I don’ t know what sort of world NYT reporters live in, but I am now convinced that some like Paul Krugman have no clue about the real world people live in elsewhere.
‘This Week” with George Stephanopoulos debates ClimateGate – more here
Noel Sheppard over at Newsbusters provides some video and transcript of a debate between Paul Krugman of the NYT and Washington Post columnist George Will.
When I read what Paul Krugman said, I laughed out loud. He’s truly clueless.
Here’s the context:
WILL: Speaking of the marketplace, the biggest industry in the world right now may be fighting climate change. There are billions, trillions of dollars on the table, and when you say, well, they are academics and they are scientists and they talk in funny ways — academics are human beings, and the enormous incentive to get on the bandwagon on global warming, the financial incentive, the market driving this, is huge.
KRUGMAN: There is tremendously more money in being a skeptic than there is in being a supporter.
WILL: Hardly.
KRUGMAN: It’s so much easier, come on. You got the energy industry’s behind it. There are 20 times as many believers as there are skeptics in the scientific community. They get almost equal time in the media.
(CROSSTALK)
WILL: Is there a larger venture capital firm in this country than the Energy Department of this government, which right now is sending out billions and billions of dollars in speculation on green energy?
Noel Sheppard writes:
Skeptics get almost equal time in the media? Yeah, that’s why this appears to be the first time ABC addressed this ClimateGate issue.
As for there being more money in being a skeptic than there is in supporting this myth, the facts say otherwise.
The Science and Public Policy Institute issued a report on the money involved in funding the global warming debate in August concluding, “Over the last two decades, US taxpayers have subsidized the American climate change industry to the tune of $79 billion.”
By contrast, the same study found that the media bogeyman “Exxon Mobil gave a mere $23 million, spread over ten years, to climate sceptics.”
See the video and transcript at Newsbusters
UPDATE: Professor Don Easterbrook left this comment on the ABC news site:
I’ve spent 4 decades studying global climate change and as a scientist I am appalled at Krugman’s cavalier shrugging off the Hadley email scandal as ‘just the way scientists talk among themselves.’ That’s like saying it’s alright for politicians to be corrupt because that’s the way they are. Legitimate scientists do not doctor data, delete data they don’t like, hide data they don’t want seen, hijack the peer review process, personally attack other scientists whose views differ from theirs, send fraudulent data to the IPCC that is used to perpetuate the greatest hoax in the history science, provide false data to further legislation on climate change that will result in huge profits for corrupt lobbyists and politicians, and tell outright lies about scientific data.
Posted by: Don Easterbrook | Nov 29, 2009 1:57:05 PM
And You STILL have Global warming adverts, courtesy of Google and Al gore on this website
I think we need to stop considering the NYT as a legitimate source of news 😉
Krugman is a pretty smart guy, but his rants against George Bush (justified or otherwise) eventually got waaay over the top. Maybe that’s where he became disconnected from reality. ;-> Geo. Bush did it!
I’m still awaiting my money from the energy industry. It maybe it’s lost in the mail, but I’m sure it will arrive any day now.
On the rise of a science bureaucracy – and, more to this point, its cozy relationship with mainstream media and science journalism – see “The war on the weather”:
http://vulgarmorality.wordpress.com/2009/11/29/the-war-on-the-weather/
Geez, somebody forgotten that I’ma denier too. where is my check?
I started to comment on Mr. Krugman, but everything I thought would have been “snipped”. So I’m going to snip myself and save the moderators time [snip]
When divided equally the so-called climate skeptic thinktanks were given around $50,000 dollars each by Exxon Mobil. That’s equal to the amount of money Lush’s (the cosmetics company) Mark Constantine gives to a few crazy university students every time they hijack an airstrip or attempt to trespass and cause damage to a coal factory.
Very funny, considering that Krugman used to be on Enron’s payroll. They paid him to write puff-pieces for them in the NYT.
It is nice to see Krugman exposing himself for the pathetic shill that he always has been.
Krugman is pathetic!
Suppressing opposing science is part of the of normal scientific process. Control of the peer review process is typical. Nothing to see here. Move on.
I was shocked when I heard he had won a Nobel prize, but we’ve seen what that means. All the time I thought he was just a NYT hack. Oh yeah, he is.
Krugman personifies the liberal who can reinterpret reality in order to fit his preconceived ideas.
AKA – He doesn’t have a clue.
Krugman is not a reporter; he is a columnist. For what it’s worth, I believe he also holds a Nobel Prize in Economics. He is an advocate for more taxes, more regulation and a larger government sector.
Wow. Skeptics are really raking it in. That’s why Anthony flies about in any one of his private jets, taking millions in speaking arrangements, millions in grants, millions in “anti-green” technology, millions in book deals, millions in movie deals. For shame! ‘Fess up, Anthony, just how many millions have you been paid to promote skepticism? C’mon, how many private jets do you own? All you other skeptics out there? It’s time you talked about the combined billions of dollars you’ve weasled out of the working man. Let’s hear about the trillions more you stand to gain once you’ve shot down AGW once and for all.
I just shed a tear for poor Al Gore (.etal) for the selfless work they’ve done, all to be ruined by the dirty money-grunging skeptics.
uh, Krugman’s not a reporter. Never been a reporter.
Not even much of a opinion columnist…
There is not one wash elite who has a grip on reality, it is what they say it is . How anyone thinks these insider dopes are competent is beyond me. Read the scientists review of the code and think.
You are right about the lamestream media, they live in what used to called their contrived cocoon world. And then along came the internet and it all came tumbling down. It’s only outfits like the NYTimes and YV News that didn’t get the memo. Van Jones — who? ACORN — did what? Climategate — what’s that?
Science itself is now on the brink, I sure hope enough respected scientists speak up and pull their profession back, before it goes over the cliff. If it goes over, the public will never again trust what is said in the name of science.
But to call people who inhabit sites like this, not real science people is demeaning to the whole of science itself. It’s just that we aren’t necessarily tethered to the grant bribery system of governments who are in it for the money. We are for the most part in it for the truth. At least I like to think I am.
Collaboration it is what the original gleam in the eye for the Internet really was … Back when my group was the 8th site hooked up to BBN.
Money for having sceptical views? Where? Where? Give me those Petrodollars!
/sarc
Why doesn’t Don Easterbrook tell it like it is ? LOL
As I said before to Dr. Curry…
You have to be completely buried in academia to fail to recognize that the AGW side has ALL of the power and money and that the “political noise machine” obstructing you has all the capacity to make noise of an ant trying to play a kazoo.
The Daily Telegraph and Mail were the only uk papers which have covered “Climategate”.
Now The Times Online
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936289.ece
Now The Daily Express has an angle
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/69623
Climategate back in Google autosuggestion. 13.1 million responses to search.
One of the World’s poorest selling books:
“Dummies Guide to making money as a Climate Skeptic”
So far, only one has been sold – to Krugman!
Krugman is a former advisor to Enron, the company that lobbied hard for energy credit trading.
We all know how that worked out.
Krugman.
Not related to Comical Ali by any chance?
He has an equal ability to make his mouth say anything, be it never so ludicrous.
The new name and motto for The New York Times are The New York Tunes, All The News That’s Fit To Orchestrate.
Whatever comes out of all this, I’m sure it’s Bush’s fault.
“I think we need to stop considering the NYT as a legitimate source of news ;-” — Manniac (13:52:51)
I’ve heard it called ‘The Walter Duranty Times’ in the past for his Pulitzer prize-winning, and fraudulent, writing on the Soviet Union.
And this guy’s giving economic advice?
Would this be the first mention of climategate on one of the big three networks?
Is there a Climategate page in wikipedia?
It truly is a different planet that Krugman lives on. To him, being a skeptic means believing that the seas will rise 2 meters in 2100 rather than 2080. The equal funding of both sides of the debate ?, How could he possibly believe that ?. Wait, he only reads newspapers and watches CNN. So much for the Information Age.
WRT comment at end of thread start about Krugman being ”truly clueless” on ClimateGate:
May I respectfully suggest that an expansion of that valid observation is in order; i.e.:
Krugman and people like him are DELIBERATELY and WILLFULLY clueless.
Manniac (13:52:51) :
I think we need to stop considering the NYT as a legitimate source of news 😉
Bird lovers all over depend on the NYT
Krugman is an economist, like Ross McKitrick and myself, not a reporter. This doesn’t disqualify him from being intelligent, but doesn’t ensure it either.
He also won last year’s Riksbank Prize in Economics in Memory of Alfred Nobel (not one of the original Nobel Prizes, but we tout it as one), but for his work on economies of scale in international trade, not for energy economics (or macro for that matter).
But then many other economists with very different views than Krugman have won the same prize, including Milton Friedman, F.A. Hayek, George Stigler, etc. Fortunately, he’s no longer the latest recipient.
Incidentially, when it comes to money, it’s interesting that James Hansen of NASA/GISS recently was awarded a quarter of a milllion dollars by the Heinz Foundation. His hands are literally red with ketchup money! Does this make him a shill for Teresa Heinz Kerry, or is he just lucky to be given money for doing what he thinks is important?
And Lonnie and Ellen Thompson just were given $1 million by the David Dan Foundation, whatever that is. Does this disqualify them from serious consideration for their work, or should it be judged on its scientific merits instead?
wws wrote above at 14:04:56,
I wasn’t aware of that! Can you provide some links?
Remember, like Gore., Mr Peanut and Arafat, Krugman is a Nobel man.
Paul Krugman leaves you wondering if all economists are equally corrupt as these “climate scientists.”
Re: Krugman/ Enron
From (hold your nose) Wikipaedia
“In early 1999, Krugman served on an advisory panel (including Larry Lindsey and Robert Zoellick) that offered Enron executives briefings on economic and political issues. He resigned from the panel in the fall of 1999 to comply with New York Times rules regarding conflicts of interest, when he accepted the Times’s offer to become an op-ed columnist.[106] Krugman later stated that he was paid $37,500 (not $50,000 as often reported – his early resignation cost him part of his fee), and that, for consulting that required him to spend four days in Houston, the fee was “rather low compared with my usual rates”, which were around $20,000 for a one-hour speech.[106] He also stated that the advisory panel “had no function that I was aware of”, and that he later interpreted his role as being “just another brick in the wall” Enron used to build an image.[107]
Krugman and his colleagues at the NYT will continue to either ignore or white wash climategate until it explodes . He has been particularly vociferous in his attack on skeptics . Hopefully , we will all see him eating crow in the next several months .
