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??
Stockdoc77. Kudos. As I pointed out on this blog yesterday, I detest seeing climate change arguments on economic blogs, and I detest seeing economic arguments on climate science blogs. The shallowness of both of them reeks.
Ad hominem attacks are attempts to discredit someone’s ARGUMENT or STATEMENT by discrediting/ attacking the person, rather than the argument. Statements directed at Krugman all on his own, without any reference to a particular argument/statement made by Krugman do not qualify as ad hominem.
Insinuating that others lack intellectual integrity because you find the tone of their remarks to be unsavory could be categorized as poisoning the well.
arthur4563 says:
June 8, 2014 at 10:17 am
Being referred to as an expert in economics is almost an oxymoron and an insult.
—
“Ever met any rich economists?”
– H. Ross Perot
stockdoc77 says:
June 8, 2014 at 3:22 pm
We can debate the issue: the issue is that Krugman is lying. The vitriol is not only necessary, but also richly deserved. Your imbecilic statement that “Either his position is right or wrong or in between” is stupid, tautological nonsense. The term “ad hominem attacks” is stupid & nonsensical as well: “argumentum ad hominem” is valid Latin term which has nothing to do with what you are trying to say: You see, when Krugman lies, calling him a liar is a valid & perfectly correct statement. Pointing out that Krugman has a habit of lying is also valid, since he lies an awful lot. & in English we have a term called “personal attack[s]” & another term called “abuse”, both of which are extremely useful techniques for changing persistently stupid behaviours, such as Paul Krugman’s unfortunate habit of lying about things, or certain people’s habit of trying to derail some hard earned abuse with puffed-up nonsense.
Stockdoc77-
Biofuels are not carbon neutral-
http://www.energyfuturecoalition.org/biofuels/benefits_env_public_health.htm
“Engines running on biofuels emit carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary source of greenhouse gas emissions, just like those running on gasoline. However, because plants and trees are the raw material for biofuels, and, because they need carbon dioxide to grow, the use of biofuels does not add CO2 to the atmosphere, it just recycles what was already there. The use of fossil fuels, on the other hand, releases carbon that has been stored underground for millions of years, and those emissions represent a net addition of CO2 to the atmosphere. Because it takes fossil fuels – such as natural gas and coal – to make biofuels, they are not quite “carbon neutral.”
___________________________________________
As far as thorium based nuclear energy being feasible, that depends on what you think feasible means. There’s no infrastructure in place, nor regulations etc, and “Pure uranium-233 can be derived from the molten salt coming out of thorium reactors “which is easier to make bombs with than plutonium.” And the waste, Makhijani added, contains carcinogenic radioactive materials.”
Dr. Alvin Weinberg, the “guru” of thorium nuclear technology, called it a “Faustian bargain” and said it was “a great energy source, but you’ve got to worry about proliferation and waste,” Makhijani replied.
(http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Thorium-Reactors-Nuclear-Redemption-or-Nuclear-Hazard)
There are things out there that are FAR WORSE than Co2 that we could be introducing into our environment, and no one has even proven that increased C02 WILL cause a planetary crisis of any kind.
_______________________
Wind and solar are great technologies, as long as the wind is blowing or the sun is shining. But storage of the energy produced by them is a problem. And why build windfarms and solar systems when the mining and production requirements cause damage to the same environment we’re supposedly trying to save?
We lay people think it would be so easy to just shut down one form of energy and start relying on another, but the only reason our current fuel costs are as low as they are is because we’ve been refining the technologies involved in them for almost a century. We are nowhere NEAR being able to rely on renewables as even a major portion of our electricity requirements. That is just a fact.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/september/curtail-energy-storage-090913.html
Corn biofuels add more C02 to the atmosphere than petroleum.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/ethanol-made-from-corn-stalks-spews-more-co2-than-gasoline-1.2616571
I would like to say that Krugman is the stupidest man to win a Nobel Prize, but that honor goes to Al Gore. All I can say is that Krugman may be the stupidest man to win the economics prize, but that is saying a lot.
The problem facing the Church of CAGW Warmists is that in their religion, they have gone from the concerned onlooker to the irrefutable fact believer phase without having any miracles martyrdom or ascension stages,
So guys, time to pick one messiah I reckon!
Hint Mann wont pass muster nor will Gore, perhaps Carl Sagan’s devoted disciple?
Excepting the nonsense in episode 12, Cosmos is a very nice multimedia program for schoolkids and those that have let science pass them by entirely.
Tom J – while we’re trying to use accurate terms, eg. Carbon Dioxide not Carbon, please can you use regressive or repressive instead of progressive.
Well, it *is* The New York Times. They published Walter Duranty’s stuff and were proud of it.
“I think people in the future will have empathy for us. ”
I will posit that “people in the future” given the 4.5 billion year history of the planet earth will NOT know who we (homo sapiens) are. I left out the expletives and pejoratives. 😉
And I am happy that we will be forgotten and undiscoverable. The entire “Anthropocene” is a layer not even one nanometer in depth in the rock formations to come !
Ha ha (to the “Anthropoceners” lurking outside the multiplex Cinema, nudge nudge wink wink).
“This is the New York Times??”
Yes indeed.
Jayson Blair, anyone?
Stock Doc: ” 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.”
No we are not anywhere close to grid parity. Because if I need the coal or gas or nuclear plant’s power, I simply turn it on. If I need a wind or solar power plant to turn on, I first have to hope that the wind is blowing enough, but not too much or hope the sun is shining. Then, when it turns out the wind is not blowing or the sun is not shining, I have to turn to the back-up coal plant I built – which means the cost of wind or solar is always at least double coal or gas because I always need 100% back-up.
