Jul 19

The Atlantic has an interview with Nobel Prize-winning economist Thomas Schelling (hat tips to Climate Depot and Tom Nelson).  Not only is Schelling an economist, but he’s a first-rate climate alarmist.

It’s becoming increasingly common for climate alarmists to not only lie and exaggerate about their imagined consequences of man-made global warming, but some will even admit that they are doing so, e.g. Al Gore (see the top of this blog’s right sidebar) and Clive Hamilton.

Thomas Schelling fits into this mold:

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.

Then there is another category of alarmist that actually roots for global warming, i.e. wants the temperatures to go up, wants extreme weather events to happen or wants the sea levels to rise so that a terrified populace will become more compliant with the alarmist’s desires for the entire planet to pay more taxes, drive clown cars, etc.  Examples of this type of alarmist are Denise Giardina, this blogger, and perhaps even NBC News anchor Brian Williams.

Schelling fits into this mold as well:

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.

A rational person would not wish for any death and destruction to result from the effects of imagined man-made global warming. Let’s pretend for a moment that a hypothetical person was convinced that CO2 was causing man-made global warming, and that that person also believed that death and destruction would soon result unless we re-ordered our lives according to Al Gore’s wishes. Let’s also pretend that this same person is still a rational thinker. I know that many readers will find those last two sentences completely incompatible with each other, but just bear with me and pretend. OK, would not the rational thinking alarmist wish or hope that death and destruction would not be the result of man-made global warming? Or, would not the rational alarmist hope or wish that they were wrong? Of course.

Then what can we make of the alarmist who actually hopes/wishes/roots for death and destruction to visit the planet just so that they can get their way, or prove to the skeptics that they were right? I’d say that alarmist is a stark raving lunatic.

Thomas Schelling, you are a stark raving lunatic.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Be the first to like.

Possibly Related Posts:


Comments are closed.

preload preload preload