Wednesday, December 01, 2010

Grand Game: Climate Edition

You know what to do. Here is the meat...

(Nod to Pelsmin)

7 comments:

Chris said...

I've read only the first four sentences and I'm convinced this one can't be beat:

In one paper Professor Kevin Anderson, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, said the only way to reduce global emissions enough, while allowing the poor nations to continue to grow, is to halt economic growth in the rich world over the next twenty years.

I'm going to stop reading, in fear of finding something better and by "better" I mean "way more depressing" and by "depressing" I mean "way more idiotic" ... and by "idiotic" I mean "way more WTF!!!!!!"

#notfromtheonion?

Anonymous said...

Pure scientism. The only constant is change. The only thing worse than an econmist predicting the future is a physisists and chemist practicing political science and economics then predicting the future (demise). Last time I checked life was pretty darn resilient in a dog eat dog world.

Richard Stands said...

Step 1. Fly 12,000 bloviating misanthropes from over 170 countries into Cancun using jet aircraft.

Step 2. Obtain tans and umbrella drinks at open air buffets.

Step 3. Call for government-enforced rationing and deprivation in the world's most successful countries.

Step 4. Complain about how warm it is.

Step 5. Head back to the buffet.

Richard Stands said...

Won't 12,000 cases of hypocrisy-induced spontaneous combustions set off by lightning strikes from the heavens actually add to AGW?

John said...

"Prof Anderson insisted that halting growth in the rich world does not necessarily mean a recession..."

That'd be quite a trick to keep the economy the exact same size year to year.

"...or a worse lifestyle, it just means making adjustments in everyday life such as using public transport and wearing a sweater rather than turning on the heating."

It's pathetic he doesn't realize that the reason people chose bumping the thermostat over putting on a sweater is precisely because it improved their lifestyle. People don't allocate their scarce resources arbitrarily.

Richard Stands said...

It just occurred to me what a tremendous asset this conference could be as a source of wind power.

Mike said...

This Walter Russell Mead post is a very good synopsis of why AGW is dead. Dead in the sense that we're going to be taxed and regulated back into the middle ages because of AGW. Note, I am not making the claim that we won't be taxed and regulated back into the middle ages for some other reason.