Classic Krugman. Don Luskin (and others) have been exposing this guy’s nonsense for years.
Sounds like some righteous hits on the bong behind that Pink Floyd allusion!
I think I have been rather erudite, eloquent, illuminating, and lucid regarding the issue of climate research. I’ll take my grant in 5’s and 10’s please.
Krugman is totally exposed as either:
1. A complete idiot.
2. A complete shill.
Their science writer is also in the pocket of the global warmers.
What a disgrace the NY Times is.
These people will never admit they are wrong. The liberals who supported Communism, the Rosenbergs, Alger Hiss, etc. never admitted they were wrong. They talk to each other and tell each other they are right or they were wrong for the right cause. Those people are just so sick. Liberalism is a mental illness.
BTW, Krugman lies. He says there were no smoking guns. How about Mann’s inflating the citation hits for one of his co-authors? That’s simple enough for even him to understand.
I don’t know if “LOL” is the best description. Whacked-out black helicopter/area 51/grassy knoll conspiracy kooky would be closer.
lookatthecode (13:46:08) :
And You STILL have Global warming adverts, courtesy of Google and Al gore on this website
…You should click on those ads. That’s money for this website.
nok (14:41:04) :
Is there a Climategate page in wikipedia?
…No. Can anyone do something about William Connolley at Wikipedia?
Maybe then someone could start posting the truth about the “Global Warming” fraud. Connolley is an AGW fanatic. A real information bridge-guarding troll.
Probably should have said unless it explodes . Sorry …
Yo, Exxon-Mobile, you can cut me a check anytime.
We’ll call it a skeptic-offset credit.
Right now I’m having trouble with the teller at the bank who fell off her chair laughing hysterically when I tried to deposit the fictitious check for $0.00.
I was more taken by the assertion that that’s just the way scientists behave. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I spent my whole working life as a scientist and engineer and never encountered that attitude. Cooking data was regarded universally as beneath contempt.
“Paul Krugman leaves you wondering if all economists are equally corrupt as these “climate scientists.”” Neo
Not equally, much, much, much more! Our entire world economic system (excluding maybe the Muslims) is based on government backed, systematic theft of purchasing power from all dollar holders for the sake of banks, borrowers, and the government.
The struggle is not really between left and right, it is between the honest and government backed thieves.
Pamela Gray (15:05:49) :
I can see you out there with fistfuls of cash, stimulating the economy.
Krugman is probably worried because he is losing his global warming meal ticket that he has been dining out for cheap for many years.
joel (15:07:32) :
“Krugman is totally exposed as either:
1. A complete idiot.
2. A complete shill.”
Is that really an either/or decision?
KRUGMAN: Everyone understands that. And I just want to say, I’m surprised, George, that you lack faith in the power of the marketplace. All this cap-and-trade is about is putting a price on carbon emissions, and people will do amazing things given a market incentive.
If all it takes a market incentive, CO2 emissions would not be an issue – We’d be getting most of our energy from nuclear fusion.
Climategate: Googlegate?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018263/climategate-googlegate/
By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: November 29th, 2009
What is going on at Google? I only ask because last night when I typed “Global Warming” into Google News the top item was Christopher Booker’s superb analysis of the Climategate scandal. It’s still the most-read article of the Telegraph’s entire online operation – 430 comments and counting – yet mysteriously when you try the same search now it doesn’t even feature. Instead, the top-featured item is a blogger pushing Al Gore’s AGW agenda. Perhaps there’s nothing sinister in this. Perhaps some Google-savvy reader can enlighten me…..
UPDATE: Richard North has some interesting thoughts on this. He too suspects some sort of skullduggery.
This is a joke, right? http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10405553-54.html
Excerpt:
Pachauri said a laborious selection process, using only articles approved by other scientists, called peer review, and then subsequently approving these by committee had prevented distortion.
“The entire report writing process of the IPCC is subjected to extensive and repeated review by experts as well as governments,” he added in a written statement to Reuters.
“There is, therefore, no possibility of exclusion of any contrarian views, if they have been published in established journals or other publications which are peer reviewed.”
“This thoroughness and the duration of the process followed in every assessment ensure the elimination of any possibility of omissions or distortions, intentional or accidental.”
I get so tired of people suggesting that big [insert hated industry] is behind some kind of planned and well funded denial scheme.
Here is the members list for the European Climate Exchange and here is what the World Bank thinks the market is worth now and how it views the future.
Alert readers will notice some of the names on the members list .. Shell, BP and every major bank on Earth. Get real, these people are not funding “denial”. They want to turn carbon into a Trillion dollar market. They are not far from doing that. Why would they want to sow doubt of any kind?
Hu, it’s not hard to find.
wikipedia
In early 1999, Krugman served on an advisory panel (including Larry Lindsey and Robert Zoellick) that offered Enron executives briefings on economic and political issues. He resigned from the panel in the fall of 1999 to comply with New York Times rules regarding conflicts of interest, when he accepted the Times’s offer to become an op-ed columnist.[106] Krugman later stated that he was paid $37,500 (not $50,000 as often reported – his early resignation cost him part of his fee), and that, for consulting that required him to spend four days in Houston, the fee was “rather low compared with my usual rates”, which were around $20,000 for a one-hour speech.
Okay, he’s only a columnist; a fringe element of journalism that exists solely at the discretion of journalism (owners and/or editors). It still reflects poorly on the state of journalism, a field on the brink of extinction. Its survival rests on a massive influx of skepticism — you know, that thing that scientists are supposed to possess.
If folks will pardon me for pimping my own comments, I made some today that were prompted by Krugman on the Tips and Notes page of WUWT. When Krugman started “responding” to George Will I had to turn off the TV lest my head explode (I have a low tolerance for frustration), and composed and email to Will.
At any rate is at 13:12:34 on Tips and Notes.
I really think I have made a valid point about focusing on issues that the warmists will have trouble obfuscating, as they are quite expert at it.
This is nothing: Cafe Hayek (http://cafehayek.com/) has been correcting Krugman on Economics for a long, long time. The guy is positively out there in the clouds.
Just in recent years or has this been going on for centuries?
(Any sort of answer excepting perhaps modern times would NOT explain how America/the US was built or how prosperous here people have become in the world.)
Did you have a chance to read the piece on our banking system I addressed your way a few days ago? )(It doesn’t sound like it may have done much good … it has been said that some people’s brains are just naturally wired for ‘c… theories’.)
.
.
Krugman is literally inane.
Legitimate scientists do not doctor data, delete data they don’t like, hide data they don’t want seen, hijack the peer review process, personally attack other scientists whose views differ from theirs…
Maybe they do in economics – it is the ‘dismal science’ after all. Economics is the only field, it is said, in which two researchers can win the Nobel prize for reaching opposite conclusions.
The problem is that Krugman is not even a good economist much less a scientist in the area of global climate. He probably thinks spots on the sun are Bush’s fault anyway.
Eisenhower warned us about the “scientific-technological elite” in his 1960 farewell address.
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/dwightdeisenhowerfarewell.html
“Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
Paul Krugman and others would be wise to heed that advice.
Yes there is indirectly, they are depricating use of xxxxxgate names and have a page covering the topic titled “Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident”. If you type in climategate you get immediately redirected to that page.
Last time I checked it, the page was actually fairly balanced in covering the subject.
It currently has 47 references but does not include a listed reference to WUWT since they also think blogs are not authoritative sites, and go back to primary sources.
“WUWT” and “Watts” do not appear anywhere in the page. It does however mention climate audit in the body referencing the original down load to the russian FTP server. The comments are an interesting read as well.
Larry
Hi, I don’t know if you’re familiar with this, but psychologists have found a scientific explanation for the apparent lack of robust scientific standards in the field of Mann-made global warming, and the lack of an honest response to Climategate in those sections of the media that have customarily toed the Al Gore “Antarctica’s melting, we’re all gonna drown” line:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/08/greens_are_thieves_and_liars_say_trick_cyclists/
“Also, it is important for us if you can transfer
the ADVANCE money on the personal accounts which we gave you earlier
and the sum for one occasion transfer (for example, during one day)
will not be more than 10,000 USD. Only in this case we can avoid
big taxes and use money for our work as much as possible.”
I think I beat you by a few hours on the Willis thread … (9:50 something)
.
.
‘only’? NO, NOT QUITE.
Paul Krugman, economist, columnist and author,
a) Professor of Economics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University,
b) Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics,
and op-ed columnist for The New York Times,
c) 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize winner in Economics for his contributions to New Trade Theory and New Economic Geography
One would expect more insight with those kinds of credentials.
.
.
Krugman is an economist. However, he will never be of the caliber of the late Lord John Maynard Keynes, who created a theory on Employment and Money etc., yet who was humble enough to recognize that people had the right to criticize his theory and improve upon it.
The neo-Keynesian type economist are not real followers of Keynes. Krugman is one of the economists who thinks that he knew Keynes, but in fact that the only thing that he spouts his his leftist Marxism.
RE hotrod @ 15:41:47,
The best part of this meltdown is that the supporters of AGW are being exposed not just as frauds but as particularly dim frauds.
Speaking on behalf of the economics community, I can confirm that Yes, he really is that clueless.
Big time Washington Analysts paint this picture:
John McLaughlin of the McLaughlin Report gets the big picture on ClimateChange & Copenhagen, and Pat Buchannan sees Al Gore’s time as having come & gone. Another commentor sees the true nature of this agenda as cooked up. Monica Crowley is a layman to the subject, but understands what the consequences of the treaty are and the thin ice of the theory.
Only one on the panel, the hardline Dem supporter, sees Al Gore and AGW as ‘settled science’.
McL also senses Obama backing off the treaty.
We need this like we need a hole in the head.
Krugman is a tool, and a dull one.
Is this like the Vatican Times coming out against God? A Climate Sceptic article about Climategate in the UK Independent!
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/simon-carr/simon-carr-so-scientists-are-just-as-political-as-the-rest-1831129.html
lookatthecode (13:46:08) :
And You STILL have Global warming adverts, courtesy of Google and Al gore on this website
Growing Pains!
When WUWT was a growing slowly seems we could all absorb the process. When ads were introduced those of us that considered this site important would click on the AGW ads and take money from those we disagree with to fund those we agree with.
Now you grow so fast its impossible to get everyone up to speed. I guess its the cost of fame. This is why the moderators are paid the big bucks!
