (16:02:13) : “We have to destroy humanity in order to save it.”
    Kind of like the police killing a man to save him from committing suicide.
    (Yes that actually happened in Sarasota Fl)

  92. “We have to destroy humanity in order to save it.”
    This is the pinnacle of achievement?
    Maybe they think that in thier next life, they will be the next Adam. 25,000,001, a Global Warming odyssey.
    That isn’t solving the problem, that’s eliminating the consciousness of it.
    Nothing to worry about when the Human Race is extinct.
    Ah, my redneck boss was right: Some folks are tired of living.

  93. Jerker Andersson (07:26:39) : What is most astonishing is what is said in quote #3. Why does he hope that many serious disasters will happen the next 5-10 years so it is proven that the AGW theory is right instead of hoping that no such disasters happen and the AGW theory is disproven and there is no problem? Why does he so badly want the AGW theory to be right?

    Sadly, I believe these folks want people to die. At the bottom of it all, they are anti-people, at least anti-people “who aren’t like them.” To these folks, people don’t matter; they see humans, except for themselves, as the problem, not creative, sentient resources to work on solutions to the world’s problems. They are selfish and borderline sociopathic because they do not feel true empathy for human suffering, it furthers their purposes, so it’s not really that objectionable.

  94. “If you forget all about the bias nonsense that connects CO2 to the forming of
    night clouds, this is a very interesting article”
    Noctilucent clouds were first observed following the massive eruption of Krakatoa in 1883:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noctilucent_cloud
    Could their increase this year be because of the solar minimum and the up-tick in volcanic activity?

  95. >>>I think you’re mischaracterising Jeremiah.
    >>>He didn’t want his people destroyed
    On the contrary. Take a look at Jeremiah 44:12. The prediction is that, for burning incense to other gods, the merciful deity will destroy them all.
    So one religion is saying “I will destroy you to make you believe in me”, while the other is saying “because you did not believe in me I will destroy you”. I’ll leave you to work out which one is which. 😉
    .

  96. “As the poles warm and there is less difference in the temperature gradient between them and the equator, there is less transfer of energy between them. That means that storms such as tornadoes become less severe and common not more so.”
    Common meteorological sense would say this is so, but Schelling goes by the U.S. government published CCSP report for his talking points:
    “Across the upper Great Plains, where strong storms are projected to occur more frequently, producers are being encouraged to increase the amount of
    crop residue left on the soil or to plant cover crops in the fall to protect the soil in the spring before crops are planted.”
    Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States, P.128

  97. Robin, if you’re still checking in (I meant to post this earlier from work, but my boss’s 70th birthday party distracted everyone)
    In my case, the only way to deal with my friends and family is to not talk about it. While they’re lost in their stress-filled fantasy world of tipping points and unprecedented “warming”, I’m laughing at them (but not so they can see).
    My brother, for example, called me “stupid” at a family gathering. I have yet to meet a more conspiracy-theorist non-scientific individual, and yet to him not believing in the AGW doctrine is “stupid” enough to attempt to ruin Thanksgiving. Not worth the effort.
    I have long time friends that I just don’t talk to anymore. And as I’ve posted in the past, I’ve been through all this before with the whole Apartheid thing… my aunt and uncle were missionaries in Africa for 4 years, and I knew more from them about what was REALLY happening than all the musicians and idealistic 20-somethings that I was surrounded by could ever know.
    Be aware, it will pass, especially now that our side (the realists) are fighting back. As with many here, I used to believe, really I did. It was actually quite a jolt for me when I discovered the whole thing was just plain untrue… I doubt many of my friends could have convinced me, since “skeptics” were then (as now) painted as fringe lunatics.
    Gradually introduce people to the problems: surfacestations.org, JohnDaly’s site, lack of sealevel rise, lack of solar activity, lack of ocean warming, lack of upper troposphere warming, heck, lack of any warming for 8 years, and pretty soon they’re interested in what else you might know that they’re not hearing.
    After all, the whole “I’m just asking questions” is used by the enemy to spread outright lies, we should be using the same technique to spread the truth.

