Roger Pielke, Jr. Fri Jun 06, 05:24:00 PM MDT writes:
A delightful comment at the NY Times under Krugman’s post:
Link: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/05/energy-choices/?smid=tw-share#permid=11963264
—————–
BlueSky Phoenix, AZ 7 hours ago
Almost every one of you is mistaken. Krugman made up the argument that a percent reduction in emissions translates into a percent reduction in GDP, one-for-one.
Pielke didn’t say anything remotely like that. He never even mentioned any magnitdues or sizes or numbers pertaining to reduction of emissions translating to GDP loss.
What you’re doing now, running for the hills talking about how stupid or dishonest Pielke is, because this guy you like who is on your team said that Pielke is stupid or dishonest — this is bogus. You have no idea what you’re talking about. Neither does Krugman. He doesn’t understand the Kaya Identity. He doesn’t understand Pielke’s argument, and he certainly hasn’t reported it to his readers.
Pielke is saying that we can’t just wave a wand and instantiate some linear growth in technology that costs the same as oil, coal, gas. He said technological progress is not linear. He said technological progress is not completely predictable. These are perfectly reasonable things to say, epecially since they happen to be true. He didn’t make any wild claims.
I think people in the future will have empathy for us. It’s really weird to see Nobel laureates be such terrible sources, isn’t it? It’s unbelievably weird. A Nobel economist should never make the errors Krugman makes, and no human being should so revel in his own malice and hatred that he openly expresses joy at purporting to find out that someone is stupid or dishonest. This is the New York Times??
“Our source was The New York Times.”
– USSR Ambassador in Dr. Stangelove.
It’s pretty obvious to, I would assume, just about everyone but Krugman that Pielke meant we either have to ramp up energy source research to a very high level to find a non-CO2 but energy-dense source of energy OR continue to burn fossil fuels OR suffer economically.
Krugman is a shill for the left.
jbenton2013 says:
June 8, 2014 at 11:41 am
That hasn’t stopped the BBC. Just read their report on the IMF visit last week. Read it ? Now read the actual report.
The predjudices are showing aren’t they. Liberal rabble the BBC.
Brute says:
June 8, 2014 at 11:21 am
Not everyone can be blind to the irony… “and no human being should so revel in his own malice and hatred that he openly expresses joy at purporting to find out that someone is stupid or dishonest.”
=====================
Yep, it reads too much like Schadenfreude, disguised as journalism.
So here we are.
This is the New York Times??
========================
Yes, and has been for years.
“This is the New York Times??” Absolutely!
Progressive liberals will always put Politics over Science as they are for the most part are non-science educated individuals. It seems to be the Gaia effect . . believe it then it will happen.
Pielke is correct – technology can not be forced it can be helped by more research money as America did with the nuclear bomb.
America had a international Fusion scientific study project with international scientists and funding participating – ti was making progress but Bill Clinton cancelled the project.
We have been researching fusion for 50 years but all uneducated are afraid of the BOMB the BOMB – nuclear is our only near term solution of AGW if it is real. Dense energy products are few and there is no serious data that indicates that wind or solar can be anything but a small player and at a very high cost.
The wind and solar projects have been installed – closed down – sold – repaired – closed and they still can not function with the current generation of the systems. It has been 50 years and almost no advancement in cost – density – environmental costs – it is all about we wish it could be free. Really it cost 3 to 10 time what the loaded with legal, studies, more legal, delay with more lawsuits but nuclear even with decommissioning costs is under $ .05/KWH – solar is over $ 30/KWH and wind is around $ 15/KWH – yes that includes the land cost and offsetting millions of bird and endangered species.
California is littered with closed down wind farms and solar farms – even geothermal plants.
Krugman is beyond belief. A mathematical identity is a simple concept and it is always true. There is nothing to discuss about it, like there is nothing to say about a=(a/b)*(b/c)*c, or in other words, a=a.
The fact that a Nobel in economics cannot seem to understand elementary maths says a lot about the quality of Nobel Prizes in economics.
Pielke’s response:
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/clueless-krugman.html
“This is the New York Times??”
Yes
I quit reading Krugman some time ago. As was said above he one of the ” useful tools” of any far left program needing propping up. I think being ignored is the deepest cut.
All the News That is Left to Print.
=========================
Jai Mitchell said:
(From BlueSky Phoenix)
“Almost every one of you is mistaken. Krugman made up the argument that a percent reduction in emissions translates into a percent reduction in GDP, one-for-one.”