WUWT team – you guys are doing the good work and in the hard times don’t forget that.
Truth is always best, someone always talks.
Krugman is a pure intellectual. Pure intellectuals live in a purely theoretical world where anything is possible.
I introduced myself on the last thread as being a new skeptic, but I’m not new to waging contrarian wars in the blogosphere. I’ve fought SCO (who accused Linux as based their code and basically saying they were owed billions of dollars) and Eclipse Aviation (a company claiming that they’d make cheap private jets and not uncoincidentally tangentially connected to SCO).
I say all this because I’ve seen what happens in the media as well as in politics. The MSM (even industry-specific media) will toe a line and keep it and politicians will get on board, but if the truth is on your side, the truth will come out. No matter what the subject is, don’t let yourself be bullied that you can’t understand what is going on so you have to take someone’s word for it. You don’t need a specialized PHD as no matter how seemingly complex the issue is, it can be boiled down to a combination of being able to analyze all the information combined with common sense. You don’t for instance have to know computer programming, statistics or biology if the explanation given appears to violate the scientific method (RealClimate turned me into a skeptic with the very act of their explanation to the public trying to persuade that nothing was amiss).
I’d get to know this (and be sure that you don’t violate it yourself):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
And especially these as I see these being used either by the CRU group to support their claims or used against contrarians to dismiss them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
CRU is doing Special Pleading with the “hide the decline”, the media and others are doing Appeals to Authority and Krugman for instance did the Strawman with putting contrarians as paid oil company shills.
If you are on the side of logic and openness, it’s hard to go wrong. David can defeat Goliath, even if it looks like the world is against you. If one side is fighting for transparency while the other side is fighitng disclosure (or is doing anything seemingly untoward with information), sooner or later it will raise doubts.
The fact that an economist is plugging big-buck mitigation for global warming suggests he’s placed his bets, just like (perhaps with) Al Gore. Ignore the LOL. Look closer and you’ll notice the sheen of sweat.
Near 50 million hits on climategate on Bing, about 13 million on google. You decide.
Hey, I’d like some of that mythical money being a skeptic of AGW please.
I would use it to provide REAL FACTUAL BASED EVIDENCE WHICH EVER WAY IT WENT!
Oh, wait I just said that I’d actually listen to the facts rather than “manNipulate” the data to fit a political agenda as the alleged scientists Dr. ManN, Phil Jones, et. al. clearly have from the evidence in the Climategate files.
I guess pursuing the facts of the objective reality of Nature won’t qualify me for funds from any advocacy group. It also seems to cut out government funding since they clearly advocate pro AGW agendas.
I’m still stuck on why she was bored for a minute.
Here’s fraud coming from the top of the EAU Environmental Department. This is from Trevor Davies who was then Dean of it:
“I now have a leaked document which spells out some of the research
councils’ thinking. I will get a copy over to CRU today. Please keep this
document within the CRU5, since it may compromise the source. NERC and
EPSRC are signed up. ESRC are not yet. Given the EPSRC stake, it will
certainly be be useful to get RAL etc involved. The funding might be
2million per year.”
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=104&filename=925823304.txt
This is a different type of misconduct than academic fraud that has been discussed, but I think it is very serious showing how the head of the department actively engaged in underhanded means and then had the CRU be a part of it with those in CRU knowing about it. Trevor Davies since then has been promoted from Departmental Dean to being a Vice Chancellor, which undermines not only CRU, but EAU as a whole. Given Davie’s high position within EAU, I would think this would undermine any internal investigation done by EAU into this. With this combined with what else has come out, it doesn’t look like you can trust either the science or the business practices of CRU to be conducted in an above-board and honest way.
joel (15:07:32) :
“Krugman is totally exposed as either:
1. A complete idiot.
2. A complete shill.”
Dim or dark? Hard to choose. (Maybe both?)
tarpon (16:30:54) :
“Near 50 million hits on climategate on Bing, about 13 million on google. You decide.”
Well I’m not going to go through them all to check for relevance, if that’s what you mean.
Google is a messed up org, but I have not experienced nor expect that MSN would be any better.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/stephaniegutmann/100018281/meet-the-new-climategate-counter-culture/
…So you thought you had to be on the Left to have fun with a guitar and a computer graphics program? Hah! Welcome to the new Climategate counter-culture. Here’s a video entitled “Hide the Decline”, put together by some clever young men called Minnesotans for Global Warming – http://www.m4GW.com:
😀
Having a degree in economics, I will assure everyone here that Krugman has left his senses ages ago. He deals in a make believe world.
It is increasingly looking to me like a lot of the UK media support AGW not because of the ‘settled’ science but because it is the message of Government. That is is the rational choice almost across the board to parrot the Government line rather than do a proper job. They are letting the Government and taxpayer funded lobby groups do their thinking for them by largely repeating press releases without question. Nice work if you can get paid for it!
Could Krugman be of the same mentality – a shill for Government much more than a shill for AGW?
(Any sort of answer excepting perhaps modern times would NOT explain how America/the US was built or how prosperous here people have become in the world.) _jim
Actually, the US has had THREE national banks, the Fed is the third. The US experienced rapid growth and overtook Great Britain between the War Against The States and the founding of the Fed in 1913 without a central bank.
The boom/bust cycle can produce progress of a sort but at an enormous price. Ben Bernanke admitted the Fed caused the Great Depression which led to WWII and 50 – 86 million dead.
Quit a few say we are in another depression. Who will deny that Greenspan and the Fed caused it? Let’s hope it does not lead to WWIII.
Skeptic Tank (16:20:12) :
[…]
“Krugman is a pure intellectual. Pure intellectuals live in a purely theoretical world where anything is possible.”
For an intellectual, Krugman sure isn’t thinking.
BTW, where’s my check?!?! Christmas is around the corner and I have an economy to stimulate, gol-ding-it! ;o)
_Jim (15:36:05) :
Just in recent years or has this been going on for centuries?
(Any sort of answer excepting perhaps modern times would NOT explain how America/the US was built or how prosperous here people have become in the world.)
Reply:
He is talking about Central Banking. Here in the USA we got stuck with Central Banking in 1913 and they have been defrauding us ever since. One study shows 100% of the taxes we pay goes to the bankers to pay the interest on the money they created out of thin air and then loaned to the US Government. The Federal Reserve has a checkbook used to loan money to the US government but no checking account or any money to back up the checks they write. So thank to a bunch of democrats who sponsored the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 we were sold into slavery to the central banks for 1/3 of our working lives.
Cap and Trade is just another banker scam being sold to use by the democrats… again. You would think we would check the teeth of that gift horse (the democratic party) after they sold us the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the World Trade Organization but the gullible Political Activists fall for the party line every freaking time.
I am a member of a voluntry organisation the Association of British Drivers and our UNPAID reps have to fight toe too toe on TV and radio with politicians,Quangocrats and members of so called charities all of whom are paid.
A common slur against us is that we are in the pay of motor manufacturers.
In light of the current MPs expenses scandal and the money thrown at these doomsayers, I am hoping that our voluntary status will be like a badge of honour amongst the public.
Alex (15:40:57),
Thank you for the link to President Eisenhower’s farewell address. Very insightful. It reminded me of a quote from former British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan – “We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts.”
Increasingly that is precisely what we, and moreso our politicians, have done.
Of the ~ $50 billion pored into AGW study and promotion, how much of that went to skeptics?
Is Gore secretly funding skeptics?
Is Soros?
Are university research institutes bringing in millions per year in research on non-AGW theories of climate science?
Do prominent skeptics get frequent softball interviews in the MSM?
Is Krugman dumber than a sack of hammers?
Wait a minute, nobody told me I can get money for being a skeptic!!!! Hell if ya all pay me, I can start writing what I really think.
What kind of friends are you guys leaving me out of the money loop anyway. Who do I gotta call to get me some dat money. If Phil Jones can get 22 million and skeptics can get more, show me the light…
hahaha What a load of crap.
Mistake folks make is thinking these folks are clueless. They know exactly what they are doing.
Krugman’s apologies for the unethical implications of the whole mess at CRU indicate he is being paid to defend the perps or suffers cognitive dissonance. Either way a far better quote of the week is:
“I don’t think anybody can explain all of this and that is the problem the scientists have. Somehow or other the data doesn’t fully conform to the conclusions of global warming.”
Mort Zuckerman – Editor in Chief US News & World Report MSNBC
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/vp/34146590#34146590
“Is there a larger venture capital firm in this country than the Energy Department of this government, which right now is sending out billions and billions of dollars in speculation on green energy?”
This is a waste. Energy Department? Green energy? How about the obvious cap and trade financial interests? Is there a defect in right wingers’ brains that prevents them from ever considering private business interests are the bad actors? Too much Ayn Rand reading methinks.
Totally OT … but Google now shows 13.4M hots for Climategate. It was a little over 12M this morning…. somethings spreading fast, and it ain’t H1N1.
Cheers.
The Daily Mail is reporting that the BBC (Paul Hudson) was provided with advance copies of some of the CRU emails – “. . .more than a month ago. . .”
To me, the appearance is more and more as if it was an inside whistleblower rather than the “hack” this is being assumed to be.
I’m just an average Joe – with a technical background. I have no association with climate “science”. All of this has absolutely nothing to do with the scientific method I learned in my studies. This whole episode is sickening.
Thank you Anthony (and all). I found your site a year ago. Your hard work and efforts are noticed and important. You are all doing the world a vast service in trying to stop this epic scam.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231763/BBC-weatherman-ignored-leaked-climate-row-emails.html
Indiana Bones (17:09:23) :
Mort should know the feeling of being taken. He was a victim of Madeoff’s Ponzi Scheme. It was so well hidden that he was unaware that Madeoff was the final destination of the foundation funds until it was too late.
A NY Financial Heavyweight has been brought to bear on the ClimateGate Scandal.
I sense forces are at work with the intention of blowing AGWs sneak attack clean out of the water before it gets anywhere near the shipping lanes.
FTM,
Cap & Tax is a moneymaking scheme proposed by the gov’t. Private companies do what they always do: look for a way to profit.
Companies owe a legal fiduciary duty to their shareholders. If you think a company is going to get rich off C&T, you would be foolish not to buy shares in it so you, too, can make a killing.
Who is John Galt??
