Comments on: Discipline envy http://www.carboncommentary.com/2009/12/17/1059 A critical appraisal of issues in the move to a low-carbon economy Tue, 27 Jul 2010 21:59:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Vinny Burgoo http://www.carboncommentary.com/2009/12/17/1059/comment-page-1#comment-2789 Vinny Burgoo Wed, 23 Dec 2009 21:27:21 +0000 http://www.carboncommentary.com/?p=1059#comment-2789 An enjoyable (and even plausible) hypothesis but economists are such an easy target. Wouldn't it be more productive to hypothesize about why those who are most alarmed by global warming are more likely to be women than men? It would certainly be braver. It might even be more scientific. Richard Black got halfway there when he wrote that 'The genders were roughly equally represented in the middle groupings [of the poll by the Center for American Progress], but at the margins the divide was absolutely stark', but thereafter he discussed only one of the stark margins, the one where stark staring men cluster to be 'dismissive' about global warming. At the other stark margin - the 'alarmed' - women predominate (61% female, 39% male). Why didn't he choose to comment on this? Why didn't you? Why does nobody find this finding as interesting as they find the one about AGW dismissives being mostly male (63%)? Is it because one stark margin isn't really as stark as the other? Or that the silliness of marginal men (and economists) can be discussed in public but not that of marginal women? Or something else entirely? Regards An enjoyable (and even plausible) hypothesis but economists are such an easy target. Wouldn’t it be more productive to hypothesize about why those who are most alarmed by global warming are more likely to be women than men? It would certainly be braver. It might even be more scientific.

Richard Black got halfway there when he wrote that ‘The genders were roughly equally represented in the middle groupings [of the poll by the Center for American Progress], but at the margins the divide was absolutely stark’, but thereafter he discussed only one of the stark margins, the one where stark staring men cluster to be ‘dismissive’ about global warming. At the other stark margin – the ‘alarmed’ – women predominate (61% female, 39% male).

Why didn’t he choose to comment on this? Why didn’t you? Why does nobody find this finding as interesting as they find the one about AGW dismissives being mostly male (63%)?

Is it because one stark margin isn’t really as stark as the other? Or that the silliness of marginal men (and economists) can be discussed in public but not that of marginal women? Or something else entirely?

Regards

]]> By: Chris Goodall http://www.carboncommentary.com/2009/12/17/1059/comment-page-1#comment-2777 Chris Goodall Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:26:13 +0000 http://www.carboncommentary.com/?p=1059#comment-2777 Kaihsu, How right you are. Part of the problem is the supposed identity between neoclassical economics and economics tout court. For all his greatness, Samuelson has a lot to answer for. Kaihsu,

How right you are. Part of the problem is the supposed identity between neoclassical economics and economics tout court. For all his greatness, Samuelson has a lot to answer for.

]]> By: Kaihsu Tai http://www.carboncommentary.com/2009/12/17/1059/comment-page-1#comment-2775 Kaihsu Tai Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:21:32 +0000 http://www.carboncommentary.com/?p=1059#comment-2775 Thanks for this insightful piece. For ‘economists’ read ‘neoclassical economists’ and I am totally with you. There are a few exceptions to your characterization, for example, Karl Marx, Joseph Schumpeter, and our own Fritz Schumacher. Thanks for this insightful piece.

For ‘economists’ read ‘neoclassical economists’ and I am totally with you. There are a few exceptions to your characterization, for example, Karl Marx, Joseph Schumpeter, and our own Fritz Schumacher.

]]>