Except Krugman never said that. Not in the article and certainly not anywhere else. This is the most cynical straw man argument I have ever seen.
________________________________________________________
False. 7th paragraph of that very article written by Krugman. In writing.
“All these choices would impose some cost, and reduce real income to some extent — but the effect wouldn’t remotely be that real GDP would fall one-for-one with emissions.”
Krugman is trying to insinuate that PIELKE is saying that, which Pielke is not. Krugman is lying/misrepresenting Pielke’s argument. Hence Krugman built the strawman here.
Jai Mitchell said:
(From BlueSky Phoenix)
“Almost every one of you is mistaken. Krugman made up the argument that a percent reduction in emissions translates into a percent reduction in GDP, one-for-one.”
Except Krugman never said that. Not in the article and certainly not anywhere else. This is the most cynical straw man argument I have ever seen.
________________________________________________________
False. 7th paragraph of that very article written by Krugman. In writing.
“All these choices would impose some cost, and reduce real income to some extent — but the effect wouldn’t remotely be that real GDP would fall one-for-one with emissions.”
Krugman is trying to insinuate that PIELKE is saying that, which Pielke is not. Krugman is lying/misrepresenting Pielke’s argument. Hence Krugman built the strawman here.
This is The New York Times?
Same as it ever was, all the news that’s printed to fit.
I have been mad at Krugman for decades.
From 2009, seems like a parody now…
As you all know Krugman got his Nobel for fierce Bush bashing not because he was the most deserving.
As for the fellows comment.that “it is really weird”. Teenagers use this word “weird’ because the only have a 300 word vocabulary. But so has he.
Why hasn’t any one but me noticed that carbon free means no ethanol or methanol or bio gas methane or wood chips or firewood. Basically to really be carbon free requires returning mankind to before fire. That would certainly end AGW – and mankind. Maybe that’s the point.
I’ve read both Pielke’s letter and Krugman’s critique. What Pielke seems to be saying is that future reduction in carbon emissions can only occur if we either have new low carbon energy technologies or accept substantially lower economic growth (he doesn’t say it is a one to one tradeoff, but does imply that the tradeoff is substantive and not minor). Krugman argues that Pielke is being way too pessimistic, and that lower emissions are possible without assuming major technological breakthroughs that cannot be predicted or planned for. Certainly, any international regime which requires poor countries to remain poor and rich countries to go into recession is a non-starter. On the other hand, there are many rich countries with substantially lower per capita carbon emissions than the US. Energy efficiency of GDP varies widely, even between states in the US. Existing technologies such as high mileage vehicles, nuclear power, and gas rather than coal are all practical and proven. The rapid decline in both solar and wind price over the last 30 years bodes well, we are nearing grid parity in both, and thorium based nuclear power is certainly feasible and carries no weapons risk and much less waste and accident risk than current nukes. If Pielke is arguing that more R and D of low carbon power is needed, I agree, but companies and countries will not invest in that unless there is a political reason driving them to do so. I think both Krugman and Pielke agree that there are costs associated with decarbonizing energy use, the dispute is whether those costs are mild and manageable in the long run, or so large and burdensome as to make a political decision to limit carbon emissions globally impossible. The Chamber of Commerce report on that question would seem to side with the optimistic view, as would I.
Mr. Schroeder is being facetious or doesn’t understand how the carbon cycle works. Burning fossil fuels adds net carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, the use of wood or any other biofuel does not, because those biofuels were created by plants removing CO2 from the atmosphere and turning it into carbohydrates. They cycle back into atmospheric whether we burn them or eat them or they are decomposed by bacteria. There is no net effect on atmospheric CO2 concentration.
I see a lot of people here making the mistake of calling Paul Krugman a Nobel laureate. Lets get it straight. There is no Nobel price for economics. Not really, anyway. It’s the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics. It’s not the Nobel Prize. It’s a prize awarded “in memory of” Alfred Nobel. It’s not funded by the Nobel endowment, but by the Swedish Central Bank. They give the medal at the same ceremony, but that doesn’t make it an actual Nobel Prize.
*Prize, goddammit
Can we debate the issue and not the person? The vitriol directed at Krugman is unnecessary. Either his position is right or wrong or in between, but ad hominem attacks are not a badge of intellectual integrity.
stockdoc77 says:
June 8, 2014 at 3:22 pm
Can we debate the issue and not the person? The vitriol directed at Krugman is unnecessary. Either his position is right or wrong or in between, but ad hominem attacks are not a badge of intellectual integrity.
===============
But, we already knew that.