OK, another economist chiming in. To repeat the obvious, Krugman knows absolutely nothing about climate. He gets rolled out by the left because he is reliably left on every issue and can flaunt some credentials. He was an OK economist who got disenchanted with the Republican party at the time of Reagan and became more extremist at the time of Delay because he saw the Republicans as a party who were dogmatically devoted to the religious right. So he buys into the idea that only creationist who think the world is 6,000 years old don’t believe in Climate Science. He gets all his climate info from Joe Romm.
I believe he won the Noble Prize because his public stature allowed him to garnish all Keynesian leaning votes within the greater economist universe not because he is appealing to a majority of economist. Keynesian tend to advocate more government where monetarist tend to advocate less.
He also loves to beat up on the ‘rational man’ meaning that people don’t always make choices that are rational or best for them. So smart people like him and government should make them for us because we all know politicians couldn’t possibly be human.
He won for explaining that countries trade not only because they need the other countries products ( Canada buys oranges from U.S.) but because they demand choice. Japan and the U.S. sell each other cars even though they both manufacture them each independently. If that seems obvious then you would agree with many economist who were a bit surprised by the award as well. As far as I’m concerned he just got credit for penning the obvious. Better economist split the vote.
And just how can ABC justify sitting at the Roundtable and debating a subject that their very news organization hasn’t covered or at least has had minimal coverage?
Aren’t they admitting either:
1) That their news organization is irrelevant and that they understand that informed individuals get their information elsewhere?
or
2) That they care less if their viewing audience understands the scope of the debate and that they will dictate what is to be understood and when?
It seems amazing to me that George Snuffalufagus expects to provide an informative stimulating debate on an issue that the Main Stream Media isn’t talking about!
Thomas Dolby – She Blinded Me With Science
From Wikipedia:
In early 1999, Krugman served on an advisory panel (including Larry Lindsey and Robert Zoellick) that offered Enron executives briefings … Krugman later stated that he was paid $37,500 … the fee was “rather low compared with my usual rates”, which were around $20,000 for a one-hour speech.
Paul was well-received as guest speaker at the World Science Fiction Society convention last summer in Montréal. Being a long-time fan, he spoke for free.
Revenge of the Nerds Song
To All My Fellow Canadians: I am spending every spare moment outside my job and family responsibilities to read as much as I can, inform, and help mt fellow citizens make reasonable assessments of the actions they should take in respect to Climate Change. I have read at least a 175 different documents, blogs and pages of comments since this story broke last week. I have also read a few of the scientific articles supporting both sides of this argument. Though I am not a scientist, I make the following observations in the interest of clear headed decision making. Scientists have to remember that because we do not all have your understanding of these matters, this does not mean we have no right to clear reasons why we should act as you suggest. Nothing I have read justifies what you are proposing at the IPCC. Some observations/recommendations.
1. Politicians in Canada still know little of either the content of the draft Copenhagen agreement or climategate. Both realities scare the hell out of me. I have talked to three MP’s in total since this broke, one as early as yesterday, and still they are in the dark. The Copenhagen agreement is scary to say the least! It calls for the virtual surrender of democratic rights in signature countries. If you live in Canada, call and email your MP and be prepared to give them two things, the web location of the Copenhagen document and the a web site that explains the essence of the climategate story with the emails and docs cited. I did this and one MP, F, very much appreciated it. As you get further back in the government benches the MP’s seem to be less aware.
http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainMPsCompleteList.aspx?TimePeriod=Current&Language=E
http://unfccc.int/2860.php
Lots of sites with a good summary of climate gate including here.
2. The discussion is heating up in Canada through on-line message boards. Any story in the Canadian press on Global warming or climate change has a minimum 200- 600 respondents the majority of which raise concerns about Climategate. People are angry and ready to act to protect their interest.
3. MSM are still avoiding it here in Canada but their stories are filled with comments demanding they cover it. Its being covered in the comment sections if not in the story line. Again I have seen some not so vieled threats in these comments that the news media will be held responsible. To my mind we should be picketing these major media outlets this week to force the story in the open. We have to get in their face, but without breaking the law. I have emailed CTV and CBC to ask for coverage.
4. The cover up of climategate seems to be under way but it is weak and does not really get at the full significance of the scandal. This I think is further proof that there really is no defense of the actions of the motley CRU. But if we do not take advantage of this in the coming days that may change. We are after the truth, even if it is not what we want it to be.
5. Finally, I am not saying that global warming is not taking place. I simply do not believe there is enough evidence that we can influence temps in any way. What information we did have is now potentially falsified in some respects, rendering it useless for the most part. So why would we want to completely alter our economic, social and political lives when there is no guarantee it would alter CC. We need a number of investigations at this point before we agree to such drastic measures as suggested in the UNFCCC.
Investigate and renew the scientific basis of climate research. The best science is self-critical on its own methods. This is the scientists job.
Investigate the persons who have deliberately falsified and or covered up/ destroyed evidence and data, and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. This must come from politicians and cannot be chaired by a scientist connected to IPCC or in support of it, It should be a mixed group.
Investigate the UN IPCC for complicity and for the value of their recommendations in so far as they are based on possible dubious findings.
Investigate those who have knowingly benefited from fear mongering and or investing in related industries set to benefit from Carbon trading.
Investigate government heads of environment departments.
Make recommendations only when all the science is in and conclusive, and in such a way that the process of arriving at such is free and open.
Investigate the MSM as to their complete failure to tell the truth!
Bat2b, That BS about the global depression of the ’30s leading to WWII is a crock. Yes, bad economic times in Germany led to the rise of National Socialism, which led to WWII. Without the “national socialists” and a certain Herr Hitler in particular, WWII would not have happened.
Of course, this is just unverifiable opinion …
Correction my not ‘mt’.
“By contrast, the same study found that the media bogeyman “Exxon Mobil gave a mere $23 million, spread over ten years, to climate sceptics.”
Has anyone besides me ever wondered if the money from Exxon Mobil was a carefully thought out red herring???
Exxon Mobil is a direct descendant of John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil company and owned by the Rockefeller family.
Much of the push for a world government can be traced back to David Rockefeller. Also the Rockefeller foundations give big bucks to Greenpeace, Sierra Club, and World Wildlife Federation.
HMMmmm the “good guys/AGW” are funded by philanthropic foundations while the “evil deniers” are funded by horrors – an oil company, all under the control of the same family with visions of world government. Naw couldn’t be a plot….
Did anyone else read through the Times article linked above? Here’s the link again:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936289.ece
I couldn’t stop chuckling after reading the following:
“Tim Lenton, professor of earth system science at UEA, said: “We wouldn’t have anything like the understanding of climate change that we do were it not for the work of Phil Jones and his colleagues.”
Truer words were never spoken 🙂
OA
Is there a defect in right wingers’ brains that prevents them from ever considering private business interests are the bad actors? Too much Ayn Rand reading methinks.
There are bad actors all around. The private sector is supposedly scrutinized by the watchdog press. Government, as we are witnessing at this moment, has no such oversight – except for the intrepid few in the blogosphere. Which has been the problem for a long while. If heads of state are essentially toadies for shadow guvs – who’s looking out for the people?
Not enough Ayn Rand I say.
Here’s another insightful quote:
“…I do believe in engineering and medicine, quite fervently. Just like I also (point alert) believe in man-made global warming. Why? Here’s why: it’s because I don’t know anything about it at all.”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/all/5571293/part_3/climate-change-deniers-are-antiscience-and-antireason-and-they-terrify-me.thtml
Otherwise, full of …scientists know best … few bad apples …..right-wing nuts …9/11 troofers, ad nauseam. I’m sure we could all fill in the blanks.
It re-iterates to me though the point that most people don’t realize how few climate “scientists” needed to be fiddling the figures and intimidating the few who questioned them to fool everyone else, including most scientists. Most lay people, and I suspect many scientists not in the field. imagine that there would have to be thousands of scientists who needed to be in on the manipulation for it to work. Of course. that sounds very unlikely and it’s not surprising that many have difficulty buying it.
Most people on this site may realize that the relatively few people implicated directly by the emails comprise a very large proportion of the inner core who were producing the results which most others took for granted, but most other people don’t. If the general public, and even most politicians, are going to understand the fraud this message has to be conveyed to them.
Remeber when the original argument (theory) was that anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide (CO2) was causing an increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 and that was the cause of global warming.
No factual scientific proof of that theory has ever been provided.
Whatever the temperature changes or climate changes present, it is not proof that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause. These changes occur naturally.
Algore’s childish anecdotes are not proof of any man-made changes in environment. In regard to Algore’s computer modeling buddies, they should place their models out of public view in a place where the Sun don’t shine.
The statists have successfully changed the argument to the discussion of naturally occurring events.
Whether or not temperature is changing or the climate is changing, Man is not the cause, although Mann says Man is the cause.
The tentacles of Climategate spread far and wide with far reaching consequences for humanity.
Various socialist agendas parallel the methods used in climategate to foster support for the other agendas.
The forensic analysis used to identify the agenda and consequences of Climategate, should also be used to identify the other various social scams perpetrated on humanity.
Get cracking.
Monckton announces the beginning of criminal investigations.
http://libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com/2009/11/climategate-huge-news-lord-monckton.html
Now how will the media explain this given the limited coverage over the last week?
What is the rule? If blogs can keep a story alive for 10 days the Bankrupt Media will be forced to follow? I wonder if that forcing is included in the climate models?
Google is now blocking certain articles…
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018263/climategate-googlegate/
If our gracious host (& mods) will grant me the privilege of a response …
So, in essence, we in the US have prospered (do you dispute this assertion?) in spite of/regardless of your (& bats) repeated assertions regarding the ‘perils’ of ‘central’ banking.
Do you not see that you in effect have no case?
Where has the ‘harm’ occurred since 1913? We need an aggrieved party, someone who has been harmed to have a case/for you to make a case … simple complaints from the rabble do not a case make.
Sensible alternatives offered, that is something altogether a different matter, but I do not think you and ‘bats’ have clearly thought all this through. Presently there is a contingent pinning their hopes on a nondescript personage (than any really well thought-out policy or philosophy) who seems to attract an audience of less-than-deep thinkers on this subject, and I think I’ll leave it at that.
.
.
“Paul was well-received as guest speaker at the World Science Fiction Society convention last summer in Montréal. Being a long-time fan, he spoke for free.”
I think Mann should become an honorary lifetime member of the Science Fiction Society for his body of published work and I could see a few other honorary members as well from CRU.
