Can someone smarter than me please read this and tell me it doesn't say what it sounds like it says: An interview with Thomas Schelling about global warming.
"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........If you begin to get methane leaking on a large scale -- even though methane doesn't stay in the atmosphere very long -- it might warm things up fast enough that it will induce further methane release"
On purpose? So we'll believe it's real?
"(interviewer)And when you say, "exaggerate the costs" do you mean, American politicians should exaggerate the costs to the American public, to get American support for a bill that will overwhelmingly benefit the developing world?"
his answer? "[Laughs] It's very hard to get honest people."
(interviewer) And there's sort of a cruel paradox there. On the one hand, it does seem like you want to say to India and China, "Grow your economies so that you have a greater capacity to adapt to climate change." On the other hand, it seems like that growth will also exacerbate the effects of the climate change. It seems like the growth that creates adaptive capacity is racing against the growth that is aggravating what the adaptive capacity is needed to protect against.
His answer: blather about how rich countries should pay for development in poor countries and we need to create institutions to determine who gets help and who doesn't, ending with "where the rich countries decide what they're going to do about their own emissions."
"we are probably going to outgrow any vulnerability we have to climate change. And in case we'll be able to afford to buy food or import it is necessary. You know, very little of the US economy is susceptible to climate."
So we just import food......from WHERE? IF (and that is a huge imaginary IF) the climate shifted so drastically, why would other countries be so much better off agriculturally than the US?
His opinion on "morality" is....wow....just sad.
And then he ends with:
"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."
Are there words?
He's keeping his fingers crossed for death and devastation so that people will believe?
3 comments:
OK, now read about Obama's "science czar" John Holdren. I read some stuff on foxnews.com this morning (Saturday). Article is titled "Radical Science". Things that make you scratch your head ... and pray.
Ya know my views on global warming. One eruption of one volcano does more damage to the ozone and effects of our atmosphere than all the emissions 'round the world. Just what are we suppose to do with Mother Nature? Deep. Have a super great week-end.
I do think we have a responsibility to be good stewards, but I'm not going to go all Chicken Little and worry the sky is falling because we have some climate change going on. Doesn't science tell us that our planet has gone through many climate changes? If climate change is a natural cycle, how are we supposed to stop it. Would that even be best? I understand that we may be speeding up climate change, but I don't think we could be making that much of a difference. It seems to me that it would be best to focus on reasonable good stewardship practices and awareness of how our actions affect our environment and also on adapting to what is surely inevitable climate change. Although, I'm not going to become to concerned about adapting either. By the time the elements melt with fervent heat, I expect I'll be elsewhere;o) Good luck to anyone who is not. (And you know I don't believe in luck.)
Oh yeah. Almost forgot to comment on what an idiot this guy is, just in case anyone missed that, lol. And, honestly, I don't think tornadoes in the midwest would make Kansas or Oklahoma people think, "My God! We've got to do something about this climate change!"
Post a Comment