Climate expert Paul Krugman loses perspective

Roger Pielke Jr. has a nice, short post in reaction to Paul Krugman’s opinion in the NY Times blaming climate change for the unrest in Egypt…

Go read –> Roger Pielke Jr.

Addendum comments by Dr. Ryan N. Maue

Based upon this quote from Krugman:

But the evidence tells a different, much more ominous story. While several factors have contributed to soaring food prices, what really stands out is the extent to which severe weather events have disrupted agricultural production. And these severe weather events are exactly the kind of thing we’d expect to see as rising concentrations of greenhouse gases change our climate — which means that the current food price surge may be just the beginning.

There is no other way to interpret this than “I told you so” from Krugman directly linking climate change and the disparate weather events of the past year or two to food prices and the crises in the Arab world. To various commenters who are defending Krugman religiously, do you doubt that Krugman is linking the events implicitly or explicitly?  Remind you, this is the same Nobel prize winner that less than a few hours after Congresswoman Giffords was shot blamed conservatives for the so-called “Climate of Hate“.  How does he have ANY credibility at all — especially with anything related to physical sciences?

65 thoughts on “Climate expert Paul Krugman loses perspective

  1. Maybe if policymakers hadn’t subsidized “bioethanol” and “solar farms” farmers could have grown more grains.

  2. Excellent! We need more manic Krugamans out there screeching about CAGW during one of the coldest and snowiest winters in recent memory [LOL].

  3. Anthony wrote:
    Roger Pielke Jr. has a nice, short post in reaction to Paul Krugman’s opinion in the NY Times blaming climate change for the unrest in Egypt…
    This is a simplistic distortion of what Krugman wrote in his column. He said that climate change is likely to be a contributor to this problem, along with natural cycles.
    The first part of his column discusses the rise in consumption of food in the rapidly developing countries in Asia, partly due to increased meat consumption. Then he switches to the crop failures due to weather creating a shortage of grain, pointing out that the stockpiles are low.
    The question then becomes, what’s behind all this extreme weather?
    To some extent we’re seeing the results of a natural phenomenon, La Niña — a periodic event in which water in the equatorial Pacific becomes cooler than normal. And La Niña events have historically been associated with global food crises, including the crisis of 2007-8.
    But that’s not the whole story. Don’t let the snow fool you: globally, 2010 was tied with 2005 for warmest year on record, even though we were at a solar minimum and La Niña was a cooling factor in the second half of the year. Temperature records were set not just in Russia but in no fewer than 19 countries, covering a fifth of the world’s land area. And both droughts and floods are natural consequences of a warming world: droughts because it’s hotter, floods because warm oceans release more water vapor.
    As always, you can’t attribute any one weather event to greenhouse gases. But the pattern we’re seeing, with extreme highs and extreme weather in general becoming much more common, is just what you’d expect from climate change.

    REPLY: Your might want to look carefully at the post author before launching rebuttals – Anthony

    [RyanM: sounds like climateprogress in here]

  4. I am hard pressed to name a more consistently wrong-headed “public intellectual” than Paul Krugman. Even those on the left are finding his offerings tough to swallow.

  5. Urederra says:
    February 7, 2011 at 10:21 am
    “Maybe if policymakers hadn’t subsidized “bioethanol” and “solar farms” farmers could have grown more grains.”
    Here’s an article from 1975.
    Russia had an abnormally warm June and a poor grain harvest resulted.
    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,947184,00.html
    The fickleness of Russian weather has created no shortage of historical food security problems. Of course we used to blame it on communism, now we blame it on climate change. Personally I blame it on the weather.

  6. I am not sure who Mubarak’s Paul Krugman is but, to follow this example I would expect them to declare that not only is the catastrophic C02 buildup causing the planetary fever and the food price increases and thus the social unrest, but that the protestors are accelerating it by all their exhaling while shouting and marching.
    So, to save the planet all the protestors must go home and shut up.
    Tis the usual Watermelon extortion argument – Do what I say or the planet will die!

  7. Spot on, Urederra. The ethanol subsidies and mandates have diverted farmland from food to ethanol feed-stocks and pinched the international food supply. The Feds “qualitative easing” (AKA printing money) and the increasing prosperity in Asia have amplified the effect.

  8. Krugman is NOT, as you write “blaming climate change for the unrest in Egypt.”
    What he actually wrote is:
    “While several factors have contributed to soaring food prices, what really stands out is the extent to which severe weather events have disrupted agricultural production. And these severe weather events are exactly the kind of thing we’d expect to see as rising concentrations of greenhouse gases change our climate.”
    And:
    “As always, you can’t attribute any one weather event to greenhouse gases. But the pattern we’re seeing, with extreme highs and extreme weather in general becoming much more common, is just what you’d expect from climate change. ”
    “The kind of thing we’d expect to see” and ” extreme weather in general becoming much more common” are not the same as blame.

  9. I await noted Fields Medal finalist Krugman’s proof that every number that is greater than 2 is the sum of three primes.
    Then the nominee for the Nobel Prize in physics can explain why the universe appears to have one time and three space dimensions.

