Worst argument ever

This sort of thing is what gives economics a bad name.

As soon as have settled down and have some time I will post a more reasoned response.

UPDATE: I can't find the time to rebut so many ignorant statement. Brad Johnson has done some of the heavy lifting. But really, if this doesn't make it clear how out of touch the authors is, I don't know what will.

More like this

As any reader of this blog knows, I was for a while very critical of the Washington Post editorial page amid the George Will affair. Now, my view has changed. Today the Post publishes, replete with links to many scientific sources, my op-ed answering three claims Will made in his now infamous "Dark…
William Ford has the latest news on Lott's lawsuit against Levitt: Levitt and HarperCollins have filed motions to dismiss the case. Some new snippets of information(from the Joint Initial Status Report): Lott wrote Levitt on January 11, 2006 requesting that he correct his claims that Lott invented…
Magnitude 6.6 earthquake on Big Island. Sounds like Kona and Waikiki got the brunt of it. Anyone heard if there is damage on the mountain? All the telescopes ok? The Keck mountain web site seems to be down. UPDATE: sounds like minor telescope drive/mount damage at Keck 2 - see Brad Holden's…
BP's Statistical Review of World Energy published last week boldly stated we have enough oil. Specifically, there is enough proven oil reserves to last us 40 years. The Oil Depletion Analysis Centre in London disagrees as you might expected from their name. They say we are doomed that peak oil…

"There will always be unintended consequences."
"100 years is a long time in the industrial age"
"There is an extremely high chance that the very nature of human society itself will have changed by that time in ways that render this entire issue moot."

Yeah, right: pollute now, wreck the whole Earth now, and let the problems take care of themselves sometimes later...

Brilliant!

Yeah, that's creepy. Uh, note for James H: it isn't the worst grammar ever, but "worse argument ever" looks like it should read "worst argument ever." Could be used to belittle your point by association. (Well, it just could imply something worse ever than some unspecified example, but otherwise ... ;-)

Gee. We can't wait for a pseudojournalist zombie believer to regurgitate the latest slop he ate on the Internet for lunch. Class idiot.

By Hockey Schtik (not verified) on 02 Dec 2011 #permalink

And we should rapidly develop resources we know will cause tremendous damage because, say, putting photovoltaic panels on top of all government buildings and requiring 50 mpg in cars won't create jobs, right?

By John Krehbiel (not verified) on 04 Dec 2011 #permalink

Most of the commenters on the original article (32 as of my visit) have let him have it. They expose the flaws in the argument.

What scares me is that this is exactly the kind of thing the Koch Bros, Exxon, et al will spend gazillions of dollars plastering front-page national media with, while the people who know better (and don't have Bill-Gates-level money to throw around) are reduced to pointing out the harm of such obvious Big Fossil Fuel a**-kissing in the comments. The big op-ed pieces will get more public face time than any of the comments, so once again, totally harmful and vindictive corporate destructiveness will win.

Speaking of dirty fuel providing jobs, the author of the article obviously wants one writing denialist propaganda for Big Fossil Fuel/ Koch bros.