This is the second post at American Thinker by Robert Ellison that made my nose twitch. Looking back I should have been paying more attention, since Thomas Lifson has put him up a few times at American Thinker.
Ellison is troublesome to me because he is a climate big thinker–and we all know what Hayek said about the fatal conceit.
Ellison is a self-described career “environmental scientist” and “engineering hydrologist,” so he has a dog in the hunt for answers to climate unknowns and he also is concerned about the enviros ignoring human welfare and economies–so far so good.
He has a plan–a theory that deals with two very complex inquiries, economics and climate. Modelers and theorists make me nervous.
Here’s his archive at American Thinker, the one on Climate Sensitivity (Maybe there’s a third possibility was his thesis) was the one the got my attention before, because it smelled of the fatal conceit, now more of the same:
Engineers I know don’t spout theories couched in obscurantist modeling complexities and predictions, and if they know something about economies that don’t describe them as “fragile.”
They stick to real world reliable theories and solid evidence of what works–that’s why I smelled the fatal conceit in the first essay I criticized.
Now this one seals the deal–Ellison is well-intentioned, opposed to continuing the silly warmer cant, but wants to substitute another central planner scheme that confirms that humans are a danger to the planet and a more intense sustainability project is the answer. Otherwise we’ll just all have to stop having babies and commit suicide or genocide or whatever.