  10. Noelle says:
    “The kind of thing we’d expect to see” and ” extreme weather in general becoming much more common” are not the same as blame.
    Did you not read the Op-Ed? I admit, Krugman didn’t say the words “global warming is causing the unrest in Egypt.” But his basic premise is that we’re seeing the beginnings of CAGW, and its going to get a lot worse. There really is no reasonable alternate reading of it. That’s what he said. Oh, and he threw in a little ad hom in at the end.
    To paraphrase the whole op-ed,
    “You can’t attribute to climate change things like weather variation, severe weather events, or food price fluctuation. But I’m going to do it anyway, to argue that the unrest in Egypt in just the beginning, and things are going to get a lot worse. Those crazy deniers are going to say I can’t prove that AGW is causing food prices to spike and in turn flaming the fire of unrest in the Middle East. And they’re right, I can’t. But don’t listen to them. They’re crazy conspiracists.”

  11. Over the last few years there have been several quasi-convincing arguments that the worlds grain reserves have been growing smaller, pimrarily for political economic reasons, not because of any decline in production. Countries have traditionally held grain in reserve for periods of poor weather and political uncertainty. It seems strange that in a time of purportedly increasing weather uncertainty, several countries have (apparently) chosen to severely diminish their grain reserves. Why am I not surprised that food prices have become more volatile.

  12. Noelle says:
    February 7, 2011 at 11:30 am
    “The kind of thing we’d expect to see” and ” extreme weather in general becoming much more common” are not the same as blame.
    ###
    BS ……….

  13. Mr Krugman blames high food prices on lower crop production, and that in turn on weather extremes caused by “global warming”. Therefore, we need to do something about CO2 production. The majority of the NYT comments seems to agree. What a fantastic chain of beliefs, most of which are unproven at best! I’ve talked to farmers from wheat growers in N. Dakota to wineries in central CA. They all tell me that yields are down a bit because of the shorter growing season due to COOLER temperatures. I understand this is not a global survey, but I want to see actual data supporting Mr Krugman’s statement that weather extremes actually do account for lower food availability. And how those weather extremes are caused by “global warming”. And how official adjusted government temperature data is better than actual temperature observations.
    I feel sorry for the farmers affected by weather extremes, but weather extremes have been happening since long before people were planting crops. They’re just better reported now.

  14. Noelle….the quotes you gave show very much that Krugman is trying to blame, at least in part, the unrest in Egypt on climate change. It was a shameless plug for one of his favorite topics and it was embarrassingly unsubstantial!

  15. Krugman:
    [T]he evidence does, in fact, suggest that what we’re getting now is a first taste of the disruption, economic and political, that we’ll face in a warming world. And given our failure to act on greenhouse gases, there will be much more, and much worse, to come.
    Imo, Krugman is again purposefully postulating alleged facts not in evidence, just as he did in the case of Lochnor’s Tucson, Az., assault; where what Krugman immediately blurted out as something that “could” have been the case, was not the case; while it was also evident fairly early on that Lochnor was psychotic enough for that alone to explain his actions; so that Krugman did not care about the facts at all, but rather only about spreading a propaganda meme ASAP, specifically before the facts had any chance to appear!
    But which then actually made Krugman look as delusional as Lochnor!
    So in this case of alleged CO2CAGW climate disruption, Krugman merely continues true to form, postulating as alleged fact propaganda memes, when he obviously doesn’t really care if they are factual or not. And he’s therefore still only intending to appeal to the delusional.
    Of course, to be fair, it’s also possible that Krugman, enc., really couldn’t tell that Lochnor is psychotic, because their thinking is too much like his.

  16. Noelle says:
    February 7, 2011 at 11:30 am
    Krugman is NOT, as you write “blaming climate change for the unrest in Egypt.”
    Not quite true, he is trying a classic conflation trick here. He takes what we do know and mixes in his own conjecture based on his beliefs in CAGW. What he is trying to do is present a carefully selected and exclusive set of unrelated events and tying them together while forgetting to use facts and figures like total food production and charts showing these proclaimed “extremes”.
    “As always, you can’t attribute any one weather event to greenhouse gases. But the pattern we’re seeing, with extreme highs and extreme weather in general becoming much more common, is just what you’d expect from climate change. ”
    Here we see the bait and switch trickery, its telling us nothing about facts and figures and evidence, we are supposed to take the bait and take it for granted. Where is the evidence that weather is actually becoming more extreme and happening more often?
    Extreme highs? High what, rain cold warm dry snow? Where is the evidence that extreme weather is “much more common”?
    You see none because there really is none, no really, there is no evidence to suggest anything of the sort so in the absence of evidence we are led on a journey. This journey needs us to forget about real evidence and rely instead on the actual increase in hysterical MSM reporting of weather events, we are led away from actual facts and figures and asked to accept the emotional case instead. Its a clever artifice to lead you away from the land of factual evidence to the fairy land of wishful thinking make believe and the further down the road you travel the less reality you wish to see, its a sickness infecting a large part of the CAGW belief system.
    No, the trick is of course that the normal ebb and flow of weather events that have been occurring since time began is being picked on and reported as evidence of CAGW and the more it is reported the firmer the ‘evidence’ appears but it is not real evidence at all, it is a fabrication with no substance, an emotive fable and modern folklore, repeat a fabrication often enough and people start to accept it as fact.
    What we would expect from climate change is for the climate to change just as it always has since the dawn of time, the same events, the same floods and droughts and heat and cold and snow and rain but these are now being used to promote CAGW, so where are the facts to go with the statement? No proofs and no figures of this supposed increase in extremes? They of course do not exist and that is why we are asked to believe the central narrative without proofs because there is no proof. If humanity just climbed back in the trees there would still be the exact same amount of weather and climate events as before.
    Its a very crafty presentation and one which lawyers use in a courtroom, if you have no actual evidence just pretend it exists, conflate knowns with uncertainties and hope nobody notices. What we see is a blatant attempt to mislead and confuse because that is all the CAGW narrative has left.
    Green policies are hurting world food production, eco green insanity and selfish trade protectionism by the EU for example which has enacted many green policies is a major culprit as it puts selfish self interest and insane green policies into effect, a disastrous combination of cynical selfishness and naive eco stupidity. Biofuels and trade barriers and food dumping in Africa and corruption and anti third world development practices and stone age farming techniques are the real threats. Climate change is real and its natural and cyclic, we live with its effects and we prosper in spite of its effects but we cannot hope to prosper with the utterly disastrous green eco anti humanist anti progress theologies acting as a dragging anchor.

