Thanks!
Sometimes you lose the thread, sometimes the @ get in the way. So Eli tries to help
. @NYTimeskrugman on @RogerPielkeJr http://t.co/rFkakhaWXt
— Leo Hickman (@LeoHickman) June 5, 2014
@LeoHickman Enjoy--> http://t.co/EvlLLgCD2T @NYTimeskrugman
— Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) June 5, 2014
.@RogerPielkeJr For your argument to work, you need to show that a substantial CO2 price will impact economic growth
— Chris Hope (@cwhope) June 5, 2014
@cwhope Actually, my argument is based on the political impossibility of a high CO2 price, economic theory may be sound
— Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) June 5, 2014
.@cwhope @RogerPielkeJr Have you thought what a problem would be presented to Mr Pielke if he agreed with that!
— John Deben (@lorddeben) June 5, 2014
@cwhope Here is a nice review/analysis by @@JesseJenkins on exactly this--> http://t.co/BCw1FDlabU
— Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) June 5, 2014
Actually @lorddeben a centerpiece of my book The Climate Fix is a price on carbon. Plz be informed before attacking, thx
— Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) June 5, 2014
@RogerPielkeJr The abstract of the paper doesn't mention the effect of CO2 prices on economic growth.
— Chris Hope (@cwhope) June 5, 2014
@cwhope my paper isnt RE impacts on economic growth, but is RE political constraints on carbon pricing
— JesseJenkins (@JesseJenkins) June 5, 2014
@RogerPielkeJr From your blog: 'the needed price to achieve such drastic rates of decarbonization would impact economic growth'
— Chris Hope (@cwhope) June 5, 2014
@cwhope @RogerPielkeJr is ur claim that a "substantial CO2 price" would not impact economic growth? How do u define substantial?
— JesseJenkins (@JesseJenkins) June 5, 2014
@cwhope You are not asking me to explain the paper to you I hope. It's about political constraints of carbon price.
— Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) June 5, 2014
@RogerPielkeJr @cwhope what my paper does do is contrast estimates of the social cost of carbon with societal willingness to pay
— JesseJenkins (@JesseJenkins) June 5, 2014
@RogerPielkeJr @cwhope whereas SSC estimates are ~$15-200/ton, willingness to pay in US is likely in $2-8/ton range.
— JesseJenkins (@JesseJenkins) June 5, 2014
@RogerPielkeJr @cwhope ABC/WashPo poll on EPA regs showed households willing to pay $20/mo to support. For avg US household, that's $7/ton.
— JesseJenkins (@JesseJenkins) June 5, 2014
@JesseJenkins Will depend critically on how WTP was assessed. Don't forgot CO2 price is just a transfer payment.
— Chris Hope (@cwhope) June 5, 2014
@cwhope @RogerPielkeJr yes, it's a transfer of surplus today to reduce externalities born by everyone worldwide forever...
— JesseJenkins (@JesseJenkins) June 5, 2014
@cwhope I am quite comfortable with that claim. Are you saying that carbon pricing cannot affect econ growth?
— Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) June 5, 2014
@JesseJenkins But EPA regs don't return CO2 tax as, say, sales or payroll tax cuts.
— Chris Hope (@cwhope) June 5, 2014
@cwhope @RogerPielkeJr if u don't think that will have negative impacts on today's GDP, I dont think u understand the nature of the transfer
— JesseJenkins (@JesseJenkins) June 5, 2014
@cwhope @RogerPielkeJr yes, and? Show me any evidence such rebates significantly increase WTP? Ive seen none. Survey in paper.
— JesseJenkins (@JesseJenkins) June 5, 2014
@RogerPielkeJr As CO2 tax is a transfer payment, no a priori reason to believe will reduce growth. In fact just the opposite.
— Chris Hope (@cwhope) June 5, 2014
@cwhope now I know you're an expert on this stuff, so Im surprised u challenge idea that a substantial C price impacts GDP.
