"System change is now inevitable. Either because we do something about it, or because we will be hit by climate change. '...

"We need to develop economic models that are fit for purpose. The current economic frameworks, the ones that dominate our governments, these frameworks... the current economic frameworks, the neoclassical, the market frameworks, can deal with small changes. It can tell you the difference, if a sock company puts up the price of socks, what the demand for socks will be. It cannot tell you about the sorts of system level changes we are talking about here. We would not use an understanding of laminar flow in fluid dynamics to understand turbulent flow. So why is it we are using marginal economics, small incremental change economics, to understand system level changes?"

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Roger makes his point

Tobis asks later in the exchange:

I’d sure like to know how I “gave ammunition to my enemies”.

Anyone care to give him an answer? (And please focus on the arguments being made not the people making them. Thanks!)
I reply:

Well, Roger, you certainly successfully demonstrated how my words could be used against me.

You win that one. I do wish your proof had been a tad more hypothetical.

At this point my words are being widely redistributed, misquoted and misconstrued. On those grounds alone I wish I had never said them.

The language I used to explain why Revkin’s article was unethical has been demonstrated to be easy to distort and hard to understand. It was a serious tactical error on my part.

QED. Well done.

In closing, let me clearly state that in spite of what hundreds of people who before today had never heard of me apparently believe about me, I do not now suggest and never have suggested that Al Gore or anyone is above criticism, and I don’t believe and have never believed that finding fault with him is tantamount to murder.

Thanks ever so much for the interesting object lesson.