  17. Well, if you look at Pielke’s graph then food prices have been going down for 100 years. Can we blame that on climate change too since CO2 increases crop yields?
    Also, I believe I recall Krugman implying that meat prices were going up, when AFAIK they have been flat – probably due to the fact that unlike the grains mentioned they aren’t involved in biofuel production.
    Doh that damn logic again…I’ll never get a Nobel prize at this rate.

  18. Is there a unit of catastrophe which plots scale of events in lives and property? I suppose there ought to be, but not knowing it I will invent one for this post – ‘OMGs’. Given that history and pre history are littered with weather (and climate) catastrophes of all sorts and those eras represent a variety of global temperatures, what global temperature produces the lowest OMGs? Do anyone really think that that temperature equals 0ºC on the anomaly scale?

  19. Dan in California says:
    February 7, 2011 at 12:56 pm

    Mr Krugman blames high food prices on lower crop production, and that in turn on weather extremes caused by “global warming”. Therefore, we need to do something about CO2 production.

    Indeed! I say we increase CO2 production dramatically to help plant growth (or do those who run greenhouses for a living augment CO2 just out of spite?)

  20. harrywr2 says:
    February 7, 2011 at 11:11 am
    Urederra says:
    February 7, 2011 at 10:21 am
    “Maybe if policymakers hadn’t subsidized “bioethanol” and “solar farms” farmers could have grown more grains.”
    Here’s an article from 1975.
    Russia had an abnormally warm June and a poor grain harvest resulted.
    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,947184,00.html

    And the point of the article you linked is? What is the causation you are claiming? Since warm weather caused poor grain harvest in 1975 then fewer land area dedicated to grow cereals shouldn’t produce grain scarcity? I don’t follow your logic.

    The fickleness of Russian weather has created no shortage of historical food security problems. Of course we used to blame it on communism, now we blame it on climate change. Personally I blame it on the weather.

    Of course we blame communism.
    http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/ukra.html

    The dreadful famine that engulfed Ukraine, the northern Caucasus, and the lower Volga River area in 1932-1933 was the result of Joseph Stalin’s policy of forced collectivization. The heaviest losses occurred in Ukraine, which had been the most productive agricultural area of the Soviet Union. Stalin was determined to crush all vestiges of Ukrainian nationalism. Thus, the famine was accompanied by a devastating purge of the Ukrainian intelligentsia and the Ukrainian Communist party itself. The famine broke the peasants’ will to resist collectivization and left Ukraine politically, socially, and psychologically traumatized.
    The death toll from the 1932-33 famine in Ukraine has been estimated between six million and seven million. According to a Soviet author, “Before they died, people often lost their senses and ceased to be human beings.” Yet one of Stalin’s lieutenants in Ukraine stated in 1933 that the famine was a great success. It showed the peasants “who is the master here. It cost millions of lives, but the collective farm system is here to stay.”..

    Nuff said.

  21. The London Telegraph’s Ambrose Evans-Pritchard may have nailed it:
    “…..Einstein was right – honey bee collapse threatens global food security
    “The bee crisis has been treated as a niche concern until now, but as the UN’s index of food prices hits an all time-high, it is becoming urgent to know whether the plight of the honey bee risks further exhausting our food security….”
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/8306970/Einstein-was-right-honey-bee-collapse-threatens-global-food-security.html
    …Lady in Red

  22. Perhaps its time to add to Lord Acton’s observation thus
    Power and media attention tends to corrupt and absolute power and intense media attention corrupt absolutely.

