His unreleased sequel to cattle stampede hit "geek snarkonomics" takes on the green team's terminal climate menopause claims, and he's taking a vicious flock fuck of a pranging -- and well deserved, too.
Maybe you might start here:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/17/superfreakonomics-on-climate-part-1/
Comments (6)
People are always coming down hard on the Freakonomics dudes. But have the critics considered that the rate of the increase in the use of abortifacient pesticides in Turkmenistan corresponds precisely to the decrease in the velocity of remittances by Azerbaijani guest workers in Germany, whose families apply for visas in the Ukraine?
No?
I thought not.
Posted by Al Schumann | October 19, 2009 12:45 AM
Posted on October 19, 2009 00:45
This shit is popular because it implies that "the market" is always right and we're all just too lazy or uneducated to know why.
Nonetheless, sounds like the green response to this silly shit is hardly better. Solar power is not scalable to the size future capitalism will require.
So, the furor is over whether to devote 2 percent of GDP or 6 to "green" reforms.
Neither side encourages an honest look at institutions and ecological requirements.
Posted by Michael Dawson | October 19, 2009 12:59 AM
Posted on October 19, 2009 00:59
This shit is popular because it implies that "the market" is always right and we're all just too lazy or uneducated to know why.
Nonetheless, sounds like the green response to this silly shit is hardly better. Solar power is not scalable to the size future capitalism will require.
So, the furor is over whether to devote 2 percent of GDP or 6 to "green" reforms.
Neither side encourages an honest look at institutions and ecological requirements.
Posted by Michael Dawson | October 19, 2009 1:03 AM
Posted on October 19, 2009 01:03
MD, my understanding of the proposed solutions is that the Sensible Liberals want vindictive individual mandates and a cap and trade looting spree (my characterizations, not theirs, or not theirs in public at any rate). Their talk of percentages of GDP towards remediation, scalable solar and scalable baskets of "greener" technology is so much window dressing. They truly believe they can punt the problem into the future, put the screws to the people at large for a little remediation theater, and take care of their patrons' immediate needs.
When Joe Romm tore into Jim Hansen, that was the end of establishment meliorism.
Posted by Al Schumann | October 19, 2009 2:29 AM
Posted on October 19, 2009 02:29
True dat, Al. Al Gore's army wants to make a buck for itself along the way, too.
Did anybody catch what the Superfreaks revealed about Romm's tactics? To wit, from a message Romm sent to an expert named Caldeira:
"The chain begins with Joseph Romm telling Caldeira that he had read SuperFreakonomics and 'I want to trash them for this insanity and ignorance.' Romm adds that 'my blog is read by everyone in this area, including the media' and tells Caldeira that 'I’d like a quote like ‘The authors of SuperFreakonomics have utterly misrepresented my work,’ plus whatever else you want to say.'"
"Everybody" who is somebody, at least. What a megacrapturdpile the Ds are. It's Wall Street all the way down amongst them.
Posted by Michael Dawson | October 19, 2009 2:44 PM
Posted on October 19, 2009 14:44
That's really something, MD. What weak, nasty, spiky little egos they have -- as you say, like Wall Street traders, screwing each other and everyone else simply out of spite. The vitally important issues make no never mind.
Posted by Al Schumann | October 19, 2009 6:04 PM
Posted on October 19, 2009 18:04