I would contend that a number of the posts here about Krugman are ad hominem in nature. Leave it at that. It is almost impossible to have a rational discussion about carbon emissions and AGW as it has become such a right/left litmus test. My own views are fairly straightforward.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it is also an essential input for plant life
human burning of fossil fuels is raising atmospheric CO2 concentration
Business as usual would suggest that we will at least double and perhaps triple CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere
This is a giant geophysical experiment,the outcome of which is unknown
There is reason to believe that this addition of CO2 will raise average global temps, but we don’t know with precision how much, and how much impact that will have on humans and the environment, it could be very little and could be a lot
The global climate models should be viewed with a grain of salt, all models in science are merely hypothesis generating, not hypothesis proving
As we only have one planet we cannot run a randomized controlled trial to answer the question beforehand as to what the rise in CO2 will do to the climate
It would be prudent public policy given the above to pick the low hanging fruit, and put us in the position both technologically and politically to rapidly decarbonize if that becomes necessary in the next few decades. This would mean pushing up gas mileage, investing in energy efficiency across the board, developing the capacity for a non carbon emitting electric grid, solving the issue of energy storage for solar and wind power, looking at developing various nuclear options etc. We don’t need to destroy the economy to take some prudent actions.
With regards to biofuels, I think they are mostly a waste and a boondoggle for ADM. In a world where some are still starving it seems insane to burn food. My only point is that the carbon in the biofuel is not a net addition to atmospheric carbon. Now if fossil fuels were burned in the process of creating the biofuel, that has to be entered into the ledger, but then the question becomes what is the net CO2 emission per unit energy for biofuels vs fossil fuels. Varies on the source and what you are comparing it to. Bottom line, while biofuels mostly are less carbon intense than fossil fuels, I don’t support the whole biofuel concept.
The Nobel prize ceased to be relevant the instant the Nobel committee awarded Europe – a political entity – the peace prize.
Any one of critical thought who has followe the Krugman Follies of the past 5 years would realize Krugman is a charlatan and an egomaniac. And those who refuse to admit Krugman’s dishonesty is a fool. History will not be kind to Krugman for his endless fount of stupidity.
Krugman was right about the Iraq war.
He was right that monetary policy, which has normally been sufficient to end prior recessions, will not work this time as we are against the zero lower bound.
He was right that the stimulus was insufficient in size.
He was right that with the economy in depression even very low interest rates and high budget deficits would not be inflationary.
He was right that quantitative easing would not result in a collapse of the dollar.
If you want to attack him, go right ahead, but I have not seen anything in this thread that would a critique of his argument rather than an attack on his person, his character, or credentials, all of which are irrelevant.
The thrust of the attack here is that Pielke did not literally claim that cutting emissions would have a one for one reduction in GDP, which is true, but Pielke did clearly imply that the reduction would be so large and substantial as to prevent any possibility of such a reduction from a political standpoint. Krugman attacked that, and as Pielke did not spell out an exact mathematical relationship (because of course there is none) Krugman took liberty in assuming he meant 1 to 1. Does it change anything if Pielke meant .8 to 1 or .9 to 1? Don’t think so. What did Pielke mean then other than the truism that any change in energy policy will have some cost?
Disclaimer: I was unable to access Pielke’s piece directly and read it in full.
I normally consider Krugman to be a pontificating idiot just proving his ignorance, but I can see where a hostile reading of Pielke’s piece would lead to the belief that Pielke had implied a “1-for-1” relation: Pielke described a cessation, not slowing, of growth. Without the growth of technology, there would be such a cessation in the rise of production per capita one the changes in choices Krugman describes are all made and the energy/production term in Kaya’s Identity ceases to drop. However, Pielke used current conditions as a rationale for why some countries can’t afford caps, so I can see how Krugman might have read his piece to imply that the rise in production would cease immediately, as though that term and the emissions/consumption terms cannot be changed without changes in technology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaya_identity
Is not really useful as the terms are dependent on the mix of energy generators. So it is not even an identity. Oh. Well.
But it is a good excuse for killing off a LOT of people. So there is that.
What did Pielke mean then other than the truism that any change in energy policy will have some cost?
Germany doesn’t like the cost. It is hurting their economy.
http://notrickszone.com/2014/04/27/angela-merkels-vice-chancellor-stuns-declares-germanys-energiewende-to-be-on-the-verge-of-failure/
Linus Pauling was a double nobel prize winner who contributed to some of the greatest discoveries in biochemistry. He was one of the founders of molecular biology. There was no doubt that he was brilliant. He also advocated mega doses of vitamin C as the cure for the common cold, among other crank beliefs. Mega doses of vitamin C did not cure the common cold. There was no doubt that he was a very foolish man who sometimes believed what he wanted to believe.
Hence the paradox.
And another cautionary tale about argument from authority.
dmacleo says:
June 8, 2014 at 11:24 am
“krugmans an ass.
simple.”
You forgot “Hole”. Ass… You also forgot “Five-Star” and “Flying”, and slang term for act of procreation.
stockdoc77 says:
June 8, 2014 at 7:05 pm
Did Krugman ever point out that if interest rates go up service on the debt will kill us without a greatly expanded economy? But a quickly expanding economy will drive interest rates up. So the only way out is an nonperforming economy.
Mega doses of vitamin C did not cure the common cold.
But it is an excellent anti-biotic with few side effects except copious methane production. I use it that way when needed. It works. BTW I don’t think I have had a cold since I started keeping my C levels up. But of course that is just anecdotal. Still….