

Richard Feynman on the climate conference in Durban - jackfoxy
http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/12/richard-feynman-on-climate-conference.html

======
beloch
The quote from "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" is good, but the poster
doesn't really make it clear how it's related to Durban beyond the fact that
Durban is an interdisciplinary conference. The poster is a bit incoherent
actually, and likes to rant. Also, he's definitely no Feynman.

------
jerrya
Motl's blog post makes more sense when you understand this is not a standalone
blog post, but part of an argument made by many climate skeptics about the
nature of the solutions proposed by climate change proponents.

And that is that the proposed solutions will be catastrophic to our economy,
changing it immensely, and in ways that the people have a right to be informed
of, and able to discuss and vote on it.

However, the various climate change proponents ranging from scientists,
lobbyists, activists, politicians, journalists, seem to want to deny the
enormity of the change required, even as many of these conferences and these
speakers explicitly state that so-called first world ecoomies must sacrifice
now and in large amounts to help subsidize poorer, still developing countries.

To the degree that no one wants to talk about it, it seems to those who do
want to talk about it, that there is a hidden, "socialist", "communist" wealth
transfer scheme underlying this.

More surprisingly perhaps, this argument is seemingly endorsed or at least
respected by Naomi Klein (Al Gore advisor) and discussed in the Times by
Andrew Revkin, the Dot Earth blogger here:

[http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/naomi-kleins-
in...](http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/naomi-kleins-inconvenient-
climate-conclusions/)

And so Motls is blogging about Feynman's take on conference that discussed
similar problems (problems among unequal populations) and had similar
conclusions (transfer of wealth), at an "ethics of equality" conference, and
he clearly feels that what Feynman felt in that context is directly
transferable to Durban. And I think it might be.

Here is Andrew Revkin on Klein:

 _Naomi Klein, the author of a string of provocative and popular books
including “The Shock Doctrine,” recently took on global warming policy and
campaigns in “Capitalism vs. the Climate,” a much-discussed cover story for
The Nation that has been mentioned by readers here more than once in the last
few weeks.

The piece begins with Klein’s conclusion, reached after she spent time at a
conclave on climate sponsored by the libertarian Heartland Institute, that
passionate corporate and conservative foes of curbs on greenhouse gases are
right in asserting that a meaningful response to global warming would be a
fatal blow to free markets and capitalism.

She challenges the environmental left to embrace this reality instead of
implying that modest changes in lifestyle and shopping habits and the like can
decarbonize human endeavors on a crowding planet.

Please dive in. The piece is particularly relevant this week given the
continued standoffs and disconnect between stated goals and behavior at the
climate treaty talks in Durban, South Africa. Whether you embrace or dispute
her conclusions, the article is a worthy and substantive provocation. I
disagree with her in pretty profound ways, yet some of her points echo my
assertion awhile back that greenhouse-driven climate change is “not the story
of our time” but a symptom of much deeper issues_

So indeed Motls' piece ties in with Revkin's as part of an ongoing web-wide
conversation on the ramifications of the proposed solutions to global climate
change.

~~~
1010011010
It seems like there is a quasi-religious fervor around "climate change" and
many are using it as a reason to remake the world in their desired fashion.
People can both recognize the validity of climate science -- the planet is
getting warmer -- and oppose the political "remedies" being cooked up.

Never waste a crisis, I suppose.

------
caycep
this is kinda...incoherent?

~~~
swdunlop
Incoherent enough that I glanced around for signs of being fed through Google
Translate or a woodchipper.

