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
Schelling is NOT a scientist but an economist. big difference.
When they react like this, you know the message has hit its target….
Justin’s disappointment is palpable. How unlucky we are not to be on the fast road to destruction.
Iran is in favor of the idiot theory of AGW, that’s true.
At the same time, Iran is making very interisting research in nanotechnology to fight cancer. They never declare war to anyone.
There is 60% of female students in scientific field and the Iranian scientific publication in the middle east is second right after Israel .
Do they have the capability to make nuclear bomb?
Well the first atomic bomb has been made 70 years ago. Due to the precision of the machines and the electronic control we have, it is much easier to do it today.
How many people writing in this forum can design an atomic bomb ?
Certainly many.
If they know how to do it, does it mean they are going to do it ?
I do not think so.
Iranians sign an armistice with Iraq because they have been bombarded by them with chemical. They refuse to retaliate with the same arms (which they own) .
If, during a war, they decide to sign an armistice in stead of using a WMD, is it logical to thing that they are going to develop a nuclear WMD ?
So far all the nuclear sites in Iran are open and monitored by an UN organisation, the IAEA, which dispose of video cameras and real time measure instruments.
Despite the fact that the names of scientifics have been given to the mossad, who killed allmost all the scientists of the list, IAEA NEVER found concrete proof of enrichment greater then 20%.
I presume that Iran wants to use the notion of AGW to justify the research on nuclear field.
The truth is that if you do not master nuclear physics you cannot go very far in science nowadays.
I think the appeal of AGW to economists is that it’s a purely model-based field working with very complex systems over a very long period. There is a brotherhood in the belief that you can not only lasso reality with your model but that you can alter it- usually through the action of a government.
Note that the American government is currently deploying (without much success) a massive-government-spending economic model which was used 80 years ago (without much success) and which has long since been debunked by many economists.
I enjoyed it when JKG would meet WFB (William F. Buckley) on his WFB’s program Firing Line and walk away from the session (IMO) with his ideas and ideology thoroughly minced (literally: cut or chopped into very small pieces, subdivided into minute parts, pronounced in an affected way with studied elegance) …
Oh – preserved for posterity even!
.
This year, so far at least, has been marked by a distinct change in the attitude of the main stream media. Whereas before they would have backed the CAGW camp they are now asking questions. Sceptics have been doing this about the flat temps for over 5 years and even Phil Jones raised his concern in a 7th May, 2009 email when he remarked:
His 15 years is now up. The longer the standstill the weaker the consensus will be. Scientists have to think about their futures and reputations. The media don’t want to be seen as fools so it’s better to start asking questions which they can pull up later to show they really were sceptical all along. 😉
Let’s look it up. If one is a “denier,” obviously they aren’t some old world coin. Here’s what Dictionary.com has to say about the word “deny” (as “denier” in the given context isn’t actually a word) :
1. to state that (something declared or believed to be true) is not true: to deny an accusation.
2. to refuse to agree or accede to: to deny a petition.
Hmm… not so bad after all. Sticks and stones and all that. If you’re calling me names – you’ve already lost the debate.
Schelling is yet another example of the Law of Nature: As we age we all become what we truly are.
Schelling is another example of the ignoranuses (not a typo) masquerading as “cholars” that should be removed from their posts after we win the Second War of Independence and start the de-Nazification process. Where does he get off thinking he knows anything about climate?
This guy is in the same league as my former history prof colleague who said the Soviet system was so much more humane and efficient than ours in the US. As for Holocaust deniers, this mollusk is denying the Holocaust that will resuolt from decarbonizing the world economy. He’s the real Holocaust denier.
Until about 1870, Constitution Avenue was part of a canal system between the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers that ran down the Mall near both the Capitol and the White House. Since Schelling is undoubtedly a subscriber to mammoth sea level rise, it is clear why he would suggest Obama could take a boat.
JimBrock says:
June 10, 2013 at 3:34 pm
Remember that the Nobel Prize has lately been downgraded: Gore and Obama.
Not to mention Yasser Arafat…
You call people who question your math homework “Nazis” for, basically, one of two reasons. Number one, you’re a mental five-year-old and you just say whatever extreme thing comes to mind to Make It Stop, or you’re deliberately making someone an UnPerson so you don’t have to consider their ideas.
I do sometimes wish the human race was, like, maybe 20% less interesting, as a psychological study. Maybe 30.
Jeff Alberts says:
June 10, 2013 at 7:41 pm
Theo Goodwin says:
June 10, 2013 at 7:34 pm
Arno Arrak says:
June 10, 2013 at 6:21 pm
‘Economics is not a science. Getting a doctorate in economics requires no serious science courses. Krugman is the proof that economists presume to speak as scientists. Piffle.
Don’t tell that to Ross McKitrick…’
One can be an economist and a good scientist, as McKitrick is. My point is that becoming an economist does not make one a scientist.
Michael Palmer says:
June 10, 2013 at 8:45 pm
Very well said. Everyone would do well to reflect on your insights.
philjourdan says:
June 11, 2013 at 8:00 am
“@Theo Goodwin – Economics is unique in that it does require hard science, but is also composed of social sciences. There are laws (versus theories) that are immutable and unchanging.”
Economics uses serious mathematics. But economics has produced no laws of human behavior. The closest they have come is “The rich live on the high ground.”
@Theo Goodwin – if you are talking about a “law” of an individual behavior, you are correct. Nor does it pretend to. But it does deal with societies (mobs, masses of people, ,whatever). And they have laws. The law of supply and demand for example. These laws are like theories, in that they are proposed, and never disproven. It may be impossible to predict the behavior of one person, but it is not impossible to predict what societies do I(mobs, masses, etc.).
Perhaps this is a good time to recall the wise words of another winner of the Economics Prize in memory of Alfred Nobel, Friedrich Hayek, in his Nobel banquet speech of 1974.
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1974/hayek-speech.html
Some apposite quotes which show remarkable prescience:
“… the Nobel Prize confers on an individual an authority which in economics no man ought to possess.”
“… the influence of the economist that mainly matters is an influence over laymen: politicians, journalists, civil servants and the public generally.
There is no reason why a man who has made a distinctive contribution to economic science should be omnicompetent on all problems of society…”
Thomas Schelling’s contributions to economics have by and large been of great value.
His views on “climate change” are of no positive value at all.
He’s apparently held to some variant of them since 1980. So I don’t think the awful remarks he made on this video can be chalked up to Alzheimer’s.
And now for something “completely different”…
I am fascinated by parts of this thread. I love the economists as scientists; got me thinking of comedy.
My gooshness!! What has that ‘Dr’ been smoking…? And/or combined with 1+ kg of LSD…? It just cannot be for real, or…?
Considering that the only predicted consequence of increased CO2 that has actually come to pass is increased agricultural output, it would behoove Dr. Schelling to shut his gob, right quick.