Comments on: The dynamic duo of disinformation and doubletalk return

By: Steve

Steve — Sat, 23 May 2009 18:25:54 +0000

JeandeBegles: I would contend that the continued argument by you and others that a carbon tax is “obviously” better than cap and trade is what’s really on the margin (or at least politically dead). As Joe has argued, any carbon tax passed would be just as complex as the current cap and trade bill, as so many special interests are affected and would push to get the best deal possible. A carbon tax with “simplicity” and “straightforwardness” would never make it politically. If Paul Krugman, a Nobel prize winner, feels that it’s “just wrong” to argue that a carbon tax is better than cap and trade, shouldn’t we instead focus on the fight to make sure that the current bill, which actually has a shot, is passed?

By: JeandeBegles

JeandeBegles — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 13:28:53 +0000

I fully agree with Peter Weisberg statement. Your dispute with Breaktrough is on the margin, and I wonder why Joe is so forcefull on the topic, to the point of censoring my arguments.
We are OK to put a price on carbon. Carbon tax is an obviously better way to meet this target than Cap and Trade that seemed more easy to sell to the public. But this is changing, and the public understand that cap and trade will increase the energy price. The public being aware of the current flaws of the market, a tax with dividend has the advantage of simplicity and straightforwardness; strong qualities for a painfull medecine to address the major threat of the global warming.

By: Peter Weisberg

Peter Weisberg — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:15:27 +0000

You and Breakthrough waste too many words dissing each other while, in my mind, you are advocating the same policy: Price carbon (but not so high that everyone repeals the price) and invest in technologies to bring down the cost of clean energy and therefore get China, India, Brazil and other industrializing countries (who will not price carbon) interested in renewables.

By: Pangolin

Pangolin — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:20:32 +0000

If Shellenberger and Nordhaus aren’t the yapping, punter-dog, mascots of climate change denial nobody is. They make a lot of noise barking at nothing. Thank you for once again taking the trouble to publicly take down their b.s.

By: JeandeBegles

JeandeBegles — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 08:02:55 +0000

Joe,
I feel I have been censured while giving good and fair arguments, sometimes against your poit of view.
Is it true or did I miss something when posting yesterday at 11am of your time?

By: tidal

tidal — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:56:33 +0000

@ lgcarey… different Nordhaus… it was “Bill” Nordhaus, the Yale economist, who spoke in Copenhagen… not Ted Nordhaus.

With respect to the “19°C” reference. It is Stern that references this, not Nordhaus, but Stern mentions it because it is a scenario that can be derived from Nordhaus’ DICE model. It is absurd of course, and Stern mentions it just an example of how the standard economic models have got it so wrong. He then elaborates on how this mistake got propogated in the models.

You can access Stern’s comments by going to http://climatecongress.ku.dk/ and selecting the March 12 plenary session video on the right hand side. You can skip directly to Stern. His comments about Nordhaus’ and other economic models start at ~ 1:07:30.

Nordhaus’ talk to the assembly is in an earlier plenary, but he never says anything about extreme cases like the one Stern uses.

By: Arthur Smith

Arthur Smith — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 18:40:03 +0000

The Animal Farm reference sounded familiar, then I remembered I’d used it in my review of their book back in November 2007: Break Through: 4 Legs Good, 2 Legs Better. Joe, you read my old DKos diary? Or just came up with the same thought independently? Obviously, the comparison only makes more sense with their continued behavior along these lines over the last year and a half.

Double-talk isn’t a bad description for the stuff they go on about. On the other hand, I’ve come to believe they and Pielke Jr. are actually doing this mainly for self-aggrandizing and essentially troll-ish purposes rather than something more conspiratorial – see my thoughts on the Pielke-Tobin debacle here: Glenn Beck = Stalin: Assassination of a Climate Scientist.

Now, I’m a little curious why you so lovingly quoted Marty Hoffert the other day when you’d previously roundly criticized him for his association with the Breakthrough Institute? Actually, there are a few Breakthrough Institute people I admire – Jesse Jenkins in particular seems like a good kid who’s fallen in with a dubious crowd.

[JR: I had used that metaphor awhile ago. Don't think I got it from you. But it's a good one. Hoffert knows some stuff about supply side solutions. And he's no Pielke, Shellenberger or Nordhaus.]

By: lgcarey

lgcarey — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:30:57 +0000

I understand that at the recent climate conference in Copenhagen, Nordhaus presented an economic projection asserting that a scenario with increased global temp of 19°C (!!! – no, that’s not a typo) would result in a reduction in world GDP of 50% (no that’s not a typo either). Nicholas Stern understandably took exception to this. I swear I’m not making this up – people heard it
http://cabiblog.typepad.com/ hand_picked/ 2009/ 03/ index.html

Does anybody have a link to that Nordhaus presentation, if it exists? (Of course, for such a projection to be correct, a world economy conducted primarily by cockroaches and mosquitoes would have to be somewhat more productive than many economists currently believe.)

By: PeterW

PeterW — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:37:40 +0000

Joe, I’m usually quite skeptical about the “science” of Economics. When someone says something will hurt the economy, my BS detector goes off. What exactly does that mean?

If you really want to stimulate the economy you need to produce stuff that the society actually needs and doesn’t have. For the most part North America already has enough housing, cars and crap from China. There will be no economic growth in any of the old standard industries to help the economy rebound.

Renewable energy, updating infrastructure with green technology, sustainable farming, conservation and updating the grid on the other hand seem to be perfect to stimulate the economy.

P.S. This article reminds me of Whack A Mole. Every time you think people will realize that we can actually solve this problem if we just get on with it, some denier (or facsimile) pops up to waste more time. There should be a special place in hell for pompous jerks like Shellenberger and Nordhaus.

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:23:38 +0000

2234 words.

Needed to be thorough since it’s going to be my only post on the subject of TBI for a while.