Look Bjorn. Why hasn’t the Copenhagen Consensus moved on? You cannot just lock in the first position you come to (which one has to admit appeared reasonable at first.) You know now that this CO2 is underwhelming as to its effects if indeed it does warm anything. Yet your organisation is still running the turn of the century triangulation as if the CO2 could hurt our remote descendants. Where is the evidence for this?
There is no excuse for your position now Bjorn. Or the position of your organisation. Now do you want to be a Professor or not. Because if you are not serious about it there is still time to pack away your books and make good in some sort of less serious undertaking. Since no-one is going to take a think-tank, or a Professor who triangulates with these goons seriously any more.
I’ve watched all your stuff on video thats available. And what used to seem like commonsense now seems like a betrayal. Its like a comment that Sugar Ray made about his memories of Michael Spinx when they were on the team training for the Olympics. He said he was a bit strange because he would set you up for the the big punch but then he wouldn’t throw it.
You whip these guys on every constituent part of their argument but then you sign onto their goals? Thats alright for you in academia if you want to be a smarty-pants about it. Supposing you kept your job, (and if it was up to me the triangulaters would get sacked in the first wave) you will be able to look after yourself and your family no matter what. But thats not the case for billions of people.
ARTISTIC SHOT: “LOVE IS HIDING BEHIND EVERY TREE”
IS HE PITCHING TO THE BABES OR APPEASING THE GREENS. BECAUSE HE’S ALLOWED HIS ADMITTEDLY PATH-BREAKING ACT TO FALL INTO POLICY DRIFT AND DECREPITUDE.
We have global food shortages out there. And it looks like fresh water will be a problem in a lot of places. You know full well the science says that, in economic terms, that industrial-CO2-release is a POSITIVE EXTERNALITY.
So what is going on here?
I expect you to set things right in your next meeting. Don’t take no for an answer from the neoclassical economist lunatics. These guys are all Sado-Pigouvian. And the new idea you have of sponsoring solar research stinks of neoclassical economics modelling quackery.
Don’t go to Copenhagen pretending that the alarmists aren’t frauds and incompetents. Or that industrial-CO2 isn’t the best dumb luck the human race ever had. The nightmare of sending faux-scientists to Copenhagen still reverberates around the world. The last time a bunch of bonehead science-workers showed up in Copenhagen we wound up stuck with the idea that a cat can be both dead and alive at the same time.
Everyone can change their mind. Your institution has to change its mind. It has to admit that it was wrong.
Its unbecoming of one man to hassle another for having looks, brains and personality. And clearly Bjorn has all the above. What is more his position was my default position. Embarrassingly enough I can remember thinking about a carbon tax in 1990. So its worse than the above. My position was the Humphreys position as terrible as it is to admit as much. But time has moved on. It might be in the way of things that human institutions reinforce their mistakes. If Bjorn had been twenty years older he would have known by the time this gig rolled around that the environmentalist movement were committed liars. His response to what he perceived to be genuine concerns from well-meaning people has to be seen as really quite brilliant……. THEN.
But what we are seeing now is policy-drift. He ought to have sorted out by now that we are dealing with a seriously wicked array of forces. He might have been too young to catch that at first but he’s all grown up now. And he’s got to decide whether he wants to be a rock star or whether he wants to get serious.