19 ms·

Krugman on the Climate Change Conspiracy

18 points by onlyafly 17y ago

pjkundert 17y ago
> Climate change poses a clear and present danger to our way of life. How can anyone justify failing to act? Virtually complete predictive failure over the better part of the last decade. How can anyone justify acting?
- jbrun 17y ago
  I tried to explain the same thing on my blog a while back, I would be interested in getting your two cents: http://www.nimonik.ca/2009/05/global-warming-models-are-inherently-flawed/ http://www.nimonik.ca/2009/05/global-warming-models-are-inhe... thanks in advance.
- SamAtt 17y ago
  For the most part I agree with you. But I'm a big believer in "better safe than sorry" and in that spirit I'd like to see some sensible change. The problem with an extreme position like "the world is going to end" is it makes those who don't agree with you instinctively jump to the opposite extreme. The truth is the United States had been steadily making progress on reducing our impact on the planet all the way through the Clinton administration. It was only when the Global Warming nuts popped up that the Conservative side felt the need to throw on the brakes. Now we have two irrational extreme's competing against each other.
  - TrevorJ 17y ago
    I think the likelihood that one of our 'solutions' creates a greater problem than we had in the first place needs to be factored into the risk/reward analysis.
jswinghammer 17y ago
I'll never understand why those who argue that there's such a serious problem with climate change also seem to not want to debate the topic much. If this is just a matter of science then shouldn't the facts speak loudly enough that those who argue to the contrary wouldn't have much to say at all? And why all the pressure to force through this issue through Congress without proper time for review? Weren't Democrats mad about it when Bush did that for the Patriot Act? I think they were correct in this objection but now they don't seem to mind as much. I don't know if Krugman is right or wrong about climate change but one thing is pretty clear to me: If you're arguing about science using words like treason and betrayal is out of line. I'd be interested to know if someone who believes that global warming is something that requires our immediate attention can explain why arguing against it so dangerous.
- TriinT 17y ago
  "I'd be interested to know if someone who believes that global warming is something that requires our immediate attention can explain why arguing against it so dangerous." Because the global warming hysteria is an ideology, not Science. You can't argue against über-dogmatic fanatics who know nothing about Science. If they knew about Science, they would know that "global warming" is a meaningless, stupid name. Understanding the global climate is an infinite-dimensional problem, and one just can't reduce all that complexity to one single bit. Moreover, "climate change" is also retarded. Call it "global climate crisis" or something.
  - ramidarigaz 17y ago
    The facts about climate change are so obscured from the public view that it often seems to be an ideology, as you put it. About the naming though, I wouldn't say that 'climate change' is a retarded way of putting it, because it describes what is happening quite accurately, but I do like your way of putting it. 'Global climate crisis' seems to capture the problem much better.
    - TriinT 17y ago
      The climate is described by the laws of Physics and Chemistry. And also Biology. These have NOT changed. The phenomena have not changed. The dynamics haven't changed. What may have changed are the inputs: more CO2 emissions, more CO2 and methane emitted by the biosphere, more intense solar radiation. If the weather is a dynamical system, it is (by definition) always changing. Moreover, "change" only means things are not static. It does not quantify how much things have become different. Better call it a crisis because the measures being proposed to fight the problem suggest that, indeed, this is a crisis.
      - mighty 17y ago
        Look up "climate" and "weather" before you make silly arguments about what can be claimed about them.
TriinT 17y ago
Krugman is a dismal scientist (a.k.a. economist), not a real scientist. His pedantry and demagogy are too much to bear. He can't even predict the effects of economic policy and now he's trying to predict the weather? What next? Contrary to popular belief, the ice caps are not shriking all the time. Sure, they were shrinking really fast some years ago, and everyone went hysterical because of the rising sea levels and drowning polar bears. But when the ice caps started growing again, no one said a thing. If that isn't cherry-picking, I don't know what is.
- quoderat 17y ago
  Your data is wrong. Did you even bother to check? http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic_thinice.html http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic_thinice.htm... "Until recently, the majority of Arctic sea ice survived at least one summer and often several. But things have changed dramatically, according to a team of University of Colorado, Boulder, scientists led by Charles Fowler. Thin seasonal ice -- ice that melts and re-freezes every year -- makes up about 70 percent of the Arctic sea ice in wintertime, up from 40 to 50 percent in the 1980s and 1990s. Thicker ice, which survives two or more years, now comprises just 10 percent of wintertime ice cover, down from 30 to 40 percent. According to researchers from the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo., the maximum sea ice extent for 2008-09, reached on Feb. 28, was 5.85 million square miles. That is 278,000 square miles less than the average extent for 1979 to 2000." And yep, parts (but only parts) of the Antarctic ice cap are growing -- but guess why? Warmer air creating more snowfall. You people are hopeless. Data, facts, evidence -- none of it sways you. It's like some religion.
  - TriinT 17y ago
    Funny, but the data I had told a rather different story. Gonna look for the URLs to back it up and I will be right back. "None of it sways you" -> please spare me of your attacks. They don't add anything to the discussion and they only weaken your point.
    - quoderat 17y ago
hvs 17y ago
Krugman should take his own words to heart when it comes to economics. But if you watched the debate on Friday, you didn’t see people who’ve thought hard about a crucial issue, and are trying to do the right thing. What you saw, instead, were people who show no sign of being interested in the truth. They don’t like the political and policy implications of climate change, so they’ve decided not to believe in it — and they’ll grab any argument, no matter how disreputable, that feeds their denial. This exactly describes the way he treats any free-market argument.
- gabrielroth 17y ago
  If that's true, you should have no problem posting an example rather than just asserting.
- davetufts 17y ago
  Where's the free-market? Has the free-market taken us to multiple wars over the past 20-years with countries that have large oil reserves so oil can keep flowing in our direction? Has the free-market kept interest rates far below reality, allowing us to go on a massive consumption binge? Does the free-market regulate agriculture, discouraging small farms in favor of massive CAFOs? Does the free-market subsidize huge agri-business to produce more corn than we can possibly use? It's these unchanging economic and foreign policies that encourage waste, consumption, and addiction to fossil fuels, which, in turn, have a negative effect on our planet.
rmason 17y ago
Krugman can't be taken seriously. To call opponents "deniers" is to immediately concede a rational discussion. I heard the hysterical arguments in college back in the early seventies about global cooling. This group is no more legimate, but much savvier politically.

