Jesper Roine tries in his op-ed hit three birds with one stone by bundling together and collectively dismiss my, Haikola with fleras and Max Jernecks earlier critical observations by William Nordhaus prize. I can admit that I don’t feel so worst hit by the Roines criticism, but it is anyway a good opportunity to clarify a few key points that will be overshadowed in his post.

It is particularly important to emphasise in this context is that several world leading economists expressed detailed and hard-nosed scientific criticism of Nordhaus’s work. A criticism that also specifically focuses on the question of the right Nordhaus methods, and the degree to which these can really be regarded as scientifically sound. These critical economic heavyweights, with Martin Weitzman (Harvard) and Robert Pindyck (MIT) in the lead, has strongly argued that the Nordhaus models to a high degree are based on arbitrary assumptions, which makes it morally questionable to claim that his works have any value beyond the pure tankeexperimentets.

in Addition, they argue that Nordhaus scientific the time, “how can we ensure that climate change does not harm economic growth?”, is a dangerous starting point for klimatekonomiskt work. Instead, the economists turn on the perspective and rather examine what the economic cost is likely to be to ensure that we avoid a global climate catastrophe.

, and not mentioned with a word in the over 50-page prismotivationen. As many informed commentators have pointed out, it was relatively expected, almost inevitable, with a price to climate economics sooner or later. What was surprising, was rather to this price, then it is now given, not also shared by some of the world’s leading klimatekonomer who have a different perspective or other points of departure than the growth-fundamentalistiske Nordhaus.

in Order to finally focus on the specific criticism Roine has against my previous post, so, he brings in their arguments forward that I have in my op-ed in Aftonbladet 14/10 wrote that ”[Nordhaus] consistently sought to convince politicians not to act decisively against climate change, because this, in his view, this would risk damaging the economic growth.” Roine mean that I will with this comment incorrectly claims that Nordhaus believes that an unregulated market can solve the problem of carbon emissions. It is strange, because I do not claim any such thing in the quote and not someone else. It is true is just to Nordhaus, just as I point out in the quote above, for several decades, called on politicians not to adopt such strong measures against climate change as most climate experts believe is necessary.

for Example, the previously mentioned Martin Weitzman pointed out that Nordhaus’s recommendation of a slow escalation of the action on climate change is preferable to the rapid and forceful actions are not less than a ”game of chance”, based on a non-scientific ”article of faith” that people in the future much more painless will be able to ask about than we who are living today – which of course does not mean anything other than passing on the problems of today on to future generations. In this context it is also interesting to note that the work that is faithful to Nordhaus grundföresatser in a Swedish context, been used to argue against Sweden’s existing carbon tax, on the grounds that it would be too high in relation to the Nordhaus and followers ‘ conclusions.

To misstänkliggöra the that initiates a substantive critical debate on such an important issue as the ongoing climate cataclysm is strange and dangerous. It really is alarming in this context is how the prize committee for the prize in economic sciences has chosen to conceal the serious scientific criticism that exists against the Nordhaus work. By ignoring this legitimate scientific criticism to abandon the tradition of candid and critical examination of modern science is based on. It really is to play klimatförnekarna in the hands.