As I was about to send an email from gmail, I noticed an ad for Bing on the right. Just out of curiosity I clicked it. Not only did it take me to Bing, but it took me to Bing with a search for “hydrogen fuel generators.” The ad is definitely Bing’s, not some hydrogen fuel outfit, but it appears they figure that simply sending people to the Bing search engine isn’t enough — they have to also give them the links for green energy. And not just green energy, but the most fruitless form of it.
The fall of AGW can’t come soon enough for me.
Here’s the page the ad sent me to: “hydrogen fuel generators”
i’m fully on board with professor easterbrook’s comment except for the part about personal attacks. isaac newton famously referred to “standing on the shoulders of giants” in a letter to robert hooke who was notriously short in stature. but at least newton had some wit and humour in his personal attacks!
Permit another address on a slightly OT subject?
Failed.
The effort failed, about the year the Berlin wall fell.
No?
Then why not? (Common sense would say that thee BEST opportunity was when half (or so) of the world was under dictatorial command not when LESS was under dictatorial command as is the case NOW!!!)
.
.
Spenc BC (in Canada),
It is revealing that whenever the Toronto (Red) Star and the Globe and Mail publish online articles on the AGW nonsense, the majority of reader comments are invariably critical of the AGW lies, and the “Agree/Disagree” buttons to those posted comments suggest likewise. And yet, their editorial boards, and to a lesser degree, the editiors of the National Post, carrry on with the AGW nonsense. I believe that you are right, and that when the Man comes around, the names he takes will include those of the media.
Senator Inhofe of the US Senate has pledged an investigation into the CRU and other contributors to the AGW fiction. I believe that this is probably the most effective forum to air out all of the AGW issues and will lead to the complete refutation of the AGW hypothesis. I also think that the principals of WUWT should follow this process closely, as they have so much to contribute in debunking the AGW fabrication.
I have written a letter of support to Senator Inhofe (and would encourage others to do likewise) and I sent a copy to Stephen Harper (Prime Minister of Canada) expressing the hope that both the corrupt and the craven (i.e. the government of Canada) will be punished as a result of the Senate investigation.
There will be nothing so gratifying as watching Piltdown Mann pleading the Fifth, on the grounds that his testimony would have the “tendency to incriminate him”. In the grand scheme of things, this will be fully on a scale with Watergate. Stock up on popcorn.
Krugman ain’t clueless, he’s spinning for the Left like a good Leftist myrmidon does. When you’re busted and faced with the facts, lie, lie, lie.
Simple.
I think they’re all on coke. Apparently it’s the norm for young NY lawyers, stock traders in London, and at all big shot parties in DC. That’s where all the weird thinking must come from, the disconnect from reality.
Krugman is an economist by education and works in the lunatic fringe of his industry. Algore is a lunatic fringe lawyer. Neither make a salary doing what their education was.
My opinion of Krugman is that he fudged numbers like Mann and sees no problem with cheating.
So, if Exxon-Moblie doesn’t send me a check, Krugman is going to cover it?
Oh, I forgot to tell you, my life’s ambition is to set up a hot dog stand on Mars.
pat (16:40:18) :
“Having a degree in economics, I will assure everyone here that Krugman has left his senses ages ago. He deals in a make believe world”
Having a degree in economics and in psychology and also in accounting, you are spot on. You have to be neurotic to accept an Obama czar position and have a trail of financial cheating.
In case you haven’t tripped over this one yet:
Q: How many climate scientists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None. There’s a consensus that it’s going to change, so they’ve decided to keep us in the dark.
Q: How many climate scientists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None. There’s a consensus that it’s going to change, so they’ve decided to keep us in the dark.
Wooo Hoooo…. My big fat Skeptics cheque just came in the mail! !
…. Damn. Sorry. False alarm. It’s just a Readers digest promotion that looked like a cheque.
… ah well. Maybe tomorrow then?
Does he (Paul Krugman) realize how stupid he is???
Nah….he is just DUMB.
But to spin it into a left/right thing as is being done here…that is not necessary.
Remember all you right-wingers. You NEED the lefties to band together against a common enemy. (I remember Pamela Gray’s comments from another thread…and she is CORRECT)
Stop…..please STOP turning into a left/right thing.
It ain’t.
Its about truth.
As a “libertarian” who is neither comfortable in the world of right or left…please DROP the labels.
Science and truth will win.
You just have to let the BS expose itself for what it is, as Krugman has automatically telegraphed his OWN pitiful stupid existence.
Yes…he IS clueless. He is STUPID.
That is why the world is falling apart, because the world stage has been HIJACKED by STUPID people.
But it is not a right/left thing as much as it is a smart/stupid.
It just so happens that Gore’s stupidity leans left. But there are plenty of others….that lean the other way.
Stop….STOP being simplistic in your analysis here.
We have a common enemy… and that is the stupidity, the sham-science of the cult religion of AGW…of note who BOTH Obama and McCain subscribe to.
Every other species, thanks to natural selection, marginalizes the weaker individuals and their theories.
Home Sapiens are the only group that rewards weakness, and propagates mediocrity.
That must END.
Down with the stupid people. And AGW.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Correction: Homo Sapiens
“I think we need to stop considering the NYT as a legitimate source of news”
I reached that conclusion 30 years ago.
Students of History may remember Walter Duranty (Soviet Union is a worker’s paradise) and Herbert Matthews (The Man Who Invented Castro) and realize that the NYTimes has been a leftist propaganda organ for longer than any of us remember.
I still read it every day. You must study the enemy and learn how he thinks, if you call spouting the latest talking points from the DNC, as thinking.
artwest (18:09:18) :
Here’s another insightful quote:
“…I do believe in engineering and medicine, quite fervently. Just like I also (point alert) believe in man-made global warming. Why? Here’s why: it’s because I don’t know anything about it at all.”
I had to ask a Dr of Medicine today if there was anything measurable by lab tests equivalent to the 350ppm-388ppm (that’s parts per MILLION) ratio spouted by Hansen today, that would be ok at 350ppm and deadly at 388ppm. He certainly couldn’t think of anything.
I mean, REALLY, do these climate science fiction authors realize how small that increment is?
If I have a million in investments, $38. is a completely insignificant loss or gain in a day trade. Ten times that is insignificant. A hundred times that is insignificant. How can 38 ppm , EXACTLY, make any difference at all? No way is our massive atmosphere that sensitive. Remember all that algae in China right before the Olympic sailing?
Gimme an engineer any day. I make stuff and it has to work. It sometimes takes a year to figure it out. But it works, I can prove it now and I can prove it later. If it breaks I can fix it.
Now tell me how we can tax our children in perpetuity for something that probably isn’t a problem, much less a crisis, that efforts we make we can’t even prove work? And no tax has ever been repealed, has it? Ever?
Late to the conversation, but I wanted to add that David Mastio at RealClearPolitics wrote back in April, ’06 about how the MSM was already in the tank for the global warming side of the debate. Here’s a taste:
” U.S. media companies, including Time Warner, donate more to the environmental movement than any other industry. Companies like The New York Times, Gannett, Tribune, ABC, CBS and NBC have donated more than a half-billion worth of ad space since the 1990s to raise money for some of the nation’s most extreme environmental groups. And yes, that was billion with a B.
To put that number in perspective, America’s media companies donate more to environmental groups every year than the much-feared Olin Foundation’s spent annually in its effort to build the institutional foundation of the conservative movement. ”
Read the whole thing. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/04/the_media_and_reporting_on_the.html
Son of a Pig and a Monkey (18:57:29) :
Thanks: My hopes rest with what the US will do. I expect in Canada we will see little action as long as we have a minority government. Your words are reassuring and I have pop corn at the ready!
Spenc
I believe the left is making a huge tactical error. Clearly, Klugman is spinning for all he is worth. However, if Obama goes to Copenhagen and the rest of the dems continue to spout the AGW line, they are in deep trouble. As most of us here already know, this is a real scandal. Over time this will become obvious to the majority of voters (especially independents like me). If the Republican party were to take a hard stand digging into the scandal the dems would come out looking like idiots or worse, attempting to cover up the scandal. That could cost them dearly in the next election and probably make Obama a one term president. That doesn’t look like a very good strategy to me. Someone must be giving the party strategists some horrible information.
To Spenc BC
A friend sent me a note this evening that CBC TV is going to show the Gore movie again this week…….
They are obviously in Lalalalalalala country!
IanM in New Brunswick
Son of a Pig and a Monkey
I just copied your handle. I feel like I am insulting you by addressing you as such but you asked for it.
Thank You! Your words are reassuring and I do look forward to watching this all unfold, popcorn in hand. I just want to make sure this keeps going and that my Canadian friends are brought on board. The Lord Monkton news sounds promising.
Ian
The CBC is in constant propaganda mode these days. Where will they be when the S#it hits the fan and they realize they have been supporting a farce! They’ll be the Royal Canadian Air Farce themselves. Sorry for the inside joke!
BBC Irony at it’s best!!!
“Climategate – which, among mainstream media, we reported first here on the BBC News website – has also surfaced as an important ingredient of the political debate in Australia, where the government is desperate to pass cap-and-trade legislation through the Senate before the Copenhagen conference begins.”
can read it from the link
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/
That quote by Krugman goes to show that just because you having a PhD doesn’t mean you are smart or honest. That has got to be either one of the stupidest things or one of the biggest lies I’ve ever heard. Unbelievable.
Anyone who takes Krugman seriously on anything, especially economics or climate, is someone with very poor judgment.
Paul Krugman, “And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet.”
Now if he could only find a way to have them prosecuted.
And the jury coud be selected the same way as peer reviewers have been.
And where exactly does a lot of government money come from in many of the developed countries?
Tax on fossil fuel, the oil companies and so on!
Moreover, if these warmist twirps could think it through, the energy companies have a superb incentive to want warmist stuff.
Why?
They are like the many other businesses which are essentially bad shopkeepers. Those do not want to actually supply anything, means they have to do work but they want money anyway, so high prices for supplying very little suites them fine.
I have posted many times about this type of BS (and I do not mean bad science). This does not even qualify as stupid. Spinning harder than a figure skater, …..
Wow, treason. Isn’t treason where one betrays one’s own country to the interests of another?
And since there is no world government to betray, the shoe is on the other foot.
Nah, just a case of the pot calling the kettle black, in a politically correct way.
You could even get one of these fancy new website things and let everyone know what you think. Hell one day maybe somebody will post a link to a bunch of incriminating files on your site and then you could really go to town.
