BROUGHT TO THE FRONT NOVEMBER 2009 TO REINFORCE THE OBSERVATION THAT THOSE ECONOMISTS WHO GET THE SCIENCE WRONG GO ON TO SHOW TOTAL INCOMPETENCE ON THE ECONOMICS FRONT AS WELL.
Well Prodos sure had a lot to work with. A joke from start to finish. The entire context of the presentation ridiculous. But since some of you do not know the arguments people have tried to familiarise Humphreys with for the last three years. And since some of you will be desensitized to the relentless idiocy of the global warming racket that washes over you each day, I will be so bold as to try and interpret and expand on some of the hints that Prodos is giving the viewer.
First off we get a brief clip which sets the context for the entire ludicrous meeting. Al Gore calls a meeting with the kids to discuss the graveness OF A NON-EXISTENT PROBLEM. And right away we have Humphreys making it clear he has no scientific evidence for any problem whatsoever. No scientists are present. The speakers are all economists.
Humphreys welcomes everyone to a round-table for a problem that does not exist. No less ridiculous then the South Park Al Gores fears of the dreaded “Man-Bear-Pig”. So what is there to talk about when we are discussing a problem that does not exist? Or rather what can an economist offer if he does not understand the science? He can certainly make some offering towards the wisdom of sound property rights and government overhead reduction. That would be good. But without the science we cannot claim to have a problem. We cannnot even claim that we have many problems but happen to be looking at a fantasy problem. Without the science we cannot even define what problem we may have. Or the probability of a potential problem that we may have. Or the seriousness or triviality of the problem after making a calculation of whether it is real and likely.
Hence the entire meeting was idiocy.
HUMPHREYS: None of us are scientists. (Brusquely) We-are-all-economists.
Here he is setting the agenda. He will refuse to come up with scientific evidence that there is a problem. He will refuse to discuss the science. The science is off the agenda. But without the science there is no problem for the economists to address. Hence they can only offer increasing the soundness and clarity of property rights and bringing down the government overhead.
PRODOS WRITEOVER: “And Some Of Us Pretend To Be Free Marketeers”
Here we have Prodos further setting the context of this ludicrous meeting. Without a problem, or whilst refusing to bring scientific evidence to bear that there is a problem with extra-CO2, what is Humphreys doing?, when he’s this big pretend free-marketeer, supposed to be representing a free market organisation. And he’s there consorting with some other leftist idiots who each are pushing for some level of hateful debauch of the free market for a non-problem which they have no-science for.
HUMPHREYS: “JUST TO BE CLEAR THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION OF CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE THIS IS A DISCUSSION OF CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY.”
He has no science to allege the existence of the dreaded Man-Bear-Pig BUT HE WANTS TO VANDALISE ECONOMIC POLICY BY PRETENDING THERE IS A PROBLEM. He wishes to reverse the heirachy of policy development and make economic policy without any scientific evidence for a problem. Now this is just fucking bizzare. What does Prodos say to try and push a sparkle of thought into our propagandized and desensitized brains?
PRODOS: The science debate “MAY be important”??
He tips us off to what we ought to be thinking WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON AND HOW IS THIS CLOWN GOING TO PROCEED WITHOUT THE SCIENCE????
Without the science debate there is no problem for the economics policy to address. You see we are just so used to this shitrain of idiocy from all corners that we need to stop and try and remember how people made it through a series of logical inferences before the environmentalists hit town. Now apparently policy can address a non-problem for which there is no evidence. And Humphreys says the science debate MAY be important. There is one fellow who skipped logic class and was playing hooky through all the philosophy classes also. This is a disordered mentality.
PRODOS (QUOTING HUMPHREYS) “What we need NOW…”
Humphreys is saying the science question may be important but its insufficient. Well yes its insufficient. But without its resolution we don’t have a problem so we have nothing for the economics policy to address. Prodos puts grave suspicion over Humphreys with his emphasis on NOW. Since there are not many alternatives as to what Humphreys is doing here. And none of these few alternatives are any good. Humphreys appears to be WILLINGLY PROCEEDING WITH THE ADVOCACY OF ECONOMIC VANDALISM ON THE BASIS OF A LIE.
Or he is willing to be evasive. He could be a totally unreconstructed CO2-bedwetter. And so he’s dishonestly sidelined the scientific argument on the basis of quasi-religious faith or irrational fears. After sternly and repetitively shooting down the need for him to justify the meeting on a scientific basis it looks like its becoming clear that he’s taken some BULLSHIT scientific argument for granted. Hence he is brushing past an inconvenient truth. Which is what Humphreys does always by the way. But thats me talking purely from my own experience and not some imaginative extrapolation from a Prodos cue.
“Ehm But CO2 Is Not A Pollutant”
This is a Prodos cue in response to Humphreys idiotic contention that what is needed is policy. This when we don’t have a problem resultant from the scientific debate. Even by Humphreys own implication.
