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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@SOYLENT GREEN – “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.
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.
“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!
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!
@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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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/
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.
PSU–You got it. A study commissioned by the state DEP that perpetuates the AGW myth? I’m shocked.
Hmmm, what about that story of the Chinese One Child policy, is he referring to that?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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