— JesseJenkins (@JesseJenkins) June 5, 2014
@JesseJenkins No, it's a transfer payment from, eg those who use lots of energy to those who employ lots of labor
— Chris Hope (@cwhope) June 5, 2014
@cwhope (my Energy Policy paper actually cites your social cost of carbon work)
— JesseJenkins (@JesseJenkins) June 5, 2014
@cwhope @RogerPielkeJr yes there's some of that kind of transfer also, but the big hit is in exchange for reducing the climate externality.
— JesseJenkins (@JesseJenkins) June 5, 2014
@cwhope @RogerPielkeJr in addition, those transfers themselves produce significant political opposition that helps bind against large Cprice
— JesseJenkins (@JesseJenkins) June 5, 2014
@JesseJenkins Sadly, I have to leave now this is getting interesting. Will try to pick up tomorrow.
— Chris Hope (@cwhope) June 5, 2014
@cwhope @RogerPielkeJr even if net societal wealth doesn't change, major transfers will certainly be opposed by the losers in such transers
— JesseJenkins (@JesseJenkins) June 5, 2014
@cwhope @RogerPielkeJr happy to chat more. Shoot me an email if you'd like and I can send you my paper...
— JesseJenkins (@JesseJenkins) June 5, 2014
@JesseJenkins @cwhope Theoretical arguments abt GDP effects of high C price irrelevant when such a thing politically impossible
— Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) June 5, 2014
@RogerPielkeJr @cwhope that paper makes no claims re GDP impacts of C price & argument doesn’t depend on such claims.
— Matthew Paterson (@MatPaterson) June 5, 2014
@RogerPielkeJr @cwhope is about power of concentrated interests & weak willingness 2 pay, blocking C price emerging
— Matthew Paterson (@MatPaterson) June 5, 2014
@cwhope They seemed to miss that in #IPCC WG3, "it does not cost the world to save the planet", >0.6%GDP/yr
— Glen Peters (@Peters_Glen) June 5, 2014
@cwhope @RogerPielkeJr Depends on how drastic is defined. Shale gas has delivered relatively large emissions reductions & growth
— Mike Shellenberger (@MichaelBTI) June 5, 2014
@RogerPielkeJr But you say 'the needed price to achieve such drastic rates of decarbonization would impact economic growth' Needs evidence.
— Chris Hope (@cwhope) June 6, 2014
@RogerPielkeJr Here is one piece of evidence against your claim that carbon tax would harm growth http://t.co/KOxNmuitbE
— Chris Hope (@cwhope) June 6, 2014
@cwhope @RogerPielkeJr British Columbia fuel use drops while economy keeps up with Canada. http://t.co/jssTi8pQ1u
— Ed Wiebe (@edwiebe) June 6, 2014
@cwhope Let me know when we have a real world example of a high carbon price to assess your claims empirically, until then zzzzzzzz Thx!
— Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) June 6, 2014
@RogerPielkeJr @cwhope British Columbia Canada.
— Ed Wiebe (@edwiebe) June 6, 2014
@RogerPielkeJr I believe @edwiebe just gave you one! In any case, you're a long way from proving your contention in your blog,
— Chris Hope (@cwhope) June 6, 2014
@cwhope @edwiebe So that is what you define as a high carbon price?
— Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) June 6, 2014
@cwhope No worries, we agree to disagree. Thx @edwiebe
— Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) June 6, 2014
@RogerPielkeJr @cwhope I'd prefer it were higher but political self interest has halted the increases for now.
— Ed Wiebe (@edwiebe) June 6, 2014
@RogerPielkeJr @cwhope The right fails to see or understand the bigger picture, their inherent selfishness gets in the way.
— Ed Wiebe (@edwiebe) June 6, 2014
@RogerPielkeJr @cwhope You may agree. I don't.
— Ed Wiebe (@edwiebe) June 6, 2014
@edwiebe You don't have a choice ;-) Like it or not, there is a plurality of views out there on such topics.
— Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) June 6, 2014
@RogerPielkeJr What I take from this is that when asked to provide evidence for your claim, you didn't do so
— Chris Hope (@cwhope) June 6, 2014
@cwhope Give me a break Chris, I've published x10s papers & a book on climate. If you want to enagage send me an email.
— Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) June 6, 2014
@RogerPielkeJr Not the same as passive aggressive attempt to stop discussion when it got harder to support your view.
