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.
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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Sad when they get old and lose the plot.
He was once probably rationale.
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.
Why do I get the impression that Schelling is shilling?
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 😉
Don’t tell that to Ross McKitrick…
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
speaking of crazy II:
8 June: Gizmodo: Jamie Condcliffe: Population Growth And Climate Change Explained Using Lego
VIDEO: There’s seemingly no limit to the power of Lego. In this video, Hans Rosling uses it with great panache to explain the problems of population growth and climate change
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2013/06/population-growth-and-climate-change-explained-using-lego/
Hans Rosling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Rosling
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.
His wishing for climate catastrophes reflects the lack of compelling data.
The good professor gives us another fine example showing the vast difference between academic credentials and intelligence.
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.
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?
hmmmmm…forgot the link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Economic_Sciences#Relation_to_the_Nobel_Prizes
I’m reminded of a quote from President Truman.
“If all the economists were laid end to end, it would be a good thing”
Sorry, it appears that John Kenneth Galbraith said this…
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.
Economists are deniers.
Infinite growth? That could work…
And even the NYT is now noting that warming has plateaued (but they give enough caveats to make sure that it doesn’t really look like models have been disproved, even though they have).
Yo Margaret, just to totally change the subject (but not really in this case), here’s a link that I read that everyone should look at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html?_r=1&
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.
What are the cognoscenti going to do now with this NYT admission:
It’s easier to duck & cover than to build an ark & collect two of every animal. Point goes to Tom Schelling!
Schelling is in full panic mode. Now they are the deniers.
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)
@ur momisugly Gary Pearse 4:28pm
And I thought you were referring to Crackerjack pencils; http://www.ukgameshows.com/ukgs/Crackerjack
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.