He’s counting layman sceptics too you see… all them carbon offsets are expensive… whereas I pay nothing.
The leaker has been dubbed “Deep Climate” over at
American Thinker
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/cru_emails_were_leaked_before.html
I completely agree with smart versus stupid. People become smart in many different ways, some through experience, some through education, and some are just plain born that way. But you can’t fix stupid. And my, haven’t we had our fair share of stupid in office over the past few decades? I unfortunately confess that I voted for Obama. Had I been given a do-over with the same slate of choices my vote would have been:
No. Just. No.
Audit the Fed: Bernanke and the Bankers Are Running Scared
[SNIP. People, please, OH, PLEASE do the international banking conspiracy thread over at internationalbankingconspiracy.com. WUWT is for talkin’ ’bout the weather. I am not famous for being a topic cop, but if I see the words “international” and “banking” within three words of each other one more time I shall run shrieking into the night. ~ Evan]
Krugman is the most strident advocate of Keynesian economics, he is a complete FOOL.
If you wish to see the “emperor with no clothes” compare Keynesian economics with the Austrian School, 90% of economists are Keynesians and if such a large proportion of economic “scientists” and “scholars” could delude themselves into believing and advocating such utter claptrap and nonsense I see no reason why climate “scientists” and “scholars” could not be engaging themselves in their own delusions in regard to climate science and the theory of man made global warming.
Yes climate science is complex but so to are financial markets and economics and if some of the brightest minds in the world can get things so utterly wrong on Wall Street who can say they are not getting it wrong at Hadley and Nasa and in the climate science community.
Hey Krugman, Are all of the scientists below flying around on their private jets and living in mansions on their skeptic mullah? Please!
I see I am not alone in questioning the scientific data. Please see below:
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical…The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” – Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.
“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” – Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.
“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” – Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.
“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken…Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” – Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.
“Nature’s regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.
“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” – Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” – South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” – Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
“All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.” – Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” – Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” – Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” – Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata
“Whatever the weather, it’s not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period.” Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications.
“But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly inadequate to establish any cause at all.” – Chemist Dr. Patrick Frank, who has authored more than 50 peer-reviewed articles.
“The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society’s activities.” – Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey.
“Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” – Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.
“I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?” – Dr. G LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s CSIRO.
Pamela Gray: “I unfortunately confess that I voted for Obama.”
That’s OK Pamela….I’ll take your joie de vivre any day…I don’t care who you voted for.
And I unfortunately, before that…I confess…I voted for Bush….both times. 🙁
Hey what can I say….the weighing of the lesser of two evils….however fallible that litmus test may be….
Now that we got our confessions out of the way and out of the closet (LOL)…it is time for us to focus on the real enemy to us all.
We know who and what they are.
WE should be running the world, not them.
They are dumb…and the journalists (like Krugman) are pathetically worse.
DUHHHHH.
No wonder the world is falling apart.
It is time to reverse the specific homo sapien anomaly where stupid people are rewarded, as long as they are in power.
NO. It should not be that way.
Survival of the fittest…as it has done with every other organism of note on this planet…must take hold….and I (and many of you as well) would WELCOME that day!!
No more stupid people calling the shots.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Thanks Evan,
ROTFLMAO over your snip comment.
Jut thought I could sneak one by you, but I know there are plenty of other forums for that subject so the snip is OK with me. Thanks for the laugh.
[‘salright ~ E]
“Bat2b, That BS about the global depression of the ’30s leading to WWII is a crock. “ Robert of Canada
Another major reason for WWII was the unjust peace forced on the Germans after the stalemate was broken by the US entering the War on the side of England and France. The US involvement was financed by the Fed. Without that involvement, the most likely outcome would have been an honorable peace.
Central banks are often the mechanism for financing wars via an “inflation tax”.
The Fed is thus responsible for TWO major causes of WWII. I would not rule out other causes either.
Michelle gets the novel-within-a-blog award. Good stuff though
From the ABC site :
Global warming may or may not be happening but as we now know, all that’s certain about global warming, is that it is definitely man-made.
Made up by the huge UN sponsored climatic research industry, to justify its own existence.
Shameful.
Fred from Canuckistan . . . (15:20:46) :
Take out the ‘probably’ from your postand you have got it spot on.
Some think Krugman is clueless. I think he’s a well paid lobyist for Hack & Trade. Smart people may come accross as being clueless but it’s usually intentional.
This is how the BBC trains its people to dismiss climate change “deniers” – they send people on propaganda courses run by a fanatical greenie PR outfit (with offices in NY and London) called Futerra: http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2009/11/smoking-gun-part2.html#comments
and this is the propaganda manual: http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/NewRules:NewGame.pdf
The UK media are doing their hardest to ignore this and hope that it will go away. So claiming equal media coverage, from a UK perspective, is just not true.
– : Commonwealth leaders back climate change fund : –
Commonwealth leaders have backed a multi-billion-dollar plan to help developing nations to deal with climate change and cut greenhouse gases.
The fund, proposed by UK and French leaders at the Commonwealth summit on Friday, would start next year and build to $10bn annually by 2012.
Many Commonwealth members are island states threatened by rising sea levels.
Leaders also called for the strongest possible outcome at next month’s climate change summit in Copenhagen.
They unanimously agreed to seek a legally binding international agreement, but accepted that “a full legally binding outcome” might have to wait to 2010.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8384523.stm
>>And You STILL have Global warming adverts,
>>courtesy of Google and Al gore on this website
And yesterday, on BBC World, we had the European Space Agency (ESA) advertising AGW during prime-time. As an advert, not a news item. Tell, me Mr Watts, how much ESA funding does WUWT get??
.
I thought I’d heard it all, but this one is beyond belief.
– : Climate ‘is a major cause’ of conflict in Africa : –
Climate has been a major driver of armed conflict in Africa, research shows – and future warming is likely to increase the number of deaths from war.
US researchers found that across the continent, conflict was about 50% more likely in unusually warm years.
More
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8375949.stm
“..economies of scale in international trade”
I wonder if he imagined the scenario of the “too big too fail” companies asking for a taxpayer bailout.
Krugman recently said…”As I see it, the economics profession went astray because economists, as a group, mistook beauty, clad in impressive-looking mathematics, for truth.” He’d do well to learn from his own words. There is “correct” and there is “politically correct”. The first comes from looking at the facts and the second relies only on self-righteous hypocrisy.
The bottom line is, if the data was massaged to create the storyline then the hypothesis falls apart and all the rest is just money-grubbing politics.
>>Stop…..please STOP turning into a left/right thing.
>>It ain’t.
>>Its about truth.
You might think that something like climate would be non-political partisan, but it isn’t. It is rapidly becoming a left/right issue, and future elections may well intensify that divide.
Why?
My guess, is that more liberals are urban professionals and civil servants, with no connection to the real world. While more conservatives live in the countryside or have real businesses to run (large or small).
Thus more liberals are dreamers and idealists, who would love to take us back to some rose-tinted pre-industrial utopia. Whereas more conservatives have enough experience of the real world to realise that the Medieval period was dominated by famine, plague, ill-health, miserable living conditions, back-breaking manual labour, and short life-spans.
That’s my guess.
P.S.
UK Conservatives run rural England, while Labour rules the inner cities. The UK Labour Party is now a liberal party of champagne socialists, rather than a party of the working classes.
.
Another “inside job”.
From my own tests, I conclude that there is no doubt that Google has been manipulating the results from searches for “Global Warming” and other related search strings. The changes in results, sometimes in minutes, has happened so fast, and to so many search strings, that it can only be explained by someone or maybe a group of insiders at Google supporting the AGW agenda.
Not enough green for the green cause?! What about Exelon, Duke Energy, BP Amoco, Shell, Conoco Philips (to name a few)?! Then you have the non-energy sector companies… General Electric, Dow Chemical, GM, Ford, Caterpillar, John Deere, Alcoa, SC Johnson, Levi Straus, Pepsico, Apple…
That’s not even a complete list, and is just off the top of my head. Needless to say, those aren’t small, unknown names. Some have been greenifying well before the guv’ment began the great hand-out orgy, but all have been doing so for the last decade, in one form or another, both quietly and vocally alike. The past three years especially, though, not a day has gone by where I haven’t had to put up with the empty and meaningless boasting of one company or other “going (for all that “free”) green”!
Of course, it WOULD be some pip-squeak from the NYT that is conveniently unaware of the massive amount of capital that has been thrown into this forced regression of civilization…
Off-topic, I know, but I couldn’t help a smile at today’s Guardian page.
Near the top was this link
* EU accused of putting climate talks at risk
This was followed lower down by
* UK to face more rain and freezing cold
Now where’s all that global warming I was promised?
L . Gardy LaRoche (20:55:50) :
The leaker has been dubbed “Deep Climate” over at
American Thinker
I doubt that will please the warmist who goes by the same name on CA and other sites.
Lol.
Anyway, where are the warmists? They seem to be very quiet around here lately.
When I look at scared, weak faces of habitual liars for hire — Krugman’s Bernanke’s, Geithner’s — the following two quotes from two great Americans come to my mind:
If the study of human interactions could become a science, I suspect that an inviolate axiom might be discovered to this effect: Every social disposition creates a disparity of advantages. Further: Every innovation designed to correct the disparities, no matter how altruistic in concept, works only to create a new and different set of disparities.
— Jack Vance
I’ve often said that the only people who have real, honest to God freedom of speech are tenured professors on the verge of retirement or who have already retired and have an independent income like myself. But I think one of the most precious things in life is to be able to say what you believe freely and openly without having to worry too much about the consequences–I say too much. I don’t believe that it ought to cost less. If you’re going to say unpopular things and you’re going to become unpopular as a result, that’s going to impose a cost. And sometimes maybe you won’t be willing to bear it. But, there ought to be no so-to-speak artificial costs, artificial limitations on you. But yet, there are on most people. I can give one example after another of the same kind of thing. Right now you have this terrible situation that’s happening in college after college in this country of a complete intolerance for speech which is not quote, “politically correct.” It’s come to be a new term that’s used, “politically correct speech.” It’s a terrible term. It’s a disgraceful term. Correct speech ought to be speech which expresses what a person believes, what he thinks to be the truth. And it’s a disgrace that in universities of all places there should be the kind of censorship that is in fact being imposed.
— Milton Friedman
Perhaps Krugman missed the email from Mick Kelly discussing research funding from Shell Oil for CRU. Krugman seems to have much in common with Jones and Mann, et al. When faced with a lack of facts, make it up!