  98. To Brian Baker @ 8:09 am
    “What I want to know is when will the civil war begin?”
    After Krugman’s recent declaration of treason against US reps who didn’t support Waxman-Markey, I would have though the civil war was now, in effect, declared ?
    It is simply that the alarmists, Malthusians and wanna-be totalitarians haven’t been able to co-opt the political class to deploy the state security forces against the dissenters – yet.
    Perhaps the professional political class retains a shred of self-preservation in not allowing the zealots to get their hands on the levers of power and enforcement. You never know who the nutballs will turn the guns on at the end of the day – maybe the political class itself ??

  99. The Nobel Peace Prize should not be confused with the other Nobel Prizes. The Economy Prize is awarded by the Swedish National Bank (Riksbanken) and the Science Prizes are awarded by the Swedish Academy of Sciences.
    The Peace Prize is a purely poltical prize and awarded by the Norwegian Nobel Committee. The members of this committee is nominated by the Norwegian Parliament (Stortinget) and this in turn is dominated by socialists.

  100. CodeTech: The net result is that the same psychological need that religion filled has to be filled in some other way. Gaia worship? In a way…
    As it happens the world’s religions have three approaches to god (excuse the generalisation but I’m not about to ask you go read a dozen books just to verify this point). Those three approaches are, becoming god-conscious, having a relationship with god as a great other, and seeing god manifest as the whole natural world. People implicitly “know” these three aspects and tend to emphasize one or the other when they approach their faith, and even whole traditions can end up emphasizing one or the other. So Christians tend to see god as a great other, ie. as a being whom we have a relationship with. Zen Buddhists tend to go for god-consciousness. And just as it happens, as an example of how people implicitly “know” about these three aspects, one of my very atheist, liberal friends, said to me, without prompting, “if there is a god, it is nature”. In other words, she felt implicitly the third aspect of god, the god as “web of life”. And why not? Many people look at Nature, and they just feel amazed by the complexity and beauty, and end up with a feeling of awe.
    So environmentalists themselves identify nature as god. Now where the usual references to religion get into trouble, is that most people equate religion with irrationality, dogma, myth and santa claus. When people attack religion, they’re tending to attack dogma, which they imagine all religion to be. But that’s more about the history of religion…. Before we had science, and reasoning for one’s self, we lived in the dark ages, in ancient times when most people were simply into beliefs and myths, because they didn’t have the scientific method, so a lot of stuff that was just myth became bound up with religion. But that is a far cry from someone today who is basically rational, looking at nature and feeling awe. Feeling awe is not dogma, it is simply an emotional reaction to the complexity of our universe. And maybe that feeling of awe evokes a feeling of care, and transcendence, and wanting to connect, and connect with fellow man. People can feel this to varying degrees, be it a walk on a sunday afternoon, or kids going to a festival in the countryside.
    So generally, environmentalism does have a strongly “religious” component, but only in this specific sense, and it is not dogma in the old sense. Where it does get dogmatic is when people make errors in thinking, and make errors in their analysis. But that’s not religious, that’s just bad reasoning.
    As this site has often made the point, many people who don’t identify as environmentalists, nevertheless actually work to help the environment, and perhaps even do more to serve the environment, simply because they care, and their reasoning is better.
    So when we feel tempted to lambast something as religious, we could just ask, are we accusing them of faulty reasoning? Can we show them why their analysis is flawed? We could even express a feeling of awe for nature, whilst scrutinizing and picking apart their flawed logic and data?

  101. Ian Plimer, on page 12 of “Heaven and Earth” says
    “The slogan “Stop Climate Change” is a very public announcement of absolute total ignorance as it is not cognisant of history, archeology, geology, astronomy, ocean sciences, atmospheric sciences and the life sciences.”
    Not a bad future Quote…

  102. Ian Plimer, on page 97 of “Heaven and Earth,” while discussing the hockey stick, writes
    “In many fields of science, this would have been considered as fraud. In many fields of endeavour, Mann would have been struck off the list of practitioners. In the field of climate studies, he was thrashed in public with a feather and still gainfully practises his art.”
    A nomination for a future Quote…

