|James Hansen, father of climate change awareness, calls Paris talks 'a fraud'|
“The economic cost of a business as usual approach to emissions is incalculable. It will become questionable whether global governance will break down. You’re talking about hundreds of million of climate refugees from places such as Pakistan and China. We just can’t let that happen. Civilization was set up and developed with a stable, constant coastline.”
EVERY element of that is wrong... including even wrong in its basic assumptions and expectations, as well as wrong in the facts... or, occasionally, wrong enough to be right, but for the wrong reasons...
"The economic cost of a business as usual approach to emissions is incalculable"... is true... in the same way that the opportunity costs of ignoring other fictions is incalculable. The implicit assumptions are worth noting, still... as the entering argument is that "the cost"... the function of the economy... is intrinsically something that "someone should do something about"... The assumption is that there is no free market... that there should be no free market... and that things do happen and should happen only because of central direction. What's the "science" behind that assumption ?
"It will become questionable whether global governance will break down"... is also potentially true... but, again, it is only potentially true by default... because it wrongly assumes we HAVE (and should have) global governance... when we don't (and should not). My opinion... far better than the opinion of this mindless idiot... is that IF we were ever to err in accepting global governance... it WILL (and should) break down almost immediately... not for any reason having anything to do with fossil fuels or climate... but because the idea that there is any benefit in a plan for operating the world with a one sized fits all centralized management... is exceedingly stupid... and wholly unworkable. What's the "science" behind the assumption that central direction by global governance is even a rational concept... much less "a good idea"... as opposed to the pipe-dream of neo-fascists ? What's science even got to do with CARING about it, even if there IS a question about the impacts on governance schemes of some thing, event, or choice ? Of course, the statement proves the mantras are not about science at all... and are ONLY about concern with politics.
"You’re talking about hundreds of million of climate refugees from places such as Pakistan and China".
Bullshit. There are likely to be refugees from places such as Pakistan and China in the future... but, again, that's due to demographics and POLITICS and not about anything to do with "science" fabricating events claimed to be casual because... politics. Reality is... change happens... and the change that is going to happen is going to happen in spite of the weather, or the climate... or the ill-informed opinions of scientists talking about things well outside their portfolio.
"We just can’t let that happen". Science my ass. The guy is purely an apologist for globalizing fascism... and that's ALL. More practically... in the same article... he's moaning and groaning because the "solutions" being offered up by the politicians he works for are a fraud... so, it appears, we CAN just let that happen... as that's what we ARE going to do... even AS the politics are being implemented (that "warming" is all and only a smoke screen to enable). And, now he's unhappy because the politics he wants and works to enable... while they are being implemented... are a fraud that can't possibly "work" ? LOL!!! The politicians are getting what they want... and, then, perhaps the useful idiots will stop being useful... when they figure out that's what they are... and when reality in the science proves (even to them) that they were wrong about the SCIENCE, too.
"Civilization was set up and developed with a stable, constant coastline.”
No it wasn't. We have NEVER has a stable, constant coastline. We will never have a stable, constant coastline. Why does anyone believe idiots posing as scientists... when they base all their assumptions on the constancy of things that ARE NOT CONSTANT.
The earliest coastal city states in the middle east where civilization emerged... are still there... buried under the sand... tens of miles inland from where the coast is now.
Earthquakes, and tectonics... and subsidence. The Himalayas are still rising... and they are doing that in full compliance with the laws of physics demanding some "equal and opposite" occurring elsewhere.
The assumption that things ARE static... is insane. Any "scientist" evincing that insanity in his assumptions should have his credentials revoked. The assumption that we should MAKE things be static when they are not... to make idiots feel more secure about how unchanging things are... is a wholly POLITICAL construct... wholly intending to fix the wealth of the wealthiest as they manipulate the rest... to impose themselves as a new aristocracy. That's the politics being advocated.
The rest... is that change has always occurred... and will always... in spite of us and not because of us... Civilizations will rise and fall... as they have... without it ever actually MATTERING in relation to our being the "cause" for why nature does what it will ?
Change happens... all the time... and we acclimate to it. There is a cost involved in change... but that cost is insignificant in relation to the dynamic in change economy that is occurring all the time... The "do something" crowd are only more in error in relation to the alternative in their expectation that we might shift a little bit of spending (or, all of it) and impose some "benefit" by requiring stasis in the result ?
So, in that way... we finally arrive at the point where Hanson and I agree... the "solution" provided is a fraud... as that is all it CAN be, ever... given the mass of the fraud that pervades every element of his irrational ravings.