  23. Krugman is a good little lying puppet.
    He has, over the course of writing at the Times, shown himself to be completely delusional or just taking orders.
    islam is Egypt’s problem.
    If you want to argue with me about that, this is just the thread on WUWT I’ve been waiting for.
    It’s not offtopic because this thread is about: Why Egypt is really demanding ‘change’
    Oh Anthony, please let me slay some dragons here. It would be such a joy.

  24. After reading Krugman’s piece on Egypt/AGW in the NY Times it’s now obvious to all the he has removed all doubt that he is a scientific imbecile. How does he function in a modern society when he is so out of touch? To me, even worse than the article are the comments of so many who agree with what he say about AGW. There must be some sort of “stupid gas” among the better known components of the atmosphere.

  25. thegoodlocust says:
    February 7, 2011 at 1:38 pm
    “Well, if you look at Pielke’s graph then food prices have been going down for 100 years. Can we blame that on climate change too since CO2 increases crop yields?
    Also, I believe I recall Krugman implying that meat prices were going up, when AFAIK they have been flat – probably due to the fact that unlike the grains mentioned they aren’t involved in biofuel production.
    Doh that damn logic again…I’ll never get a Nobel prize at this rate.

    Goodlocust,
    You are looking at the data through blinders of climate change denialism. Certainly the long term reduction in price of grains is a result of the mechanization of agriculture, use of chemical fertilizer, and improved seeds.
    The long term reduction in meat prices is a result of the [?] in grain prices, as well as the rise of factory farming, which greatly reduces the cost of raising meat.
    All of these factors are extraneous to any fluctuations in climate.
    Actually since 1999, the price of pork has risen, once short term fluctuations get averaged out.
    http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=pork&months=360
    To repeat, Krugman’s does not say that the current spike in grain prices is a result of global warming. It is due to weather fluctuations. He says a specific case cannot be blamed on global warming. What he did say is that this sort of event is likely to increase in frequency in the future, as global warming proceeds. It is a statement about the future , not about the specific price spike we are currently encountering.
    To claim that he is saying the current spike is due to global warming is a straw man argument. Typically people who don’t have a good case for their ideas, will resort to a straw man argument.

  26. Roger,
    You fail to make your case. First you overstate Krugman’s claim and then assert they there is no scientific evidence linking climate change to food prices. Krugman presents a plausible causal sequence. He has not claimed have found a statical correlation. He has not claimed to have proved anything. He is raising a thought provoking plausible possibility.
    It seems plausible to me that the spike in your graph around 73-74 is due to the oil embargo. But I cannot make a statistical argument for this. Krugman’s case is weaker than this, but it is plausible.
    Krugman’s piece can be criticized. One could make a case that the evidence linking climate change and food prices is so weak that one should not use it to provoke public concern. (*) But that is not what you have done. Comparing his argument to Pat Robertson’s claim is absurd and insulting. Your calling Krugman – a man far more accomplished than you are – “an uninformed pundit” is also ad hominem.
    (*) Cassandra above gives just this sort of critique. Even though I do not agree with her, she does give a valid argument.

  27. Irrational fear of global warming has led us to feed cars rather than people on a massive scale, certainly enough to worsen cyclical food shortages due to weather and political events, as farmers commit more of their crops to ethanol. Archer Daniels Midland is smiling all the way to the morgue. Imagine even one child starving to death because of the CAGW fearmongering. Then imagine millions. Even Al Gore has had enough, and has turned against biofuels.
    Another contributer may be the excessive easing of the US dollar by the Federal Reserve. Serious people believe that much of the liquidity the Fed has been pushing has moved right overseas into foreign markets (that often price goods in the US Dollar). Although general inflation within the US is tame, the rest of the world is rife with commodity inflation (ie food, minerals, materials, oil) with devastating effects on the usual victims: the poor.
    There is a growing body of thought that the Fed needs to stop their “quantitative easing” program or even more stress on the Egypts of the world will follow (not to mention the debasement of the world’s only reserve currency destroying global trade in general, and an eventual fall into an inflationary spiral here in the US).

  28. @kwinterkorn says:February 7, 2011 at 2:47 pm
    I partly agree. However fear of global warming is not irrational. But it is used by certain business groups to push for government policies that help them. Nuclear power companies do this too. This is why many economists prefer a cap and trade system. Then market forces rather than lobbying clout direct resources.

  29. RockyRoad says:
    February 7, 2011 at 1:59 pm
    “Indeed! I say we increase CO2 production dramatically to help plant growth…”
    So true, in fact we should sue the EPA on behalf of plants because they…they have no voice!

