Comments on: Yale Economist William Nordhaus disses global warming deniers

Yale Economist William Nordhaus disses global warming deniers

blueberry sushi — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 18:13:12 -0800

In January, 16 scientists and/or engineers wrote an opinion piece in the WSJ. This is the response of one of the academics cited in their piece: William Nordhaus. According to the 16 scientists/engineers, Nordhaus recommended no action on climate change for 50 years. But he didn't. The opinion piece has generated controversy among climate scientists as well.

By: uosuaq

uosuaq — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 18:30:14 -0800

http://a.yfrog.com/img878/1989/x97ke.jpg

By: nzero

nzero — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 18:53:00 -0800

Pearls, meet swine.

By: russilwvong

russilwvong — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 19:07:42 -0800

An excellent summary. Previous thread on the WSJ op-ed. The full text (PDF) of Nordhaus's book A Question of Balance.

By: mhum

mhum — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 19:08:34 -0800

I heard what you were saying. You know nothing of my work. [...] How you got to [write a WSJ op-ed] in anything is totally amazing. I guess sometimes sometimes life is like that?

By: mek

mek — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 19:25:24 -0800

A perfectly cromulent response, but unfortunately the left-wing bias of "facts" is well-established at this point. The time for intelligent debate has long past.

By: Slackermagee

Slackermagee — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 19:40:04 -0800

WAIT. Svante Arrhenius predicted greenhouse gas effect? Man, I've loved that guy since I first learned about the Arrhenius acids/bases theories back in high school O-Chem.

By: wilful

wilful — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 20:08:35 -0800

Svante Arrhenius predicted greenhouse gas effect? No, he worked it out, with a pencil in a hut in the arctic. Fourier predicted it in 1824, Tyndall proved it in 1859. Intellectual giants all.

By: entropone

entropone — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 20:14:14 -0800

Can we get these seventeen scientists in a rap battle? That would be good. Sorry to hijack. I've had German beer tonight.

By: clarknova

clarknova — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 20:23:47 -0800

While always laudatory of the petrochemical industries, the WSJ has now been a Murdoch property for the last five years. Only their Grey-Lady reputation has kept them from the level of derision of their sister corporation, Fox News. Unfortunately it will take many years before it comes to be recognised for what it is: right wing propaganda for the wealthy. Until that time its reputation will continue to haunt us.

By: lupus_yonderboy

lupus_yonderboy — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 21:19:52 -0800

It is seeming inevitable to me that millions - or a lot more than that - will die because of these filthy liars I think we've gotten beyond rationality. I think it's important we start emphasizing to these criminals that when it is proven that they have lied and led us off the cliff, that they will pay the penalty that any mass murderer should expect to pay. I hope I live to see some of these people dangling from lamp posts, ravens pecking out their eyes. Due process mind you! Trial first, then execution!

By: nonmerci

nonmerci — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 21:51:56 -0800

This was a really fascinating article--so clear and well-written. William Nordhaus is a legend. On the other hand, I can't even believe how transparent that "opinion" piece is. Scrolling down and reading the authors first, I was also unsurprised by the professors listed, judging very superficially on their appointments.

By: crayz

crayz — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 22:50:12 -0800

On the other hand, I can't even believe how transparent that "opinion" piece is. Scrolling down and reading the authors first, I was also unsurprised by the professors listed, judging very superficially on their appointments. Seeing Burt Rutan's name on the deniers letter was a serious disappointment

By: Jonathan Livengood

Jonathan Livengood — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 23:08:32 -0800

Nordhaus's piece is fantastic. The real shame about the WSJ op-ed is that it gives the impression of controversy among climate scientists where in reality there is pretty widespread agreement. A few dissenting voices does not make for scientific controversy. The fact that there are some scientists who reject descent with modification through natural selection does not mean there is a controversy in biology. As with evolutionary theory, the controversy is political, not scientific.

By: cybercoitus interruptus

cybercoitus interruptus — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 23:13:13 -0800

Oh my God, I love a scathing, well-footnoted rebuttal. "You, Sirs, do not know what the FUCK you are talking about," only in deadly polite, cold hard sharp academic skewering steel. Thanks for posting this.

By: benzenedream

benzenedream — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 23:14:30 -0800

Rupert Murdoch and Dick Cheney Back Oil Shale Company

By: the cydonian

the cydonian — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 00:48:16 -0800

This made me pause: Indeed, academics have often been subject to harsh political attacks when their views clashed with current political or religious teachings. This is the case in economics today, where Keynesian economists are attacked for their advocacy of "fiscal stimulus" to promote recovery from a deep recession; and in biology, where evolutionary biologists are attacked as atheists because they are steadfast in their findings that the earth is billions rather than thousands of years old. That's a brilliant point to make here, that obstinacy against Keynesian principles isn't ideological, but political, just as it was with teaching evolution to kids or, indeed, making a case for AGW. Makes you wonder what well-established scientific principle is next in line here.

By: three blind mice

three blind mice — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 02:31:54 -0800

I have been writing a nontechnical book for people who would like to see how market-based approaches could be used to formulate policy on climate change. When I showed an early draft to colleagues, their response was that I had left out the arguments of skeptics about climate change, and I accordingly addressed this at length. Any market-based solution would automatically take into account not only the arguments of skeptics, but any factual errors on the part of zealots. That's the friggin' beauty of a market-based solution: it takes in all the information available and sets prices based on that. If the zealots are wrong, the skeptics profit. And if the zealots are right, then the skeptics go out of business.

By: clarknova

clarknova — Sat, 03 Mar 2012 02:23:26 -0800

I hope I live to see some of these people dangling from lamp posts, ravens pecking out their eyes. My cockles, they are warmed.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Sat, 03 Mar 2012 11:51:10 -0800

Scientist Neil DeGrasse Tyson Patiently Explains How Science Works To GOP Businessman On Real Time