Blaming has started ree previous
“Though he says he was asked to delete selected e-mails by Jones, Mann said he did not comply with the request. He does not believe any of his colleagues went through with the deletion either”.
Paul’s eyes do not move like those of a normal person.
KRUGMAN: There is tremendously more money in being a skeptic than there is in being a supporter.
Don’t know if anybody’s commented on this yet, but the guy can’t even construct a sentence. Add to that the fact that it’s one of the most specious arguments yet heard on the subject, and the word “desperation” leaps to mind.
I don’t want to personally attack Mr. Krugman, but he comes off sounding like an idiot. He said something to the effect of “there is no explanation for why 1998 was so hot”. Really? I thought that was pretty well understood and agreed upon. And then he uses the illustration of a hot day in April doesn’t mean that if May is cooler that there is no trend. But in that case, it is a known fact that the trend will go back up because summer is coming. It’s a foregone conclusion, but I guess so is global warming in his mind.
The funniest part about it, to me though, was when he first started talking you could literally hear the quiver in his voice. And the longer he talked, you could see the sweat beads forming. Hilarious!!!
I suspect there is infinitely more money in being Paul Krugman lying than in being Stephen McIntyre telling the truth.
Once again Paul Krugman opens his mouth and removes all doubt that he is absolutely clueless.
UN digs in its heels on climate change: click
The comments below the article are interesting too.
>>Stop…..please STOP turning into a left/right thing.
>>It ain’t.
>>Its about truth.
Sorry, that’s dead wrong. The history of this whole sordid affair goes back to Maurice Strong, a self-proclaimed socialist, and his insistence that the world was running out of natural resources and that humans needed to adopt a “sustainable lifestyle”. He’s been on this kick since the founding of the Club of Rome and the first UN climate conference in Stockholm.
Climate change for this group has never been an end but a means to an end. It started in the 70’s with disaster predictions about global cooling and when that didn’t come to pass it morphed into global warming and now into global climate change.
At the core, this has never been about climate or even people. This is about a small group of international socialists who have been trying for decades to enforce their control over the planet by scaring and bullying. Think not? Take a good hard look at the IPCC (which is mostly bureaucrats not scientists) proposals for international taxes, the transfer of power from wealthy country to poor, the role of international organizations like the UN and the World Bank in overseeing this process.
I welcome those on the left of good faith who are waking up to what some of us have been saying for years and look forward to them helping to fight back on this junk. But make no mistake, this has always been about politics. Always.
Jim,
“Then why not? (Common sense would say that thee BEST opportunity was when half (or so) of the world was under dictatorial command not when LESS was under dictatorial command as is the case NOW!!!)”
Well Jim, the mistake you are making is to believe that the people who had half the world under dictatorial command during the cold war, are the same people who seek a global government today. Obviously, if they are the same, then your argument is perfectly correct.
But they are not the same. While the former Soviet empire has morphed into the modern gangster economy, the organisations and groups that are trying to shove global governance through the back door are a motley alliance of environmentallists, old Europe statists and the left leaning UN. Ironically, it is the escapees from the former Soviet empire – the “new” Europeans of the East, that are the ones most likely to oppose any such attempt move.
Krugman: “And what the deleting really meant, deleting would be meant that, you know, we don’t know when this thing [the MWP] started, because we don’t have very good data back then.”
So, the references to deleting data requested under FOIA *actually* mean, “We’re unsure of the precise timeline for the era.”
Right. Got it.
Would anyone take seriously the words of a man who thinks Gordon Brown is great?
UPDATE ON COPENHAGEN
Walkout Threatens Obama Presence at Copenhagen
From the Times of India
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/china/Copenhagen-conference-India-China-plan-joint-exit/articleshow/5279771.cms
Obama is considering not attending Copenhagen because of a joint threatened walkout by India, China, Brazil and South Africa, if developed nations don’t accept their “non-negotiable” demands.
“The four countries, which include Brazil and South Africa, agreed to a strategy that involves jointly walking out of the conference if the developed nations try to force their own terms on the developing world, Jairam Ramesh, the Indian minister for environment and forests (independent charge), said.
“We will not exit in isolation. We will co-ordinate our exit if any of our non-negotiable terms is violated. Our entry and exit will be collective,” Ramesh told reporters in Beijing.”
…The four nations issued a joint press release, which made it clear the developed nations should be ready to contribute funds and share green technology if they expected the developing and poor nations to take major actions on environmental protection.”
ralph: “You might think that something like climate would be non-political partisan, but it isn’t. It is rapidly becoming a left/right issue, and future elections may well intensify that divide.”
All I am saying if we are going to defeat this AGW disease, it is going to take people who would not necessarily be in the same room in any other circumstance perhaps.
You band together to fight a common enemy.
And your classifications of left/right are too plastic anyways.
People, just like they come in all shapes and sizes, come in highly varied political convictions, too.
So, rather than focusing on our differences, we focus on what we have in common to get this job done.
I think the true divide is smart/stupid.
Stupid people are sheeple….and they go with groupthink. And they are like Krugman.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Equal?
Estimate for government funded research is between $50B and $80B – funding from oil companies and private sources is about $300M or about 150:1 and 240:1.
Evidently Krugman is arithmetically challenged, too.
In an economist, that’s bad…mmmmKay.
BTW, what are HIS qualification to judge climate science? Could he even pass Meteorology 101?
JackStraw
You might believe all that socialist takeover stuff but it’s nothing but fodder for those who like to dismiss skeptics as conspiracy theorists taking their orders from their veggie, socialist overlords – to quote Gavin. As such it doesn’t help us get to the truth. If the raw data says it’s warming then it’s warming and it that appears unnatural then ergo it’s partly man-made. Both of these are disputable merely because of restricted access to the raw data, dubious methods and biased models but it’s still a plausible hypothesis that still needs proper testing.
In fact Gavin had a very good point that the leaked emails make it abundantly clear that all these scientists utterly believe in the concept of manmade global warming. The only disconnect being that the data in it’s raw state is ambiguous so they felt they had to manipulate it to add upward trends.
Now you might correctly assume academics in earth sciences are 90% lefty and you might also correctly assume that in having no experience of being an entrepreneur they really don’t quite understand that business is what supplies the prosperity that allows the grants that keeps them in work. However the emails make it clear they aren’t taking orders from Maurice Strong or any other higher up- they truly believe that catastrophe is just around the corner. It is just classical groupthink!
Anyway, Maurice Strong might believe in a global world order and he might be near the top of the UN but the UN is a toothless organisation. They’d have trouble moving a good crap never mind world domination.
JamesG,
That’s really funny, because what the “leaked emails” make abundantly clear to ME is that these clowns were all about “hiding” and refusing to reveal actual data in order to promote an agenda, NOT that they “utterly believe in the concept of AGW”.
Then again, you’re telling us what Gavin said.
Here’s a really interesting idea… why not scan through some of the mountain of stuff and see for yourself instead of letting Gavin hand you your talking points?
Anyway, the hypothesis doesn’t seem very plausible to me, especially since the only way to even remotely make the data appear to match the hypothesis seems to be to alter the data…
“…The four nations issued a joint press release, which made it clear the developed nations should be ready to contribute funds and share green technology”
How about we give them all our windmill technology, a few billion dollars to compensate for using it, while we go nuclear?
JamesG-
I think you are not digging deep enough. The UN may be toothless as you say but the IPCC which funds and supports these scientists has had this conclusion for years. Pachuari, the head of the IPCC, is a creature of Strong’s as are many at the World Bank who has been dispersing UN (read our) money for years on sustainable energy programs around the world whether the countries wanted them or not. And let’s not forget that it was Strong who set up the IPCC in the first place in 1998 with the forgone conclusion that man made climate change was real. It may be toothless now but if Obama and Brown had their way they would accede to their demands in a heart beat. How toothless would they be then?
If you were a scientist over the last couple decades working on climate research, you knew exactly what conclusions you needed to reach in order to have your work see the light of day and equally important to receive funding.
It’s not a matter of me believing or not believing. It’s a fact. Do a little reading on Fenton Communications, the company that has been doing pr for the UN for years on this stuff. They also happen to represent WWF, Soros, Sierra Club, Tides, Heinz Foundation, etc., etc. They specialize in scare pr and some of their most famous (unitl this nonsense) work was the phony Alar scare and the equally phony Bovine Hormone scare. This is what they do and they only do it for far left causes.
You can pretend that this was just a few good hearted scientists who went astray but the facts don’t support it. This has been an organized campaign of the far left and as the walls come tumbling down it will be demostrated.
And no, when emails say that they need to find a way to “hide the decline” and state that there has been no global warming for years and that it is a travesty that they can’t explain it of that they are willing to rig the peer review process in order to keep dissenting views from being heard that doesn’t mean they really believed what they were doing. It means they were desparate to cover their unscientific butts.
And as for Gavin and Real Climate, you do realize who runs the site, right? If not, it’s a company that used to be know as Environmental Media Services (EMS), a Fenton client. Maybe you ought to rethink taking advice from Gavin.
>>>And your classifications of left/right are too
>>>plastic anyways.
>>>People, just like they come in all shapes and sizes, come
>>>in highly varied political convictions, too.
Quite possibly.
But, this sorry saga will only be solved politically – and politics means a group of like-minded people coming together to form a government or opposition who will fight the skeptic cause.
Like it or not, the majority of those standing up to AGWists are on the political right, and so it is likely that the opposition will therefore be composed primarily of right-wingers (Republican/Conservatives).
Oh, and BTW.
Why do the US political left and right use opposite party colours to the UK. I find this most confusing.
.
Jackstraw, it’s shocking how many people are willing to ignore the myriad, twisted connections between leftist causes (although, these people DO brag about their own connections, so it’s not like it’s a big secret). Oddly enough, many of these people who are blind to the connection between leftist political personalities and socialist/communist organizations are more than happy to believe that the Bush administration orchestrated 9/11.
There was a time I believed the Internet would free knowledge, however the VAST majority of people have become even LESS informed about reality than they used to be. Just as with the print and broadcast media, the Internet is being controlled by the left. So is it a “conspiracy” theory to point out who is on the board at Google? Or even to flip through Google’s policies? Or Wikipedia? In fact, the old refrain of “follow the money” still applies.