  30. eadler says:
    February 7, 2011 at 2:29 pm
    “Goodlocust,
    You are looking at the data through blinders of climate change denialism. Certainly the long term reduction in price of grains is a result of the mechanization of agriculture, use of chemical fertilizer, and improved seeds.”
    I never said there weren’t other factors involved. I was demonstrating the simplistic reasoning used by Krugman from the perspective of “climate change denialism” as you put it, which, using his flawed reasoning, would be just as valid as his own propositions.
    “To repeat, Krugman’s does not say that the current spike in grain prices is a result of global warming. It is due to weather fluctuations.”
    Only in the most narrow and narrow-minded of readings, but clearly wrong in both context and intent. For example, Krugman says,
    “While several factors have contributed to soaring food prices, what really stands out is the extent to which severe weather events have disrupted agricultural production. And these severe weather events are exactly the kind of thing we’d expect to see as rising concentrations of greenhouse gases change our climate — which means that the current food price surge may be just the beginning.”
    So yes, he says it is due to “weather” and then says that weather is what we’d see due to greenhouse gases. Your legalistic defense demonstrates that you can do little else other than argue semantics.
    As for more examples Krugman also says:
    “But that’s not the whole story. Don’t let the snow fool you: globally, 2010 was tied with 2005 for warmest year on record, even though we were at a solar minimum and La Niña was a cooling factor in the second half of the year. Temperature records were set not just in Russia but in no fewer than 19 countries, covering a fifth of the world’s land area. And both droughts and floods are natural consequences of a warming world: droughts because it’s hotter, floods because warm oceans release more water vapor.
    As always, you can’t attribute any one weather event to greenhouse gases. But the pattern we’re seeing, with extreme highs and extreme weather in general becoming much more common, is just what you’d expect from climate change. ”
    Hmm…all these suggestions and implications? All this talk about record heat waves…what could Krugman possibly be implying?
    Well, he says:
    “The usual suspects will, of course, go wild over suggestions that global warming has something to do with the food crisis”
    Ah, so Krugmans says that he is suggesting that the food crisis is caused by global warming. Oh my! My “straw man” argument really looks weak at this point. But we still have more from Krugman:
    “But the evidence does, in fact, suggest that what we’re getting now is a first taste of the disruption, economic and political, that we’ll face in a warming world. ”
    There you go, he says this food crisis is the “first taste” of the problems caused by global warming.
    Are you going to argue semantics some more? It really doesn’t cast you in a good light, but I suppose you must defend an “intellectual hero” of the left.

  31. Urederra says:
    February 7, 2011 at 2:07 pm
    My point?
    An unusually warm June in 1975 hurt Soviet grain harvests.
    Flooding related to LaNina Hurt Australian harvests.
    There was a global spike in grain prices in 1975.
    An unusually warm summer in 2010 hurt Russian grain harvests.
    Flooding related to LaNina is currently doing a job on Australian crops.
    A fairly scholarly article, Russia had 11 Major famines between 1845 and 1922.(Pre communism) http://www.alanmacfarlane.com/savage/A-FAM.PDF
    We can use the ‘it was all communism’ excuse, but the ‘it was all communism’ doesn’t explain the famines that occurred between 1845 and 1922.
    Russia has had a bad harvest every 10-12 years for 160 years. If that coincides with an event in another major bread basket, say Australia, then food prices spike.

  32. “But the evidence does, in fact, suggest that what we’re getting now is a first taste of the disruption, economic and political, that we’ll face in a warming world. ”
    notice the ‘new term’ work in on this article?
    Seems to me the whole piece is designed to make this word a legitimate descriptive totem for climate news induced panic…
    Krugman is also doing a double duty by completely avoiding the muslim brothers in the room. Of course, islam is the ‘environmental ideology’, right? It sure is a low-carbon existence for human life, that’s for sure…
    Krugman is working at the ‘machine’s’ mouth piece, the NY Times, because he is a cog in the same apparatus… Looks like the Times has found it’s new Duranty for our times Evil Empire… I think it’s a sick society that allows this sort of deception to continue like it’s a real newspaper…

  33. thegoodlocust says:
    February 7, 2011 at 4:14 pm
    eadler says:
    February 7, 2011 at 2:29 pm
    “Goodlocust,
    You are looking at the data through blinders of climate change denialism. Certainly the long term reduction in price of grains is a result of the mechanization of agriculture, use of chemical fertilizer, and improved seeds.”

    Goodlocust says:
    I never said there weren’t other factors involved. I was demonstrating the simplistic reasoning used by Krugman from the perspective of “climate change denialism” as you put it, which, using his flawed reasoning, would be just as valid as his own propositions.
    Krugman’s reasoning was not simplistic at all. Your version of what he said is what is simplistic.
    Eadler says,

    “To repeat, Krugman does not say that the current spike in grain prices is a result of global warming. It is due to weather fluctuations.”

    Goodlocust says:

    Only in the most narrow and narrow-minded of readings, but clearly wrong in both context and intent. For example, Krugman says,
    “While several factors have contributed to soaring food prices, what really stands out is the extent to which severe weather events have disrupted agricultural production. And these severe weather events are exactly the kind of thing we’d expect to see as rising concentrations of greenhouse gases change our climate — which means that the current food price surge may be just the beginning.”
    So yes, he says it is due to “weather” and then says that weather is what we’d see due to greenhouse gases. Your legalistic defense demonstrates that you can do little else other than argue semantics.

