Krugman on the Climate Change Conspiracy

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29krugman.html?em

by onlyafly • 17 years ago

18 51 17 years ago

nytimes.com

pjkundert• 17 years 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• 17 years 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-inhe...

thanks in advance.

SamAtt• 17 years 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• 17 years 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• 17 years 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.

TriinT11• 17 years 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• 17 years 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.

Tichy4• 17 years ago

"one just can't reduce all that complexity to one single bit."

Seems to me that either the temperature is rising or it is not. Perfectly suitable for one bit of information.

The reasoning for determining the value of said bit is another matter, but I think your argument does not make sense. Unless the climate is stuck in some sort of weird quantum entanglement.

Retric4• 17 years ago

seem to not want to debate the topic much

Let's say you are a pilot in an airplane at 30,000 feet and the fuel gage reads 20 minutes from empty. For how long are you willing to debate with your copilot that we need to declare an emergency and land right now? What if the gage is just broken and you think you have 20 minutes of fuel left?

At some point people that feel there is a problem will want to act. And the global worming debate is 20+ years old.

PS: "IPCC First Assessment Report 1990" The panel was established in 1988. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific intergovernmental body[1][2] tasked to evaluate the risk of climate change caused by human activity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_First_Assessment_Report

nazgulnarsil3• 17 years ago

right, but immediate death isn't on the line. a decrease in our standard of living over the next 50 years is on the line. since spending billions of dollars decreases our standard of living as well there is a valid debate: which course decreases our standard of living less?

anamax• 17 years ago

> Let's say you are a pilot in an airplane at 30,000 feet and the fuel gage reads 20 minutes from empty.

If that were actually the situation, you'd land at the airport 10 minutes away. If you don't, I'd wonder about what you're telling me about the gauge.

If the folks who claim to be so concerned and informed about climate change were serious, we'd be breaking ground on a new nuclear power plant every week or so and we'd be completing them in 2 years.

Instead, we're thinking about breaking ground for some several years from now and the way the regs are set up, those won't get approved when they reach the decision point. The planned construction time also exceeds what could easily be achieved by someone who wanted power soon.

The US gets 20% of its electricity from nuclear. France gets over 70%. Moreover, if we had a huge surplus of electricity, we could start using it for more things.

Instead, we're passing out subsidies to the politically connected.

If you want people to think that climate change is a serious problem, you have to act as if it is. The AGW folks aren't and never have.

nollidge• 17 years ago

If you're arguing about science using words like treason and betrayal is out of line.

Sure, if you're just arguing about science. Once words like "hoax" and "conspiracy" are thrown about, however, we're not talking about the science anymore.

gort• 17 years 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."

Debates just make both sides seem reasonable. Witness how many people in the U.S. take creationism seriously, for instance.

ETA: Robin Hanson once wrote about this effect: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/04/why-refuse-to-debate.h...

mistermann• 17 years ago

So, the argument against the sky is falling is not "reasonable"? I think you just proved his point.

Tichy4• 17 years ago

Maybe because you grow tired of silly arguments being repeated over and over again. I don't know much about climate science, but for example I think I know enough about evolution theory to be able to debunk the arguments of the creationists. Yet creationists won't give in - clearly reasoning is useless with them after a point. After a while I even suspect that the "opposing side" might have hired some people just to be obnoxious and bind the resources of "my side".

For example I felt it was sad when all new books by evolution researchers stared to be 50% arguing against the same old tired creationist arguments. I felt the energy would have been better spent advancing the science.

TriinT11• 17 years 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.

quoderat3• 17 years ago

Your data is wrong. Did you even bother to check?

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.

TriinT11• 17 years 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.

mlinsey2• 17 years ago

I'm not a climate scientist (though a big problem with this issue is it requires lots of non-climate scientists to formulate opinions about climate science), but this post definitely doesn't deserve to be downvoted for linking scientific research, even with the commentary in the last paragraph.

bokonist3• 17 years ago

Total sea ice is as high as ever: 'On a global basis, world sea ice in April 2008 reached levels that were "unprecedented" for the month of April in over 25 years.' source: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3066

Could warming have caused ice to melt in the northern hemisphere and grow in the Antartic? It's possible, but the explanation starts smelling like a "just so story". The explanation by NASA that the loss of Artic Ice is caused by cyclical changes in global wind patterns seems to better fit the facts. (see http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-200... and http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/10/03/nh-sea-ice-loss-its-th... )

You people are hopeless. Data, facts, evidence -- none of it sways you. It's like some religion.

Please, let's stop with the personal attacks.

hvs• 17 years 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• 17 years ago

If that's true, you should have no problem posting an example rather than just asserting.

davetufts• 17 years 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• 17 years 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.

Krugman on the Climate Change Conspiracy

Related Stories