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.
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 @ur momisugly 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.