3 ms·

It was a political snub. The Economic Prize is always political. They gave the prize to a soft denialist, a guy whose message has always been to downplay the co

It was a political snub. The Economic Prize is always political. They gave the prize to a soft denialist, a guy whose message has always been to downplay the costs of climate change.

wazoox 5y ago
Exactly. See the damning presentation from Steve Keen for OECD in 2019: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtKW3OK2_lk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtKW3OK2_lk From this cycle : https://www.oecd.org/naec/averting-systemic-collapse/ https://www.oecd.org/naec/averting-systemic-collapse/
- roenxi 5y ago
  "Damning" seems a bit strong because Keen's complaint is a bit flimsy. If there isn't any obvious structural link between temperature and wealth or comfort then there does need to be a clearer explanation of why one would develop. Calling the research "stupid" isn't an argument. I also don't really think quoting Twitter threads qualifies as evidence either - this sort of policy deserves a bit more than 140 characters per thought bubble. If he isn't serious about making an attempt to debunk this stuff, then he probably doesn't have a slam dunk case. No argument that economics prizes are highly political, though.
  - specialist 5y ago
    Your hot take is ungenerous, inaccurate. Considering the stakes, it's also highly irresponsible. Noob layperson's TLDR for the viewing audience: Using his damage function, Nordhaus concludes 4° warming is "optimal" economically, balancing costs of action and inaction. Keen's first point is that 2° is game over, ending civilization as we know it, rendering equatorial regions uninhabitable, the death of many many people. Then Keen systematically, surgically dissects Nordhaus' assumptions, analysis, and conclusions. Lies by omission, misuse of data, inappropriate contexts (eg assuming continuous functions, ignoring tipping points). More egregiously, Nordhaus completely ignores the physical world. Keen finishes by recommending: including energy and climate feedback into econometric models; reforms to IPCC, including replacing old school economists with climate scientists and climate savvy economists.
    - specialist 5y ago
      > is that 2° is game over Errata: 4°. I musta fat fingered my edit.
  - klyrs 5y ago
    > If there isn't any obvious structural link between temperature and wealth or comfort then there does need to be a clearer explanation of why one would develop. What do you mean "if?" Thanks to my affluence, I sat out the heat wave in the comfort of central AC. It was a little warm upstairs; my principal discomfort was that the kitchen was so cold that I needed to wear a sweater. I went outside to take the trash out at the peak temperature just because I wanted to feel it. I drove my air conditioned car, already cool from the garage, to the air conditioned grocery store, and had to walk about 30m in the heat. I could have had those groceries delivered, but again, I preferred the "adventure." Only... we couldn't get food delivered because, I presume, not enough delivery drivers have AC. They're not as affluent as myself. Wealth, comfort, and temperature are strongly linked. You know Bezos wouldn't need to go for takeout like me. Worst case, he'd call a dealership to deliver a car to a driver to do his errands.
barney54 5y ago
William Nordhaus is not a “soft denialist.” He’s the economist that has done more to consider the cost and benefits of climate change than anyone else.
- orwin 5y ago
  4°C being the "optimal" change and his damage function ignoring pretty much how balanced system works is not soft denial then. Soft denial is saying "climate change does exist, but its impact on the population will be lower than mesures destined to curb it". I hope his grandchildren and great-grandchildren will hear this speculation.
- UncleMeat 5y ago
  “Climate change is actually good because of reasons that others highly disagree with” is denialism.

It was a political snub. The Economic Prize is always political. They gave the prize to a soft denialist, a guy whose message has always been to downplay the costs of climate change.

wazoox 5y ago

Exactly. See the damning presentation from Steve Keen for OECD in 2019: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtKW3OK2_lk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtKW3OK2_lk From this cycle : https://www.oecd.org/naec/averting-systemic-collapse/ https://www.oecd.org/naec/averting-systemic-collapse/

roenxi 5y ago
"Damning" seems a bit strong because Keen's complaint is a bit flimsy. If there isn't any obvious structural link between temperature and wealth or comfort then there does need to be a clearer explanation of why one would develop. Calling the research "stupid" isn't an argument. I also don't really think quoting Twitter threads qualifies as evidence either - this sort of policy deserves a bit more than 140 characters per thought bubble. If he isn't serious about making an attempt to debunk this stuff, then he probably doesn't have a slam dunk case. No argument that economics prizes are highly political, though.
- specialist 5y ago
  Your hot take is ungenerous, inaccurate. Considering the stakes, it's also highly irresponsible. Noob layperson's TLDR for the viewing audience: Using his damage function, Nordhaus concludes 4° warming is "optimal" economically, balancing costs of action and inaction. Keen's first point is that 2° is game over, ending civilization as we know it, rendering equatorial regions uninhabitable, the death of many many people. Then Keen systematically, surgically dissects Nordhaus' assumptions, analysis, and conclusions. Lies by omission, misuse of data, inappropriate contexts (eg assuming continuous functions, ignoring tipping points). More egregiously, Nordhaus completely ignores the physical world. Keen finishes by recommending: including energy and climate feedback into econometric models; reforms to IPCC, including replacing old school economists with climate scientists and climate savvy economists.
  - specialist 5y ago
    > is that 2° is game over Errata: 4°. I musta fat fingered my edit.
- klyrs 5y ago
  > If there isn't any obvious structural link between temperature and wealth or comfort then there does need to be a clearer explanation of why one would develop. What do you mean "if?" Thanks to my affluence, I sat out the heat wave in the comfort of central AC. It was a little warm upstairs; my principal discomfort was that the kitchen was so cold that I needed to wear a sweater. I went outside to take the trash out at the peak temperature just because I wanted to feel it. I drove my air conditioned car, already cool from the garage, to the air conditioned grocery store, and had to walk about 30m in the heat. I could have had those groceries delivered, but again, I preferred the "adventure." Only... we couldn't get food delivered because, I presume, not enough delivery drivers have AC. They're not as affluent as myself. Wealth, comfort, and temperature are strongly linked. You know Bezos wouldn't need to go for takeout like me. Worst case, he'd call a dealership to deliver a car to a driver to do his errands.

barney54 5y ago

William Nordhaus is not a “soft denialist.” He’s the economist that has done more to consider the cost and benefits of climate change than anyone else.

orwin 5y ago
4°C being the "optimal" change and his damage function ignoring pretty much how balanced system works is not soft denial then. Soft denial is saying "climate change does exist, but its impact on the population will be lower than mesures destined to curb it". I hope his grandchildren and great-grandchildren will hear this speculation.
UncleMeat 5y ago
“Climate change is actually good because of reasons that others highly disagree with” is denialism.