Global Warming Alarmists Have Your Best Interests At Heart

Sent to me by a bunch of readers, from the Atlantic interview with Thomas Schelling:

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.

This reminds me of a post from way back, when Kevin Drum wrote:

Seeking to shape legislation before Congress, three major energy trade
associations have shifted their stances and decided to back mandatory
federal curbs on carbon dioxide and other man-made emissions that could
accelerate climate change.

I responded:

Having some Washington lobbying organizations switch which side of this incredibly difficult trade off they support is not "good news."  Good news is finding out that this trade off may not be as stark as we think it is.  Good news is finding some new technology that reduces emissions and which private citizens are willing to adopt without government coercion (e.g. sheets of solar cells that can be run out of factories like carpet from Dalton, Georgia).  Or, good news is finding out that man's CO2 production has less of an effect on world climate than once thought.  Oddly enough, this latter category of good news, surely the best possible news we could get on the topic, is seldom treated as good news by global warming activists.  In fact, scientists with this message are called Holocaust deniers.

Postscript: It is particularly telling of a certain mindset that Schelling specifically wishes bad things to occur in the Midwest.   By most leftish standards, people in flyover country (except maybe Ohio since it is a key swing state) don't really count.

  • Michael

    In the 30 years of living in Ohio, the weather has never been a problem. Now people coming here from Michigan, that's a problem.

  • Mesa Econoguy

    Enough with the Kevin Dumb crap.

    Kevin “still life with cat” Dumbfuck 1) is not qualified to write about economics, 2) is also unqualified for science discussions, so he should probably shut the fuck up.

    How’s that Frank Rich “cow pie in the face” jerkoff?

    Warren, please do not respond to these people in future. Discussion is no longer productive. They will either be destroyed or further corrupted.

    I will make the former my mission.

  • Brian

    Given that there's a much more immediate threat of walking out my door and getting hit by a bus, would it be disingenuous to wish this fate on Thomas Schelling under the "turnabout is fair play" category?

    And can I make it like I didn't wish he got hit by a bus if I just end the thought with, "But I don't think that's going to happen."?

  • Not Sure

    I noticed Mr. Schelling's disasters of choice were "tornadoes in the Midwest", not "hurricanes in the Mid-Atlantic states", but then again, I suppose having to personally experience such disasters could be a major bummer. Much better to wish them on someone else.

  • sorcat

    Uh, Coyote - generalizing from a statement that seems like one guilt-ridden idealist wishes for terrible disasters to befall people so that they understand his cassandric predictions to a leftish standard of hating people in flyover country? Bit beneath you, isn't it?

    I am thinking with the last 8 years, the us-vs-them mentality is something that has been more vividly demonstrated by the god-fearing right-leaning folks who can't see the danger in subverting a working democracy to push their agenda.

  • Mesa Econoguy

    WTF?

    The so-called “god-fearing right-leaning folks who can’t see the danger in subverting a working democracy” didn’t attempt to actually subvert a (semi-functional) working democracy.

    That's actually happening now. Plus the actual "fascism" part of "fascism."

    Let's chalk that one up to attention deficit disorder. Better luck next time.

  • Link

    "god-fearing right-leaning folks who can’t see the danger in subverting a working democracy to push their agenda" have been part of the problem. They were used, and we're paying the price.

    The real political split anymore isn't traditional left vs right. It's between those who want "big government" vs the rest of us. Both political parties have been co-opted by Big Government Statists -- the Democrats more obviously so as that has always been their mission; the Republicans more cynically and subtly so.

    Here's a poll that measures the political map "up and down" as well as "left vs right": http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html There are other similar polls out there, but this one is very short. Like the other polls, you have four quadrants. I'm firmly in the libertarian camp -- as I'm for individual economic and personal liberty. I'd have plenty of company with our Founding Fathers.

    Interestingly, Cheney and Obama are actually both in the Big Government Statist quadrant, ... firmly so if you scored them on what they do, not what they say ... they're almost fellow travelers. Cheney is for "corporate welfare" and barriers to free trade, when it helps his friends. Cheney doesn't really believe in slashing federal taxes -- you'd need to have a plan to slash federal expenditures to go with it. Obama's not really a social liberal -- not in the 1960s flower power sense. Obama doesn't believe in a free press -- he wants Pravda. I suspect Obama doesn't care about gays ... happy now, David Geffen? Are we getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan any faster with Obama ... happy now, Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann?