Now we know that CO2 is not a pollutant. So on what basis is Humphreys claiming that we now need policy?
“Fascism Fascism Fascism Fascism”
Humphreys is talking about the bias that the Fascist environmentalists have towards a trading system over carbon tax. Humphreys acts like he’s just showed up in the middle ages and is talking to peasants after having received an economics lesson from Richard Cantillon. Humphreys does not suspect the motives of these people at all. Humphreys is a babe in the woods and acts like he has some esoteric economics understanding not available to the natives. Its as though he’s the first person in the world to think of a carbon tax and realise that it is obviously less of a disaster then a cap-and-kill.
Prodos is not so naieve about the potential motives of these people. If they choose a more expensive scheme for their non-problem than what is needed, purely going along with their ludicrous trace-gas-hysteria, its not because they are unaware that the carbon tax is less expensive then the cap-and-kill. It clearly the case that their motives are to be questioned. They want to control you. They don’t want to control you to reduce CO2. Or else they would have suggested a carbon tax before Humphreys ever read his first economics textbook. They don’t want to control you for any reason. They just want to control you. Or at least a good proportion of them do. Thats the very implication that Humphreys has himself pointed out.
This is the crowd that centralised malaria control and murdered tens of millions of people in doing so and continue with these policies to the best of their abilities.
Prodos is right to subtly alert us to the motives and tendencies of some of that group. But what he really shows (for me at least)is what a naieve Martian Humphreys is or appears to be. Presuming that Humphreys himself is not motivated by ill-will he comes across as a fellow who just showed up on the back of an old spaceship carrying nothing but turnips and he with a piece of grass sticking between his teeth.
“The Right Question”
Prodos questioning Humphreys’ implication that there were but two solutions for something that isn’t a problem. Or that there are only two solutions even if there was a real problem.
This is a bad economists bad habit. Having been brought up on the poorly conceived concept of “opportunity cost” bad economists have the bad habit of setting up a dualistic set of alternatives. One the dud alternative, and one their pre-emptively favoured alternative.
But Humphreys cannot know which alternatives there are without the science. What is the problem????? For example there is no possibility of us overheating. But if we did have an overheating problem a carbon tax would do no good.
IF THE PLANET OVERHEATED A CARBON TAX WOULD BE USELESS IN DEALING WITH THAT PROBLEM.
A very cheap solution would be to take your SO2 that your synthetic diesel producers were scrubbing out of the gasses-in-production, and simply fire an SO2 missile out of each commercial jet that passed over the equator whilst over open ocean. That would cool the atmosphere and there really is no question about it. And it would be cheap so long as we were using nuclear and coal to make cheap synthetic diesel by the gigalitre.
But then you need SCIENCE to tell you IF you have a problem and SCIENCE to tell you WHAT the exact nature of the problem is and SCIENCE to give you dozens (not only two) of alternatives as to how to deal with this problem if it turns out that SCIENCE tells you you HAVE INDEED an actual real-live problem and not just a fascist bait-and-switch.
All this is a little too difficult for Humphreys who cannot conceive of any problem with dozens of potential strategies to deal with it. He is like this on all topics. Narrowing it down to the dud alternative and the one he is determined to stick with.
“WHAT ABOUT NO ETS AND NO CARBON TAX?”
Prodos reminding us that there is at least a third option. Supposing we had a damn problem in the first place.
But never mind. Humphreys is determined to go after Man-Bear-Pig and there are only two weapons in his view. And only one of them any good. Humphreys is a Sado-Pigouvian and he is determined that the very first alternative to the non-problem that he thought of is the only alternative that he could ever consider.
Now do you see the wisdom of Prodos’ nifty little tips and hints? How can he argue with this fellow. Humphreys is spilling irrationality by the moment. By the second. Prodos has come up with a creative way of dealing with this calvalcade. If you don’t think so consider the amount of writing I’ve done already?
Consider that I’m only two minutes into the first of two videos each that are almost ten minutes long.
I’VE ONLY CONSIDERED 10% OF THE MATERIAL.
Tim Quilty and Terje both acted as if Prodos was unwilling to engage the debate. These are both good people although Terje is a bit softheaded. What they didn’t realise, and what I hoped to show, is that Prodos had engaged the debate in a really thorough way. And in a way that enabled him to do so without getting bogged down. Surely I’ve shown this now. I’m only two minutes into it and already this is an overlong post.
And thats what the point of this narrative is. Not to replace your own thoughts on these matters. But to show you that Prodos was in no way hitting below the belt. He was simply doing about the best he can do to help desensitized and propagandized people think about the lunacy of what is going on around them. On the blogs, in the schools, in the newspaper, and in incredibly idiotic meetings behind closed doors.