Unfortunately, the logic behind a “push poll” is not immediately obvious, just as the logic behind these and other massive online presences is not. RealClimate does not exist as a “forum”, it exists as a propaganda source. The IPCC was not “formed to find out the truth”, it was created solely to promote one hypothesis, create fear about one “danger”, and support one “solution”. Although I have no doubt that Wikipedia was originally intended to be a genuine, accurate source of information, it has been relentlessly used to promote inaccuracy and one point of view on several key topics.
But I really don’t think that most people are going to take your or my word for it, sadly. Nobody wants to believe that what they consider a trusted source of knowledge is actually promoting misinformation and political programming.
Of course this is a left-right isssue. Every left wing cause imaginable has latched on to the AGW movement and every single Democrat politician is on board.
At this 11th hour how can anyone possibly pretend it isn’t?
Every left wing TV/radio/newspaper parrots every global warming bromide and every right wing counterpart rejects them.
“a joint threatened walkout by India, China, Brazil and South Africa, if developed nations don’t accept their “non-negotiable” demands.”
Well, that gives leaders of the developed nations that are now harboring secret doubts about CAWG a motivation to think, “sayonara.”
“Why do the US political left and right use opposite party colours to the UK.”
About eight (??) years ago one of our newsweekly magazines used those colors to illustrate an electoral map of the US, and may have even used the terms red states as shorthand for Republican-leaning states. It caught on.
I don’t think the core values of classical European leftism align very well with environmentalism, nor with the type of people who are raving environmentalists. In communist countries, pollution control, etc. is given a very low priority. Socialists like Orwell famously derided the concerns and mentality of sandal-wearing vegetarians. Until recently the standard “left” attitude toward hyper-environmentalism was that it was a bourgeois affectation. “Blue dog Democrats” are strong leftists, but luke-warm enviros.
I think that a certain Messianic mentality is attracted to both leftism and radical environmentalism. And there are other overlaps. There’s lots more that can be said about this, and when we get around to apportioning the blame, 10 years from now, we can really let ’em have it.
But the time to do so is not now, because it is extremely counterproductive. It gives the warmists a stick to beat us with as right-wing-nuts. It alienates site visitors who are potential allies. (Pam has an unusually thick skin, I guess.) It constantly diverts discussion into tangents.
savethesharks (07:10:39) :
ralph: “You might think that something like climate would be non-political partisan, but it isn’t. It is rapidly becoming a left/right issue, and future elections may well intensify that divide.”
All I am saying if we are going to defeat this AGW disease, it is going to take people who would not necessarily be in the same room in any other circumstance perhaps.
You band together to fight a common enemy.
And your classifications of left/right are too plastic anyways.
People, just like they come in all shapes and sizes, come in highly varied political convictions, too.
So, rather than focusing on our differences, we focus on what we have in common to get this job done.
I think the true divide is smart/stupid.
Stupid people are sheeple….and they go with groupthink. And they are like Krugman.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Chris, I believe you’ve put the situation we have in a nutshell. The only thing I would clarify a bit on is the smart/stupid divide. I think it is more a wisdom/idiocy divide. There are plenty of PHD’s who are idiots, and people who perhaps never acquired a high school diploma who have wisdom. I believe we all were given an amazingly complex and sophisticated tool at our disposal, our brain. Children are sometimes seen as having a wisdom that adults don’t have. Without getting into who (or what) is to blame, I think that that natural, innate ability to think for oneself becomes lost at some point. This inability becomes shockingly apparent in the Warmists continual bleating that we must “trust the scientists”, or “the consensus”.
CodeTech-
You’re right, of course. Nobody is going to listen to a random knucklehead like me spewing on the internet. I could write a detailed post using documented evidence about the history of this movement, the players involved, the money flow, etc. and anyone who wasn’t predisposed to believe it would just call me a tool of the right. Amusing, as I am a registered Independent.
I would hope at some point those of good faith would begin to at least ask qui bono, who benefits? Yes, the perversion of the is science in this case is interesting but it is only a tool to a bigger cause. Implementing the suggestions of the IPCC based on this science would have radical and massive implications for people and governments around the world. You don’t need to be a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist to wonder who benefits with this type of change.
Incidentally, does anyone find it odd that both Maurice Strong and Al Gore were both founding memebers of the first two carbon trading exchanges in the world, Strong in Chicago and Gore in the UK? I’m sure that was just a coincidence springing from their natrual altruistic tendencies.
Does someone pay attention to Krazy K?
Fox just broke a story on their website that deals with a document that they found concerning the UNEP and what they want to do. Here is an excerpt from the document:
“The environment should compete with religion as the only compelling, value-based narrative available to humanity. To do that, however, it will have to make itself relevant well beyond the world of those already
concerned with the environment, including very prominently its own formal constituency. Indeed, unless UNEP succeeds in recasting the debate, it is
highly likely that the economic community will do it—badly, and on its own terms. It is already happening in the field of climate change.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,577827,00.html
Good old Krugman would probably love this idea
Re: ralph (08:30:05)
Allowing this “issue” to split along left/right lines is too much of a risk.
At least some of the MSM are playing straight. This article in yesterday’s UK Sunday Times – http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936289.ece – made for a refreshing read.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the Sunday Times Magazine – the entire thing was a bonus pre-Copenhagen AGW tract. It had clearly been weeks in the making. It began with an article by Brian Appleyard explaining his earlier mild scepticism and his Pauline revelation that AGW is real – and that we should all emulate his conversion. The remainder of the magazine was a selection of articles for new converts – from scare stories to home emission guilt tales to extravagant “green” Christmas presents for the Righteous. Gag reflex was on overtime!!
Shame the ST isn’t agile enough to allow its magazine to be a little more current and courageous enough for it to be a little less partial.
boballab-
Per your link:
>>The Swiss paper was written not by Scanlon but by Mark Halle, the Europe-based director of trade and investment for an influential environmental think-tank, the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), which originated in Canada and now operates in some 30 countries. IISD, which still has heavy Canadian government support, bills itself as a research institute promoting policies that are “simultaneously beneficial to the global economy, the global environment and to social well-being.”
Oh you mean the IISD where Maurice Strong is a Dinguished Fellow and Friend of the Institute after sitting on the board? That IISD?
Just another coincidence. Nothing to see here. Move along.
A Tsunami of Brainwashing from the British Media ahead of Copenhagen
Consider this output of just 20 minutes from British television tonight:
The ITN News at 6.30pm has a report from the Himalayas where “temperatures are rising faster than anywhere else in the world”. (Ha!). The reporter, who has no scientific credentials whatsoever, climbed inside an ice tunnel in a “dead and rotting” glacier on Everest to “prove climate change is happening” and that our leaders “must do something about climate change at Copenhagen”, etc.
This was followed by the infamous Carbon Trust’s propaganda advert with the little girl who’s dog and rabbit drowned “because of the grown-ups” turning on lights, etc.
Next up, was the Channel Four 7pm news, which all this week, we are informed, will be a “Countdown to Copenhagen Week”. Tonight’s menu was broadcast from a slum in Brazil, and the burning question was “Can we make some of the poorest people in the world better off without damaging the west’s economy?” Which was a bit rich considering they preceded the item with a description of just how the rich Brazilians travel about these days. It’s by helicopter, and that’s coined a new term “the Helicopteracy” to describe them. The real burning question from our end was why these obscenely rich people can’t pay some taxes to do the same thing, instead of bleeding us white with “carbon” taxes. Of course, this question was never asked -how dare we? This was followed by an interview with the Brazilian president who stated that the west “would pay” for their industrial progress at Copenhagen.
In this weird parallel universe, which is inhabited by all sections of the media, politicians, scientists, bureaucrats and tycoons, not one mention has been made of the biggest scientific fraud in history, and who stands to benefit from it. Most of the mainstream media journalists, like ours in Britain, are bone-idle and brain-dead zombies, only capable of swallowing and regurgitating prepackaged lying “Global Warming” propaganda pap and nothing else.
Expect more, much more…
Vincent:
I wish your words were true as to giving windmills to India while we go nuclear. Per this reference:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.html
China has 18 large nuclear power plants under construction, India has 6, and the US has one. That one is a recent restart of a construction project abandoned decades ago. And for those of you who think nuclear is dangerous, I respond that a coal mine accident in China last month caused more fatalities than the Chernyobl screwup. The difference is that coal mining accidents aren’t news, and that Soviet nuke plants of that design have been mostly shut down.
Krugman is pretty much off the planet on everything that he speaks about, so it is no surprise that he is fantasising about AGW. The first few reads of his witterings are comical but thereafter it gets boringly repetitive…ignore!
Looks like finally Climategate is going to be discussed on US national TV by someone that is not a “Opinion” (Beck, Hannity) driven show. Britt Hume is supposed to talk about it on Special Report tonight. There is a huge difference between Beck and Hume. Hume was a long time Whitehouse correspondent for ABC before taking over Fox News. It will be interesting to see what he has to say.
I hope Fox puts Stossl on the case. e escaped from ABC just in time. They’d never let him have the time it will take to explore this issue thoroughly.
The Left is merely a misguided reaction to the misery and ENVIRONMENTAL damage caused by the government backed banking cartels. IT HAS A POINT but it is not pointed at the right institutions! The Right is merely a misguided reaction to the Left.
Let me ask a simple question of both the Left and the Right:
How can an economic system based on systematic, government enforced theft of purchasing power from all money holders including and ESPECIALLY the poor not be a disaster in the making?
Can we not all agree that theft is bad or is that too much to ask?
Here is a link to the transcript from Brit Hume on Climategate.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578206,00.html
My take is Ow that will leave a scar Gav!
Still waiting for my first cheque…
Lets see, I’ve got a scrounged “white box PC” that started life about 20 years ago as a x486 box (since upgraded to a 400 MHz AMD chip) with 132 MB memory and an old 10 GB disk bought from a computer recycler. Free software via Linux. That’s my GIStemp build/ test machine.
I self fund my coffee budget and my “travel budget” consists of paying the gas to go to the post office to mail my bill payments. (No Copenhagen or Bali for me…)
Yup, sure does sound more lucrative to me.
I sure wish the media could peel a few reporters from the pool reporting on TigerGate to cover this story.
Bruce Cobb (09:28:24) :
Thanks for helping clarify for me, Bruce…and I agree with what you are saying.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Krugman is right, Will is dead wrong. Deal with it. Just because the oil-industry did not see fit to fund YOUR denialism does not mean they aren’t spending on better denialists, like the so-called “Science and Public Policy Institute”.