If you can’t prove he wrote this it’s FAKE NEWS and should be deleted
Ken Judd on Nordhaus
-
He posted it in Facebook (Tue 11:30PM EST). As of my posting, there are 19 comments. First one is from Lones Smith asking about how the error may have impacted the recent UN report. I have a lot of respect for Ken but his answer to Lones was something to the effect of “it doesn’t matter whether results are sensitive to the error or not; the point is the math is wrong!” At least that’s how I interpreted it. I don’t know exactly what the issue with the DICE model is and I’m not too sure that it is just blatantly about assuming time traveling CO2. It’s probably something more complicated than that.
-
If true, this is classic Ken. Finds an error in somebody's code, s**ts on him in public instead of letting the guy know. It's good that errors are tracked down, but there's no need to be so aggressive and narcissistic. The deeper issue is that model error is orders of magnitude higher than the computational precision questions he's obsessed about.
He's very entertaining though.
-
A lot of leib**sh*eits here are missing the point, and trying to shoot the messenger.
The point is that Nordhaus is a hack who does not deserve anything close to a Nobel prize for this environmentarded propaganda.
Ken Judd, whom I do not know, is just the messenger bringing you the news.
-
so here are the facts:
1. It is Judd (via Facebook)
2. Time travelling used to be in the code of DICE2007. If you find it on the web, search for MATAV, which takes the average of future and present emissions to warm up temperature today.
3. First thing he did was contact Nordhaus.
4. Judd knows a lot about maths and economics but he just plays his cards completely wrong. -
Is Per Stromberg still the chair of the Nobel committee? Basically just a guy that could not make tenure at Chicago (nothing wrong with that - most of us couldn’t get there), was banned for an extended period from ssrn for downloading his own papers, moved back to Sweden, and hasn’t done much research since. Strange they don’t have a different chair?
-
I informed Nordhaus of our findings before the piece was published. He did not contest our results or arguments. I often tell people about the errors in their paper before their paper is published. I have observed that standard practice is to ignore my criticisms, and publish their paper with the errors. These are in cases where they acknowledge receiving my criticisms before publication. Werning did not send me his paper attacking the Chamley-Judd result before submitting it to AER. Could someone tell me what the rules are?If true, this is classic Ken. Finds an error in somebody's code, s**ts on him in public instead of letting the guy know. It's good that errors are tracked down, but there's no need to be so aggressive and narcissistic. The deeper issue is that model error is orders of magnitude higher than the computational precision questions he's obsessed about.
He's very entertaining though.
-
so here are the facts:
1. It is Judd (via Facebook)
2. Time travelling used to be in the code of DICE2007. If you find it on the web, search for MATAV, which takes the average of future and present emissions to warm up temperature today.
3. First thing he did was contact Nordhaus.
4. Judd knows a lot about maths and economics but he just plays his cards completely wrong.Thank you. Here is the webpage that we constructed that contains a discussion of the issues.
https://sites.google.com/site/dicenvsdicecjl/
My intention is to write up a paper that goes over these details. The US government (two guys at EPA) published a response to our piece. It is ..... well, it is government work.
Yes, I played my cards poorly. I have learned to trust no one. -
If true, this is classic Ken. Finds an error in somebody's code, s**ts on him in public instead of letting the guy know. It's good that errors are tracked down, but there's no need to be so aggressive and narcissistic. The deeper issue is that model error is orders of magnitude higher than the computational precision questions he's obsessed about.
He's very entertaining though.I informed Nordhaus of our findings before the piece was published. He did not contest our results or arguments. I often tell people about the errors in their paper before their paper is published. I have observed that standard practice is to ignore my criticisms, and publish their paper with the errors. These are in cases where they acknowledge receiving my criticisms before publication. Werning did not send me his paper attacking the Chamley-Judd result before submitting it to AER. Could someone tell me what the rules are?
The rules are that many (perhaps most) in the profession treat publishing as a hustle and they really don’t care whether papers in top journals are correct. Staying quiet about errors is apparently an unspoken agreement among people in the profession, which you’ve broken.
-
"I often tell people about the errors in their paper before their paper is published. I have observed that standard practice is to ignore my criticisms, and publish their paper with the errors. These are in cases where they acknowledge receiving my criticisms before publication.... Could someone tell me what the rules are?"
The rule is that if the error makes any difference, you fix it and thank the person who found it. I think you should also thank the person if it didn't require any rewriting, but was correct.
Don't attribute to malice what might be due to forgetfulness or procrastination, though. Try writing Nordaus again, letting him know that you wrote this in EJMR and you'll publish a clarification if you got it wrong, or you're willing to post something he writes. Ask him if you can quote his email back. Tell him you'll post that he didn't write back, if he doesn't.