18 points by onlyafly 17y ago

> Climate change poses a clear and present danger to our way of life. How can anyone justify failing to act? Virtually complete predictive failure over the better part of the last decade. How can anyone justify acting?

jbrun 17y ago
I tried to explain the same thing on my blog a while back, I would be interested in getting your two cents: http://www.nimonik.ca/2009/05/global-warming-models-are-inherently-flawed/ http://www.nimonik.ca/2009/05/global-warming-models-are-inhe... thanks in advance.
SamAtt 17y ago
For the most part I agree with you. But I'm a big believer in "better safe than sorry" and in that spirit I'd like to see some sensible change. The problem with an extreme position like "the world is going to end" is it makes those who don't agree with you instinctively jump to the opposite extreme. The truth is the United States had been steadily making progress on reducing our impact on the planet all the way through the Clinton administration. It was only when the Global Warming nuts popped up that the Conservative side felt the need to throw on the brakes. Now we have two irrational extreme's competing against each other.
- TrevorJ 17y ago
  I think the likelihood that one of our 'solutions' creates a greater problem than we had in the first place needs to be factored into the risk/reward analysis.

jswinghammer 17y ago

I'll never understand why those who argue that there's such a serious problem with climate change also seem to not want to debate the topic much. If this is just a matter of science then shouldn't the facts speak loudly enough that those who argue to the contrary wouldn't have much to say at all? And why all the pressure to force through this issue through Congress without proper time for review? Weren't Democrats mad about it when Bush did that for the Patriot Act? I think they were correct in this objection but now they don't seem to mind as much. I don't know if Krugman is right or wrong about climate change but one thing is pretty clear to me: If you're arguing about science using words like treason and betrayal is out of line. I'd be interested to know if someone who believes that global warming is something that requires our immediate attention can explain why arguing against it so dangerous.

