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.
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:
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.
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.
