"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?"

Saturday, October 31, 2015

The Fool That Was Mentioned

Gus McPherson posted

Here's Revkin's piece.

I'm softening on Nye, whom I didn't like a long time ago when I saw Lindzen chewing him up for lunch in an ill-considered debate. He seems to have upped his climate game considerably.

Anyway, I'm gratified to see that Revkin saw fit to mention my takedown of McPherson.

Also I'm bemused that I came up in McPherson's thread.



Rob Ryan said...

I've played a bit in their sandbox. Fortunately, they are without power to accomplish their ends and subsist on their superior knowledge that they know we're all doomed and we don't. Is it: a) sad; b) pathetic; c) smug, arrogant, self-congratulatory; d) despicable; e) all of the above? Obviously, it's e) all of the above. I will occasionally read those who annoy the crap out of me (Kunstler) or even disgust me (Heller a.k.a. Goddard) but I won't go there again. We're in the midst of a terrible drought here in California and I don't want to make repeated showers necessary.

Feel free (as if you need my permission) to delete for excessive rudeness.

Michael Tobis said...

Difficult to be excessively rude to that guy.