TriinT 17y ago
"I'd be interested to know if someone who believes that global warming is something that requires our immediate attention can explain why arguing against it so dangerous." Because the global warming hysteria is an ideology, not Science. You can't argue against über-dogmatic fanatics who know nothing about Science. If they knew about Science, they would know that "global warming" is a meaningless, stupid name. Understanding the global climate is an infinite-dimensional problem, and one just can't reduce all that complexity to one single bit. Moreover, "climate change" is also retarded. Call it "global climate crisis" or something.
- ramidarigaz 17y ago
  The facts about climate change are so obscured from the public view that it often seems to be an ideology, as you put it. About the naming though, I wouldn't say that 'climate change' is a retarded way of putting it, because it describes what is happening quite accurately, but I do like your way of putting it. 'Global climate crisis' seems to capture the problem much better.
  - TriinT 17y ago
    The climate is described by the laws of Physics and Chemistry. And also Biology. These have NOT changed. The phenomena have not changed. The dynamics haven't changed. What may have changed are the inputs: more CO2 emissions, more CO2 and methane emitted by the biosphere, more intense solar radiation. If the weather is a dynamical system, it is (by definition) always changing. Moreover, "change" only means things are not static. It does not quantify how much things have become different. Better call it a crisis because the measures being proposed to fight the problem suggest that, indeed, this is a crisis.
    - mighty 17y ago
      Look up "climate" and "weather" before you make silly arguments about what can be claimed about them.

TriinT 17y ago

Krugman is a dismal scientist (a.k.a. economist), not a real scientist. His pedantry and demagogy are too much to bear. He can't even predict the effects of economic policy and now he's trying to predict the weather? What next? Contrary to popular belief, the ice caps are not shriking all the time. Sure, they were shrinking really fast some years ago, and everyone went hysterical because of the rising sea levels and drowning polar bears. But when the ice caps started growing again, no one said a thing. If that isn't cherry-picking, I don't know what is.

quoderat 17y ago
Your data is wrong. Did you even bother to check? http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic_thinice.html http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic_thinice.htm... "Until recently, the majority of Arctic sea ice survived at least one summer and often several. But things have changed dramatically, according to a team of University of Colorado, Boulder, scientists led by Charles Fowler. Thin seasonal ice -- ice that melts and re-freezes every year -- makes up about 70 percent of the Arctic sea ice in wintertime, up from 40 to 50 percent in the 1980s and 1990s. Thicker ice, which survives two or more years, now comprises just 10 percent of wintertime ice cover, down from 30 to 40 percent. According to researchers from the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo., the maximum sea ice extent for 2008-09, reached on Feb. 28, was 5.85 million square miles. That is 278,000 square miles less than the average extent for 1979 to 2000." And yep, parts (but only parts) of the Antarctic ice cap are growing -- but guess why? Warmer air creating more snowfall. You people are hopeless. Data, facts, evidence -- none of it sways you. It's like some religion.
- TriinT 17y ago
  Funny, but the data I had told a rather different story. Gonna look for the URLs to back it up and I will be right back. "None of it sways you" -> please spare me of your attacks. They don't add anything to the discussion and they only weaken your point.
  - quoderat 17y ago

hvs 17y ago

Krugman should take his own words to heart when it comes to economics. But if you watched the debate on Friday, you didn’t see people who’ve thought hard about a crucial issue, and are trying to do the right thing. What you saw, instead, were people who show no sign of being interested in the truth. They don’t like the political and policy implications of climate change, so they’ve decided not to believe in it — and they’ll grab any argument, no matter how disreputable, that feeds their denial. This exactly describes the way he treats any free-market argument.

gabrielroth 17y ago
If that's true, you should have no problem posting an example rather than just asserting.
davetufts 17y ago
Where's the free-market? Has the free-market taken us to multiple wars over the past 20-years with countries that have large oil reserves so oil can keep flowing in our direction? Has the free-market kept interest rates far below reality, allowing us to go on a massive consumption binge? Does the free-market regulate agriculture, discouraging small farms in favor of massive CAFOs? Does the free-market subsidize huge agri-business to produce more corn than we can possibly use? It's these unchanging economic and foreign policies that encourage waste, consumption, and addiction to fossil fuels, which, in turn, have a negative effect on our planet.

rmason 17y ago

Krugman can't be taken seriously. To call opponents "deniers" is to immediately concede a rational discussion. I heard the hysterical arguments in college back in the early seventies about global cooling. This group is no more legimate, but much savvier politically.