Talk:William Nordhaus

``social cost of carbon`` relates to Effects of climate change on humans

Add link. 166.252.201.27 (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Explain. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Nybooks.com resource october 27, 2011 Vol. LVIII, Number 16 page 29-31.

Energy: Friend or Enemy?

• The End of Energy: The Unmaking of America’s Environment, Security, and Independence by Michael J. Graetz; MIT Press, 369 pp., $29.95

• Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use, a report by the National Research Council’s Committee on Health, Environmental, and Other External Costs and Benefits of Energy Production and Consumption; National Academies Press, 506 pp., $47.00 (paper), available for free at www.nap.edu

97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Added the latter to Talk:United States National Research Council, but not sure about the Graetz book yet. 99.190.82.204 (talk) 03:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Nordhaus and the WSJ "16" ... example.

• Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong March 22, 2012 by Nordhaus regarding climate change denial and Nordhaus' follow-up reply In the Climate Casino: An Exchange; by Roger W. Cohen (ex-ExxonMobil manager of Strategic Planning & Programs), William Happer, and Richard Lindzen in April 26, 2012 New York Review of Books

99.181.133.170 (talk) 07:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The followup is unnecessary and inappropriate in this, or possibly any, article. I'm not sure the "review" is necessary or appropriate in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete without whole thread, and not up-to Wikipedia:Encyclopedic standards if left-out. 99.181.148.240 (talk) 04:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

??? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Nordhaus item in 2012 to include

The Wall Street Journal of January 27, 2012 response

An opinion piece in the January 27, 2012 Wall Street Journal

made a number of attacks on the science and credibility of the case for global warming, including quoting Nordhaus' research to argue that economics does not support policies to slow climate change in the next half-century.

Nordhaus rebutted their contentions point-by-point in an article , drawing analogy with the well-documented use of PR by the Tobacco industry faced with financially disastrous scientific findings, to manufacture doubt, rather than by to establish the facts. He quotes their stated aim of fostering confusion.

“Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public.”

Three signatories of the original piece Richard Lindzen, William Happer and an ex-ExxonMobil manager of Strategic Planning & Programs Roger W. Cohen responded to Nordhaus' comments, and Nordhaus replied to the three's response..

See Merchants of Doubt and Requiem for a Species for some background. 99.181.150.169 (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

You're repeating yourself. And the question is why should this be included? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Here are the references ...

• Claude Allègre et al., “ No Need to Panic About Global Warming,” The Wall Street Journal, January 27, 2012; “ Concerned Scientists Reply on Global Warming”
• http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/ Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong March 22, 2012 by Nordhaus regarding climate change denial
• http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/apr/26/climate-casino-exchange/ In the Climate Casino: An Exchange in April 26, 2012 New York Review of Books

for clarity. 22:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.181.155.96 (talk)

Almost everyone is criticized, and, if the criticism is published in a newspaper or magazine, most publications allow the person criticized to reply. I don't see that the fact that he has published replies to published criticism is at all notable. The criticism might be notable, and others' comment on the criticism might also be notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

And the ExxonMobil reference is gratuitous information. As well list some of the other companies or organizations he's been associated with. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Exxon is per the source, otherwise there isn't another association. Grasping at straws. 108.195.138.38 (talk) 05:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

This edit war is at the point where WP:3RR is out the window. I've removed the material (since it is clearly a point of contention and might be an issue of WP:UNDUE) and have semi-protected the article. I advise all parties to come to a consensus here or using one of the dispute resolution channels. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is some background on Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming/Archive 26#WSJ Opinion, if useful. with [1] as a connector. 99.181.142.87 (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't suggest relevance here, only there and possibly on the pages of the "scientists". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

(od) This article Attacks on climate science by former NASA staff shouldn't be taken seriously referenced in Skeptic (U.S. magazine) April 12, 2012 Denialists don the authority of NASA. Fail. writes about the Street Journal 16 article also. 108.73.113.91 (talk) 08:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. Doesn't suggest relevance here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Combination of articles, including the nybooks.com ones, are a group even if published on different months. Thus they should be kept together for the reader. 99.109.127.226 (talk) 08:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

That marginally suggests the removal of the others, not the addition of this one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not following your view Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin, please elaborate more. 99.109.124.95 (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the point. I ask whether there is anyone else who doesn't understand my argument that replies to criticism should not be listed unless particularly important to the subject. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

(od) It would be more efficient to ask who does ... 99.181.143.128 (talk) 03:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

As you are the only one who has commented, both show signs of efficiency. (Yes, all you IPs are clearly the same person.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

So you are confirming that no one understands your argument. 99.181.132.75 (talk) 05:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

No. I'm confirming you don't understand my argument. Nobody else seems to agree with you about anything here.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The only non-IP I see is you Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin. If someone doesn't understand, attempt to explain yourself again. Find a better approach. 99.181.143.14 (talk) 02:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

True. The only editor other than me, here, is you. I'd suggest WP:3O, except you would claim not to be the same person. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

References

Another addition to articles by Nordhaus

• Energy: Friend or Enemy? 27.October.2012 in The New York Review of Books 99.181.146.181 (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. Review Talk:William Nordhaus above ... 99.181.130.223 (talk) 04:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Continue conversation string?

• The Climate Contrarians August 16, 2012 by S. Fred Singer, reply by William D. Nordhaus

108.73.112.111 (talk) 04:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of climate economics

Just listened to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmD79GNVPNs Prof. Steve Keen presents: “What Economists Don’t Know about Climate Science Can Kill Us”

https://carbontracker.org/reports/loading-the-dice-against-pensions/ Rpauli (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)