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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.