Meesc

My previous post Policy? trailed off in the comments in a variety of odd directions, as long comment threads are wont to. So I’ll offer you this quote:

For there are some people on the left who keep insisting that economic growth is incompatible with reduced emissions, and that therefore we have to turn our backs on growth. Such people have no power, and therefore don’t do any real harm. Still, it’s worth pointing out that they have a much too narrow notion of what it means to have a growing economy. It doesn’t necessarily mean more stuff! It could be better stuff, or more services — and there are also choices to be made in how we produce and distribute stuff. There is absolutely no reason to believe in a one-for-one link between real GDP and greenhouse gases.

I could try to play guess-the-quotee, but of course with google that’s no longer an amusing game so I may as well tell you it Krugman, via Covered in Bees, who says “Well, no, there’s not a one-to-one link. Really, no-one ever said there was”. Really? According to DA, Curry has been writing on a similar vein. But I haven’t read that.

Eli and mt (and more Eli, and of course there’s even more) have stuff on the “Recursive Fury” / Frontiers affair; all the words are available elsewhere so I won’t re-say them; Frontiers is in a mess and in the wrong. Mind you, Bardi allows people to post utter drivel on his blog, so can’t be an entirely sensible person. Perhaps surprisingly, AW hates L so much he was prepared to quote Frontiers editor saying “It is most unfortunate that this particular incident was around climate change, because climate change is a very serious threat for human civilization.”

There was a nice example of AW’s inability to parse things related to science, again – he was tricked by the Slayers. RS has fun

I can’t remember if I mentioned HoRR. Anyway, it was cancelled after some of the leading boats sank. Oh dear.