Climate Progress on economics: Part II

The rant against mainstream economics continues:

This series will have three recurring themes about Voodoo Economists aka Mainstream Economists who Opine on Weather (MEOWs):

1. MEOW’s understanding of what global warming is doing to the planet now and what it is likely to do by 2100 on our current emissions path ranges from arrogantly incomplete to criminally ignorant. They really talk more about the weather than the climate.
2. MEOW’s cost-benefit calculations [”if you add it all up”] are analytically unsound and qualify more as an opinion than a scientifically accurate statement.
3. The right wing loves what the economics profession is saying and publishing on climate, which is why they quote and cite them so giddily.

...

Damages will far exceed the benefits, yes, but for MEOWs, that justifies only the most modest carbon price, as future posts will discuss. Ironically, or rather, tragically, if we listen to voodoo economists like Mendelsohn and Tol and Nor[d]haus, then global warming is all but certain to be the calamity that people say.

The bottom line is that non-scientist Mendelsohn has a knowledge of climate science and impacts that ranges from arrogantly incomplete to criminally ignorant. He has no business telling anybody that on our current emissions path it will not be a calamity. He simple has no clue.

The economics profession should throw him out for malpractice, but they won’t do that because, as Part 3 (and 4 and 5) will make all too painfully clear, his views are solidly in the mainstream of MEOWs. You just can’t teach an old cat new tricks.

Let's all don our blue blazers, brown shoes and poorly knotted ties and march on the offices of the Center for American Progress! No one, and I mean no one, gets away with that sort of dissing without some sort of futile defense against the "criminally ignorant" econ-haters on the nature and purpose of economic analysis.

In other words, no comment.

Comments

[Hydra]

This is startingg to remind me of the scene where Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid are about to jump off a cliff to evade impending catastrophe.

"I can't jump"

"Why Not"

"I'll Die"

"You idiot, if you don't jump, those guys will kill you."

"I still can"t jump."

"Why Not?"

"I can't swim"

"You idiot, the fall will probably kill you."

---------------------------------------

If the costs of the consequences of global warming are as high as needed to justify the cost of preventing it, we can't afford the price and the fall will kill us anyway.

It's looking more and more as if the choice is to be killed by a natural mand-made disaster
-or-
Be killed by an economist.

The naysayers may be taking a rational position. They can take a lot of economists down on the way to Armageddon at a lesser cost than changing the world.

Especially since either event may not happen in their lifetime.

[Tim Haab]

The bottom line is that scientist Romm has a knowledge of economics and BCA that ranges from arrogantly incomplete to criminally ignorant.

[rich]

seriously. you never hear john or tim calling scientists idiots when it comes to matters related to their areas of expertise. yet romm has no problem bashing the economic claims of economists, even though he has absolutely zero clue what he's talking about on the subject.

[evan]

Mainstream Economists who Opine on Weather = MEOWs?

Arrogant Scientist That Undermines Reasonable Dialogue = ASTURD.

I figured I'd just maintain the present level of maturity and analysis.

[Bob Murphy]

Incidentally, what is supposedly "contradictory" about the closing quotes from Mendelsohn? Romm might say they're wrong, but there's nothing contradictory there.

If anyone is curious to see why Mendelsohn thinks there are initially net benefits, and then eventually net damages, from global warming, see pages 12-14 in this paper (pdf).