    Why don’t you make an argument against what he actually said, instead of your interpretation of what he said?
    Are you saying that the price spike is not due to weather? Are you saying that there is no evidence, based on climate models, that more frequent drought and flood are not outcomes of continued global warming? He specifically said that no single event can be attributed to global warming. Do you disagree with that?
    Goodloucust says:
    As for more examples Krugman also says:
    “But that’s not the whole story. Don’t let the snow fool you: globally, 2010 was tied with 2005 for warmest year on record, even though we were at a solar minimum and La Niña was a cooling factor in the second half of the year. Temperature records were set not just in Russia but in no fewer than 19 countries, covering a fifth of the world’s land area. And both droughts and floods are natural consequences of a warming world: droughts because it’s hotter, floods because warm oceans release more water vapor.
    As always, you can’t attribute any one weather event to greenhouse gases. But the pattern we’re seeing, with extreme highs and extreme weather in general becoming much more common, is just what you’d expect from climate change.”
    Well, he says:
    “The usual suspects will, of course, go wild over suggestions that global warming has something to do with the food crisis”
    Ah, so Krugmans says that he is suggesting that the food crisis is caused by global warming. Oh my! My “straw man” argument really looks weak at this point.
    But we still have more from Krugman:
    “But the evidence does, in fact, suggest that what we’re getting now is a first taste of the disruption, economic and political, that we’ll face in a warming world. ”
    There you go, he says this food crisis is the “first taste” of the problems caused by global warming.
    Are you going to argue semantics some more? It really doesn’t cast you in a good light, but I suppose you must defend an “intellectual hero” of the left.

    Krugman did not say that the food crisis is caused by global warming. That is your invention. What he said is that some people, like yourself, would be irate at the suggestions that global warming has “something to do with the food crisis“. He made clear what he meant by ” something to do with Global Warming”. Global warming will result in more weather events such as we have experienced recently. He does not blame the current problem on Global Warming, since he says no specific event can be blamed on Global Warming. It is not a matter of semantics, it is a matter of accurate thinking. If you refuse to understand the difference, it is for the purpose of making a straw man argument.
    In the entire length of your post, you haven’t taken issue with any of the facts that Krugman presented, or showed any error in logic. Your argument is made against your own version of what Krugman said, simply because you don’t like the idea that global warming will lead to more drought and floods. If you don’t believe this then why not argue the real point instead of using Paul Krugman as some kind of whipping boy, the way conservatives are used to doing?

  34. Noelle
    Useful idiot. Look it up. Sheesh. Seriously?
    “DesertYote says:
    February 7, 2011 at 12:50 pm
    Noelle says:
    February 7, 2011 at 11:30 am
    “The kind of thing we’d expect to see” and ” extreme weather in general becoming much more common” are not the same as blame.
    ###
    BS ……….”
    THIS

  35. In reply to my post
    eadler says:
    February 7, 2011 at 10:39 am
    Anthony wrote:
    REPLY: Your might want to look carefully at the post author before launching rebuttals – Anthony
    Sorry. The author’s name is in fine print.
    Ryan M wrote:
    [RyanM: sounds like climateprogress in here]
    I am not aware Climateprogress has a post on this topic. If they do, I didn’t read it.
    Does Ryan M have a substantive reply to what I said?
    REPLY: For somebody always harping on details, the fact that you complain about “fine print” while at the same time lecturing us on details not included with articles suggests that your opinion is not balanced. Your multitude comments, over 18 hours days, dominate most every thread these days, and it makes me wonder if somebody isn’t paying you to disrupt this blog. So here’s the question: who are you and what’s your purpose here? Given the volume of commentary you have here, it’s a fair question. Note that your welcome is getting worn out here, some insight would be helpful. – Anthony

  36. harrywr2 says:
    February 7, 2011 at 11:11 am
    …The fickleness of Russian weather has created no shortage of historical food security problems. Of course we used to blame it on communism, now we blame it on climate change. Personally I blame it on the weather.

    No, it was pretty much the result of communism.

  37. @Urederra
    The six or seven million Ukrainians who had to die for Stalin to get his collectivism going reminds of the hundreds of millions, if not billions, who will die if Obama is successful in, necessarily, having energy prices skyrocket.

  38. eadler, let me get this straight. When snow and cold is up to my hoo hah, I’m not supposed to be fooled by it? I was raised on a farm. We grew winter and spring wheat, oats, alfalfa, and Timothy hay, along side raising cattle and hogs. The ranch qualifies as a “Century Farm”. As in, it’s been in business a long time. Please explain how we should have instead ignored the cold spells, wet spells, and yes, the dry years – and stayed in business.
    You. Know. Nothing.

  39. @harrywr2
    Periodic famines were common the world over prior to 1922. The developed world developed modern agriculture and famines pretty much subsided, except in the Soviet Union, were collectivism was a total failure. Collectivism will always fail.