  103. >>>So generally, environmentalism does have a strongly “religious”
    >>>component, but only in this specific sense, and it is not dogma in
    >>> the old sense. Where it does get dogmatic is when people make
    >>>errors in thinking, and make errors in their analysis. But that’s
    >>>not religious, that’s just bad reasoning.
    True, but you do not allow for that other human need – power and influence. Once you have a large number of people all thinking in a similar manner, you always have the possibility of dynamic and ruthless individuals stepping in and organising a personal power-base.
    However, once a power base has been set up the institution often becomes largely self-perpetuating – transcending the goals of the original founders, and often existing merely for its own good and survival. And to facilitate that survival the organisation needs a dogma to stabilise its power base and authority.
    Christianity was highly factional and impotent, until successive Roman Emperors enforced a common creed (dogma) which made it more powerful. Scientology appears to be a bizarre belief system to me, but has nevertheless become a successful self-perpetuating society, based on a strong core dogma. A core of determined believers with a strong dogma will always attract others, because they cannot all be deluded – can they?
    Likewise, the Creed of Environmentalism has built upon the universal Gaia Deity perception, and mutated into a powerful self-perpetuating organisation with goals far in excess of the original ideals. The priesthood of the new Green Religion can now flex their might and feel world governments quake at their every proclamation. That is real power, and power brings great wealth and influence to the new high priesthood, so why not use that power to effect other goals too?
    Political manipulation? Social change? Wealth provision? Population control? Economic ideology? One World government? You name it, a whole host of peripheral goals that are largely irrelevant to pure environmentalism are now within the grasp of the Green high priests – and since they have the power, they will certainly be tempted to use it.
    But, like every religion, their power-base is founded squarely upon the creed. No creed, no religion. If it could be proven that Jesus did not rise from the dead, Christianity might topple. If a letter from Muhummad was discovered, detailing his purchase of all his texts at a local flea-market, Islam may falter. By all means, the dogma-scaffolding that supports the creed must be maintained.
    With Environmentalism, that creed is now firmly affixed to Global Warming, and this is a crucial mistake by their high priesthood. Had the goal been a generally cleaner, more natural world, their task would have been easier in the long run. But linking the foundation of the Creed to GW has exposed the entire self-perpetuating edifice to undermining by any cooling trend. Hence we see ever shrill cries, to secure the foundations, with olives and dates being grown in the UK within 20 years, :
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6719157.ece
    But the shriller the cry, and the more often these dire predictions fail, the more the foundations of the Green Creed edifice will be remorselessly undermined. I predict that the tipping point will be some completely absurd prediction that completely fails, and the entire population loose heart simultaneously. At that point, the Greed Creed and everything associated with it will collapse – which is a shame in a way, because we need a cleaner environment.
    But the higher you build, the greater the potential fall.

  104. Stefan (02:41:04) : The people I have a real problem with are those who believe mankind to be the Devil.

  105. ralph ellis: But the higher you build, the greater the potential fall.

    But…before falling there will be too much suffering, as history shows.
    You say alsoGW has exposed the entire self-perpetuating edifice to undermining by any cooling trend
    But…they have realized this also to happen, that is why they changed the label “global warming” to “climate change”.
    Now he or she who sees any change in current climate will say aloud “that’s climate change!!” and that soul will be “served on the table”to be “eaten” by the closest “prophet” of this new religion.

  106. Ron de Haan:
    Global warming is shrinking fish Funny but you made me remember that UN’s FAO (the same UN of the IPCC) has a paper where predicts temperatures, following LOD, up to the year 2100, where THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING AT ALL!!
    The following is the link to download this paper:
    ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/
    (download all files to have it complete)

  107. If GLOBAL WARMING is true temperatures won’t decrease during the sun eclipse on asia due to all the GHG emitted by China and India.
    Wait for the latest news from all witnesses!!!!

  108. OMG what a ridiculous interview. The questions were fine but the answers.. what farfetched… sounds like he gets his science from watching Star trek

  109. According to reports, ther temperature dropped by 10 degrees during that hour long eclipse

  110. I’m reminded of the old saying, “Never talk politics with your doctor.”
    When you hear an expert on one thing talking about something else, you have to shelve whatever deference you might have had for the speaker and just listen to him like you would anyone else, skeptically.
    I’ve known lots of brilliant engineers who couldn’t figure out cooking or baseball or hold a decent conversation about the arts. Stick to your strengths.

Comments are closed.