This sort of thing is what gives economics a bad name.
As soon as have settled down and have some time I will post a more reasoned response.
UPDATE: I can't find the time to rebut so many ignorant statement. Brad Johnson has done some of the heavy lifting. But really, if this doesn't make it clear how out of touch the authors is, I don't know what will.
- Log in to post comments
"There will always be unintended consequences."
"100 years is a long time in the industrial age"
"There is an extremely high chance that the very nature of human society itself will have changed by that time in ways that render this entire issue moot."
Yeah, right: pollute now, wreck the whole Earth now, and let the problems take care of themselves sometimes later...
Brilliant!
Yeah, that's creepy. Uh, note for James H: it isn't the worst grammar ever, but "worse argument ever" looks like it should read "worst argument ever." Could be used to belittle your point by association. (Well, it just could imply something worse ever than some unspecified example, but otherwise ... ;-)
Gee. We can't wait for a pseudojournalist zombie believer to regurgitate the latest slop he ate on the Internet for lunch. Class idiot.
I can tell you're upset. "Worse ever" is hardly standard English. (-;
It can be some consolation, check how Karl Smith is getting flayed in comments (including mine.)
And we should rapidly develop resources we know will cause tremendous damage because, say, putting photovoltaic panels on top of all government buildings and requiring 50 mpg in cars won't create jobs, right?
Most of the commenters on the original article (32 as of my visit) have let him have it. They expose the flaws in the argument.
What scares me is that this is exactly the kind of thing the Koch Bros, Exxon, et al will spend gazillions of dollars plastering front-page national media with, while the people who know better (and don't have Bill-Gates-level money to throw around) are reduced to pointing out the harm of such obvious Big Fossil Fuel a**-kissing in the comments. The big op-ed pieces will get more public face time than any of the comments, so once again, totally harmful and vindictive corporate destructiveness will win.
Speaking of dirty fuel providing jobs, the author of the article obviously wants one writing denialist propaganda for Big Fossil Fuel/ Koch bros.