  40. I have noticed a new shift in the way AGW is promoted.
    Nowadays there seems to be more appearances of the phrase “… is consistent with the predictions of global warming”
    By my reckoning most of the stuff that happens in the world is consistent with the vague ‘predictions’ of AGW.
    As well as GW, GC and AGC…
    For that matter we can add in the predictions of Global Constant Climate etc.
    Such events which are consistent with these predictions include a bit of rain, a bit of wind, a bit of drought, waves rolling onto the beach, trees growing, trees falling over, the Steelers beating the Packers, vice verse, me going to Burger King…..
    etc.
    I wonder how much more vague these ‘predictions’ are going to become.
    “The world will soon enter a period of uncertainty in matters of the heart. A nearby planet will offer some advice which may be hard to interpret. The globes lucky number is … blue…”

  41. No credibilty and no different from a rock star trying to stay in the public eye with pathetic and provocative behavior…….see l. Lohan

  42. Hmm.
    My wife is rather partial to Tender Stem Broccoli. Fresh – obviously.
    It is pretty much available all year around here in the UK if the buyers do their job correctly and the snow does not disrupt deliveries. Since it must be flown in days of volcanic activity can also be disruptive.
    Once in a while the Broccoli comes from the UK, according to labelling on the packages. But mostly it seems to originate in Kenya or Egypt. Unusually I found some from Jordan a couple of weeks ago. It’s amazing where fresh produce arrives from these days. I assume the locals don’t like broccoli so they ship the stuff here. Or maybe it’s just a much higher profit margin than grain or cereals in general.
    Or perhaps it’s something else to do with the greed of those who would rule over others – a common theme under all regimes in the modern world it seems.
    I saw a report this evening that suggested that what the Egyptian people really want is sugar for their tea. And internet access from their phones. Or maybe that was just the prisoners that were released to stir up trouble and add to lawlessness.
    Perhaps they should be more worried about having to eat food raw once CAGW related policies result in the twin problems of high cost energy sources that many cannot afford and shortage of availability for those who can afford to cook stuff.
    The consequences of those problems on a worldwide basis might just be more locally and personally dramatic than economists are used to considering.
    Pure speculation on might part though – as seems to be the case everywhere these days.
    [CAGW and Broccoli? Robt]

  43. “And these severe weather events are exactly the kind of thing we’d expect to see as rising concentrations of greenhouse gases change our climate…”
    Really Mr. Krugman? You were “expecting” to see these severe weather events, including the record cold and snow? Why didn’t you tell us back when everyone else was predicting that global warming would mean steadily rising temperatures and that children in the UK would rarely see a glimpse of snow? Why didn’t you contradict these people back then with your superior foreknowledge?
    What I would really like to know is what type of weather events are exactly the kind of thing we’d expect to see if rising greenhouse gases are NOT changing our climate. Can someone please provide us with a list?
    I remember global warming advocates predicting a warmer planet with less ice and snow, but then the opposite began to happen. Now these same people are pointing to cold weather events as examples of things “we’d expect to see” from climate change. If the science is settled then it should be very easy for them to tell us in advance what type of events they would not expect to see due to climate change. I’m tired of them changing their expectations AFTER the fact. Put it on record now.
    The very fact that they keep changing the terminology — from global warming to climate change to climate disruption — is strong evidence, in itself, that the science is not settled. They really have no idea what to expect in the future. If they were confident that rising CO2 results in rising temperatures, they would stick with “global warming”. By switching to “climate change” they are acknowledging that they don’t really know if temperatures will go up or down. They’re covering all their bases so, no matter what happens with the climate, they can claim to be right. It’s becoming clear that much of what is being promoted as climate science is simply political activism and environmentalism masquerading as science.

  44. The Egyptian economy is being subjected to stresses that have nothing to do with its agricultural output, this output is at record highs. The problems are mainly external with factors such as the historic low interest rates in the major economies which has led directly to investment institutions piling into commodities such as foodstuffs leading to foodstuff inflation. World food prices are rising not because of declining production, we are seeing stresses within the system caused by protectionism and profiteering and WTO/UN mistakes.
    Free trade and open borders for food products and the ending of rich nations subsiding their own agricultural sectors could help and the restricting of investment banking profiteering while encouraging real investment in developing nations agricultural sectors would help. A change of attitude is essential, the third world could become the engine of world economic growth, the world needs food and the third world has land aplenty but little infrastructure and technologies needed to kick start industrial food production. The UN is active in keeping the poorest on the land using subsistence stone age farming techniques when it should be urging the adoption of modern food production methods.
    Food dumping of excess 1st world foodstuffs into the 3rd world on the pretext of aid is also preventing the required expansion of modern agribusiness and it is this that is playing a major role in holding back world food production, there are many reasons for the stresses in world food production yet the smallest most insignificant contribution in the form of cyclic weather variability is being exploited to hide the real problems we need to face. Put simply we need more land under the plough and land we have aplenty and with modern irrigation techniques we have all the water we need, we need more modern farming methods and better machines and that we possess in large quantities. So we have the land and we have the gear and we have the money and we have the technologies and we have the shipping fleets to provide the planet with all the food it could ever want, so whats the problem then?
    The problem is vested interests and selfish 1st world protectionism combined with a wholly flawed ideological approach by the political classes today and they are using CAGW to hide their own sins and stupid errors and flawed beliefs. I see today a Luddite ignorance being played out, I see a flawed political ideology gaining supremacy in the emerging world government and a selfish supremacist narrative intent on crushing the 3rd world aspirations in order for the few to keep their place a the top. We have all we need to feed the world many times over, what we lack are the leaders to make this happen. We are being fed a diet of fear and suspicion uncertainty, we are being manipulated and lied to and it is blinding us to the truly wonderful future that awaits us.