    In practice Bill Clinton -- after being schooled by Gingrich & Co in 1994 -- was actually a moderate liberal centrist and closer to my beliefs than either Obama and Cheney. He ended welfare and pushed NAFTA through. He had no stupid international frolics.

    Cynical me believes that Karl Rove packaged Bush to look like he was from the traditional Conservative quadrant and worked the Religious Right on social issues -- but once in power Bush & Co acted as Statist Big Government. Cynical me believes that David Axelrod packaged Obama to be the anti-Bush -- but once in power Obama & Co are all about Statist Big Government to the max.

    Either party professes that Big Government can do big things -- like turn the Mideast democratic, or run our auto, mortgage and healthcare industries. It's really about seizing power and looting the public purse. Developing ...

  • Mesa Econoguy

    Agreed with all the above analysis with 1 important addition: Obama is far more dangerous than anyone we have seen to date precisely because he has been given The World's Largest Free Pass by stupid people like Keith Olbermann & sorcat (& Kevin Dumb).

    Dick Cheney, et al. were subjected to far greater scrutiny.

  • Captain Obviousness

    In related news, JP Morgan claims the planet will explode in a ball of fire if we don't allow them to trade carbon credits:

    "Markets will have inadequate liquidity without bank participation, Bill Winters, co-chief executive officer of JPMorgan’s investment bank, said at a July 23 press conference in New York.

    Carbon markets “will die, and the temperature on the planet will go up by a couple of degrees, more than it would have otherwise, and we’ll be really sorry about it,” Winters said. "

    From: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601208&sid=a82qt5fzM7Co

  • Link

    Thanks, Captain Obviousness for the JPMorgan story. Some of our big companies -- notably GE google and Goldman -- have been co-opted with Obama carrots and sticks. Add JPM to the list.

    Some of us will remember the classic National Lampoon cover. See it here: http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/natlampoon.jpg

    Now recaption it: If you don't pass this legislation, we'll kill this dog.

  • d-day

    I hope that guy dies in a blizzard. Thanks to people like him, I get to pay $45 for an asthma inhaler that doesn't work instead of $6 for the one that used to. Thanks for the lung infection, envirobastards! And hooray politics in healthcare!

  • me

    Wow. This is a pretty ideological thread. As an outside observer, I can't see much of a difference in Obama vs Bush policies with respect to creating an intrusive and top heavy government. The way I read this thread though is Democrats and Republicans blaming the other team. I don't think that's particularly helpful. The cost and intrusion of the Obama administration are blatantly obvious (healthcare, anyone?), but think back to the wars and indefinite detention of US citizens without trial by the Bush administration, the creation of new agencies ("Homeland security" - what do these jokers actually contribute other than long lines at airports?!).

    The real problem is that there is no political force in the US opposing big government and lobbyist protectionism. And bickering between the folks who could create such an opposing force isn't going to help create one.

  • Link

    To "me":

    This thread isn't idealogical at all, its contra-idealogy and pro-reason. Neither party represents our collective interest. Republicans pretend to.

  • Zach

    While I do send him a hearty "fuck you" for wishing death and destruction on me, Schelling obviously doesn't understand life in the Midwest. You could double the number of tornadoes we experience and not really do anything except get the left coast media in a tizzy. A typical tornado that hits a populated area here destroys a neighborhood, maybe two. I've lived in Kansas almost all of my life and I've never seen a tornado except on TV. I don't even cower in my basement when the sirens go off, otherwise I'd never get anything done from April to the end of June.

  • De-Link

    President Obama is qualitatively different in his grandiose claims to represent our collective interest. Is he a Republican? Perhaps you believe so, which might explain much of your attempts at communication.

    Yes, Mr. Obama, grandiose master of self-serving hyperbole, is here to help us all. Into deep doom and destruction don't you know. :>

  • Not Sure

    "Dick Cheney, et al. were subjected to far greater scrutiny." - Mesa Econoguy

    Not that it's the MSM or anything, but I noticed that John Stewart on The Daily Show spent most of the Bush/Cheney years highlighting the stupid/evil actions of that administration. Now, with Obama and the Democrats in charge, the Daily show is focusing on... the stupid/evil actions of the Bush/Cheney administration.