— Ed Wiebe (@edwiebe) June 6, 2014
@edwiebe I'm happy to discuss. Passive/aggressive - ironic! If you'd like to engage my views, then do so intelligently
— Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) June 6, 2014
@edwiebe @cwhope You guys both have an open invitation to visit my blog where we can discuss in more than 140 char.
— Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) June 6, 2014
@edwiebe @cwhope Can also email. Otherwise, plz go wag your c*cks elsewhere. Not
interested in the twitter chest thumping. Thx.
— Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) June 6, 2014
@RogerPielkeJr We know we must stop emitting carbon therefore agreeing to disagree is not an option.
— Ed Wiebe (@edwiebe) June 6, 2014
Last two paragraphs of Chapter VII http://t.co/E21JU5Y3XF @RogerPielkeJr http://t.co/Q2m5ixENPf
— Ed Wiebe (@edwiebe) June 6, 2014
@RogerPielkeJr Well, I had hoped for intelligent debate. Think I've been polite throughout. Disappointing.
— Chris Hope (@cwhope) June 7, 2014
Posts
14 comments:
"Wag your cocks"? Classy.
Bunnies must always keep their eye on the ball and ask for evidence for the assertion. And not let the other person distract, hand-wave, dissemble, or change the subject when they don't produce evidence or the evidence they produce doesn't back their claim.
If bunnies do this, 99.375% of the time you get what poor hapless RP Jr just did.
Best,
D
Roger Pielke Jr. has spent a career trying to insert himself into the public gallery of talking climate heads and misdirecting us about climate policy, including recurring misleading testimony at the behest of denialist Congress-types. Now he says there's a lack of political will to implement strong carbon pricing. There's something perverse about that.
Linky 1
Linky 2
Linky 3
Linky 4 (PDF)
- WheelsOC
Good points Dano...he is called "Rodger the dodger" after all. Cornering him is time consuming, he is even more slippery than a second-hand car salesperson.
Posting this here form another thread at Eli's for continuity:
"....It has been a very bad few months for poor Pielke Jnr., no wonder Roger is imploding and has now resorting to saying things like this in public (from his Twitter account):
"...Otherwise, plz go wag your c*cks elsewhere..." Pielke Jnr. 2014
[H/T to Andy for the quote]
Odd thing for him to say to say given that Roger is always doing the same on the intertubes and before Congress.
Best part is that the above quote is clear evidence that Roger has really lost the "debate", amongst other things :)"
Chuckle.
At this point, he's a lobbyist. Pushing the claim that regulation is politically impossible is what defines him as a lobbyist.
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2014/04/25/septic-org/#comment-45629
https://epafacts.com/full-page-ad-highlights-epa-threat/
http://acronymrequired.com/2011/10/the-four-dog-defense.html
"plz go wag your c*cks elsewhere.."
If the science policy gig goes south, RP can always get a job writing scream plays for porno fliks
To elaborate a bit -- the trick is to try to define the limits of what's "arguably possible" by ruling out the inconvenient costs.
A discussion, just for example, like this (emphasis added, paragraph breaks added for online readability)
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/nr_newsletters/ed/201212_ed.authcheckdam.pdf
Environmental Disclosure Committee, December 2012
DEFENSIBLE COST ESTIMATING FUNDAMENTALS IN THE CONTEXT OF ENVIRONMENTAL DISCLOSURE
".... Traditionally some reporting entities may have assumed that environmental liabilities
were not material to their overall financial bottom lines.
However, over the past decade of the post–Sarbanes-Oxley era, a focus on the quantification of contingent environmental liabilities has become more prominent.
That is, the need to specifically quantify the magnitude of costs associated with an environmental liability has been required or requested more and more frequently.
This task of quantification has always been complicated by the inherent uncertainty in estimating an
unknown (such as, what might have happened underground decades ago), often based on limited data
and information, as well as the highly site-specific aspects of many environmental liabilities. For example, a similar historic industrial practice in one location may have resulted in minimal impact—but in another location may have resulted in significant environmental liabilities.
