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.
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.