  45. thegoodlocust says:
    February 7, 2011 at 1:38 pm
    Well, if you look at Pielke’s graph then food prices have been going down for 100 years. Can we blame that on climate change too since CO2 increases crop yields?
    ____________________
    Actually, if one is to apply simplistic logic in the same manner as Krugman, that would be the more plausible statement: CO2 increaces plant growth and hence crops. Food prices have been falling as CO2 has been increacing in the atmosphere.
    Of course, this would be a horrible oversimplification of the chaotic climate system, but I would give it the same value (at least) as Krugman’s ramblings.
    Maybe someone should write a new article: “Riots in Egypt despite ever falling food prices and increaced levels of plant food(CO2).”

  46. don’t for get this classic Eric Steig moment below..
    I had asked at RealClimate why not have a blogroll link in other opinions, To Climate Audit, Peilke Jnr and Lucia’s Blackboard, as an example of goodwill
    [Response: Being listed on our blogroll does not constitute endorsement. In general, the sites we do list — whether they are run by scientists or not — tend to get the science right much of the time, and hence are consistent with our mission. Being not-listed could mean that
    a) we haven’t heard of the site,
    b) that it is uninteresting or unimportant, or
    c) that we consider it dishonest or disingenuous with respect to the science.
    Pielke Jr, Blackboard, and ClimateAudit all fall squarely into the latter category.–eric]
    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/extreme-climate/
    That comment comment of mine at RC prompted Eric Steig to calling Climate Audi, Lucia and Peilke dishonest. My following 2 comments defending myself from Ray Ladbury, never appeared at RealClimate
    on the same article, eric steig made the following comment…
    eric [Response: There is, however, no evidence that ‘skeptics’ are being shut out of journals. There is indeed much evidence to the contrary. This is a canard.”
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/06/what-do-climate-scientists-think/comment-page-2/#comment-178911

  47. It is becoming painfully obvious that nobel prizes are awarded on the basis of sucking up to politicians and buearocrats rather any ability or achievement. Democracy is dieing in the west, it can hardly be a coincidence that the entire beaurocratic machinery and political class believe in this stuff.

  48. REPLY: For somebody always harping on details, the fact that you complain about “fine print” while at the same time lecturing us on details not included with articles suggests that your opinion is not balanced. Your multitude comments, over 18 hours days, dominate most every thread these days, and it makes me wonder if somebody isn’t paying you to disrupt this blog. So here’s the question: who are you and what’s your purpose here? Given the volume of commentary you have here, it’s a fair question. Note that your welcome is getting worn out here, some insight would be helpful. – Anthony
    I am a retired Physicist/Engineer.
    I hardly dominate any threads. If you count my posts they are a miniscule percentage of the number of posts or words. I only post on a minority of pages where I feel I can make a positive contribution. If you feel that I dominate anything, perhaps it is the quality of what I write that makes you feel that way.
    REPLY: 398 comments on WUWT so far, 719 comments in rebuttal to yours. But, you make a good point, a lot of your commentary is pretty bad. – Anthony

  49. Mike says:
    February 7, 2011 at 2:39 pm says:
    “(*) Cassandra above gives just this sort of critique. Even though I do not agree with her, she does give a valid argument.”
    Many thanks for the kind words Mike, I am glad that someone read the post and understood the argument as I intended it. Where do you disagree and why? It would help me to progress my own position if I were to be presented with the substantive weaknesses in my post.
    Yours
    Cassie K.

  50. “eadler says:
    February 7, 2011 at 5:30 pm

    Okay, I gave it a shot and quoted Krugman multiple times to make my point. It is clear that you either didn’t read my post or had your mind made up before you read it.
    Basically, you think it is my “invention” that Krugman is blaming global warming for the Egyptian crisis/food prices. And yet, even if we ignore the many quotes I gave you, it is clear from the hundreds of comments on his article at the NYT’s website that was the impression given to all the commenters on both sides of the aisle.
    I will give you credit in that you realize how stupid it makes Krugman look and so you are trying to nip it in the bud, but everyone else regardless of political affiliation understood what he meant. Everyone else must be completely mistaken when they read it.
    Hopefully I remember your username so I don’t waste any more time on you in the future.

  51. Always have a problem with the food price, food shortage AGW alarmists.
    Throughout the EU we pay billions of tax payers Euro’s to farmers, land owners, golf courses, etc. to grow absolutely nothing at all.
    I wonder whether this is linked to food prices?

  52. Paul Krugman is a climate expert. Really?
    One definition of an expert: “Someone who is more than 50 miles from home”.
    If Krugman commutes more than 50 miles between home and the NYT this would meet the criteria.

  53. Continually peering at the world through warming-colored glasses has a tendency to make everything appear warming-colored. There’s a 60’s theme in there somewhere….

  54. The title of this posting is foolish. After all, don’t you have to have something before you can lose it?

Comments are closed.