The task of appropriately valuing environmental liabilities is made more complex in the face of changing financial accounting regulations (such as those focused on contingent asset retirement
obligations and disclosure of liabilities associated with greenhouse gases); prudent business practices in the context of increasing corporate cash flow concerns and ankruptcies; pressure from shareholders to provide corporate transparency, and ongoing litigation risks."
Roger has a paper that indicates that it would take more than 200 years for a trend in TC damage in the US to emerge. What is clear from the paper is that he does that by finding the time at which at least 95% of his models have a statistically significant trend (with respect to the 20th century trend). So, if one was being statistically correct, what one should really conclude is that it is virtually certain to have emerged within about 200 years. Roger, however, has a habit of writing this in a way that makes it seem that it will take more than 200 years, rather than less than 200 years.
I redid his whole analysis and got the same basic result, but pointed out - in fact - that there was a 95% chance of it emerging between about 2050 and 2250 (i.e., it could be in the next few decades, or could take more than 200 years).
In my post, however, I said "So, Roger is right", followed by an explanation of why it's a bit subtler than you might infer from what Roger says himself. You can probably guess what Roger tweeted about my post. Roger the Dodger indeed.
My earliest substantive interaction with RP Jr., probably going on 10 years ago, was on his primary gig of questioning whether forthcoming climate damages should be a present concern for policy. I pointed to strong evidence that this was the case (IIRC the specific topic may have been sea level rise), RP Jr. pointed to uncertainty about exactly when the damages would kick in and to the (IPCC?) use of a 2050 time frame, saying in effect that post-2050 damages could reasonably be ignored and that anything pre-2050 was sufficiently uncertain that policy could reasonably neglect it. IOW, same as he's ever been.
Since Roger the Dodger won't post my question to him regarding his hyperbole about Paul Krugman taking him to task regarding his letter to the Financial Times will you post this for me?
Question: Hello Roger,
Have you corresponded directly with Dr. Paul Krugman about your disparaging remarks regarding his cogent critique of your letter to the Financial Times?
Question:
Hello Roger,
Have you corresponded directly with Dr. Paul Krugman about your disparaging remarks regarding his cogent critique of your letter to the Financial Times?
No way will he do that. He needs a forum to weasel and hedge.
Best,
D
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/06/upshot/best-of-both-worlds-northeast-cut-emissions-and-enjoyed-growth.html
I quote from the link I gave above, as it seems so pointed:
-----
"Four Dogs Defense" ... the tobacco industry used it for decades to successfully deflect charges that cigarettes cause cancer. Despite volumes of documents proving of their deception in the form of the tobacco papers, the same companies today mount the same defense, albeit with diminishing success.
You might also be familiar with this strategy not only because of tobacco, but asbestos, lead, bisphenol A or any number of chemicals or "benign" products (sugar, alcohol, etc.) currently on the market.
... tactics the industries used to stall regulation. It focuses on three chemicals, trichloroethylene (TCE), formaldehyde, and styrene, which have been on the market for decades despite proof they cause morbidity and mortality.
Tactics industries _continue_ to use:
Despite grave warnings, put forward by a variety of cancer, public health, and regulatory agencies, regarding the health hazards of all types of asbestos, controversy continues to be fomented by powerful moneyed interests. This has permitted some countries to promote continued use of asbestos. The IJPC-SE therefore undertook the development of a Position Statement that, for the first time, puts forward, from an epidemiologic perspective, the clear evidence confirming that all forms of asbestos should be banned.
In discussions on Twitter with Pielke Jr., one may get the idea that he'll only consent to "discuss" if one first assents to the proposition that he is The Authority -- and then, at appropriate time, he will use the old argument-from-authority to say you don't know what you're talking about.
Slippery, indeed.
And a-historic. Fact is that cap-and-trade has usually worked before, and there is only a coincidental, temporary link between CO2 emissions and GDP.
Of course, he has a paper to cite, so to him, the points are not debatable. Once one accepts all his premises as valid, there's not much to discuss, is there?
In short, he's an intelligent design creationist on climate -- he's not technically arguing that there is no warming nor that we shouldn't do anything about it, to him; he is arguing that IF there was global warming, what is proposed is unlikely to stem it, if we accept that no human action means anything in climate.
He's the Francis Beckwith of climate change.
Post a Comment