Comments on: Voodoo Economists, Part 3: MIT and NBER (and Tol and Nordhaus) — the right wing deniers love your work. Ask yourself “why?”

By: chad

chad — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 21:07:13 +0000

You should point out the fact that what they’re really doing is using semantics to prove science. They cherry pick facts to fit their ideology, meaning they have reversed the normal process of the scientific method, and given a primarily semantic argument against climate change a touch of science-ness (not unlike Colbert’s truthiness). Although your science-focused deconstruction is quite thorough and authoritative as it is.

By: David B. Benson

David B. Benson — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 23:24:09 +0000

In priniciple economics ought to be a science. In mainstream practice, it is nothing more than alchemy; there is a resaon that academic economics is often housed in a College of Business and Economics, not a College of Arts and Sciences.

By: Jay Alt

Jay Alt — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 19:57:35 +0000

On his birthday -
Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness. ML King, Jr.

By: Richard Tol

Richard Tol — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 11:54:47 +0000

JR: You read correctly. I think their estimates are way too pessimistic.

See http://www.newscientist.com/ article/ mg20126914.000-climate-change-to-stifle-developing-nations-growth.html

[JR: I confess to be stunned. They clearly state that they have ignored many if not most of the factors that will hurt poor countries. And to anybody who follows the scientific literature, they are completely misguided about thinking climate impacts will proceed in a linear fashion. And, of course, they just assume the two biggest developing countries, China and India, will become too rich to somehow be affected substantially by global warming.

The scientific literature now makes crystal clear that their estimates are, if anything, way too optimistic. The economics profession simply can't draw a tiny circle around climate impacts, publish a piece of crap analysis, and have its luminaries say the flaws in the study make the results too pessimistic. That makes a mockery of the gravest threat to the health and well-being of the human race.]

By: Kvams

Kvams — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 11:51:07 +0000

I argue that economics is scientific and that that is what matters:
http://kvams.wordpress.com/2009/01/15/what-is-science/

By: Kvams

Kvams — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 09:34:17 +0000

John,

In most other languages, the word for ’science’ means ’systematic inquiry’ and is used for all sciences, humanities and arts. So, is it only in America and Great Britain that economics is not a science?

By: Peter Altman

Peter Altman — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:32:37 +0000

Thanks for tackling the multiple issues that are tangled up with this paper Joe. It is a major challenge to keep up with the myriad ways that those determined to deny or ignore the perils of global warming manage to misinform, misinterpret and misstate the issues. You certainly pulled it off nicely in this post.

By: Richard Tol

Richard Tol — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:17:54 +0000

Dave is quite right. I read and criticised the paper, and so they put me in the acknowledgements. This is common practice. It is the polite thing to do and it signals to editors and referees that they did discuss their ideas with others. It for sure is not an endorsement. Indeed I did tell them that their estimates are suspiciously high because their model is underspecified. [JR: You told them "their estimates are suspiciously high"? Are you saying you think they OVERestimated impacts? I rest my case!]

By: ken levenson

ken levenson — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:37:52 +0000

reminds me of Cheney self-dealing/reinforcing/justifying nonsense –

to achieve greater potential we now only need Dot Earth to run an uncritical piece on the study!

By: John McCormick

John McCormick — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:03:17 +0000

Dave, are you inferring that economics is a science?

It appears so. You said:

[Please do us all a favour and get familiar with scientific norms before you write nonsense like this. In economics it is absolutely standard to thank anyone who told you something that helped in any way to improve your paper.]

Here is a definition of the word ‘science’

“1. the systematic observation of natural events and conditions in order to discover facts about them and to formulate laws and principles based on these facts. 2. the organized body of knowledge that is derived from such observations and that can be verified or tested by further investigation. 3. any specific branch of this general body of knowledge, such as biology, physics, geology, or astronomy.”

Academic Press Dictionary of Science & Technology

A scientist worthy of that title has the obligation to defend or revise a body of knowledge produced by science.

A physician would not allow his/her name to be associated with a diagnosis if they did not concur.

Economics does nto fit the definition of science, in my opinion. So, scientific norms do not apply in your comment.

John McCormick