Guest essay by Larry Kummer. From the Fabius Maximus website.
Summary: Like all of Krugman’s work, we can learn much from his latest column about climate change. See this annotated version to see how he shows why 30 years of climate crusading has produced so little policy action in the US.
“The Axis of Climate Evil“
“Bad faith may destroy civilization”
Paul Krugman’s op-ed
in the New York Times, 11 August 2017.
Krugman is a brilliant economist, with a knack for explaining technical details to the general public. He is also an insightful political analyst, albeit of the left-wing hack kind. In yesterday’s column, he shows us the latter in action — and why three decades of climate activism has accomplished so little.
“It’s Not Your Imagination: Summers Are Getting Hotter.” So read a recent headline in The Times, highlighting a decade-by-decade statistical analysis by climate expert James Hansen. “Most summers,” the analysis concluded, “are now either hot or extremely hot compared with the mid-20th century.”
Krugman starts with a look at the past. Hansen’s graphs in the New York Times are what Edward Tufte calls “chart junk” in his classic work about graphics
For a wider perspective see this graph from the Executive Summary of the Third Draft of the Climate Science Special Report, part of the Fourth National Climate Assessment. (CCSR of NCA4). Oddly, it is not in the current Fifth Draft. It shows the hottest day in the 48 contiguous US States by year. The line has been rising since the 1960s, but remains below the levels during the long Dust Bowl. The real message here is that individual graphs can look spectacular, but no one graphic — no matter how animated — can capture the complexity of climate change.
“Extreme Hot Days Dominated by 1930s Dust Bowl.”
A still wider context shows another picture. America and Europe have been warming for two centuries, since the Little Ice Age ended. The IPCC’s AR5 Working Group I describes the anthropogenic part of that long warming: “It is extremely likely (95 – 100% certain) that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in global mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 {link}.”
So what else is new? At this point the evidence for human-caused global warming just keeps getting more overwhelming, and the plausible scenarios for the future — extreme weather events, rising sea levels, drought, and more — just keep getting scarier. …
It’s fun to see climate activists make menacingly vague statements and support them by pointing to a voluminous reports, as Krugman does here — pointing to the 673 page-long draft CCSR. Let’s see if we can do better. The key relevant section is “4: Climate Models, Scenarios, and Projections.”
“Over the next two decades, global temperature increase is projected to be between 0.5°F and 1.3°F (0.3°–0.7°C) (medium confidence). This range is primarily due to uncertainties in natural sources of variability that affect short-term trends. In some regions, this means that the trend may not be distinguishable from natural variability (high confidence).
“Beyond the next few decades, the magnitude of climate change depends primarily on cumulative emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols and the sensitivity of the climate system to those emissions (high confidence). Projected changes range from 4.7°–8.6°F (2.6°–4.8°C) under the higher RCP8.5 scenario to 0.5°–1.3°F (0.3° 1.7°C) under the lower RCP2.6 scenario, for 2081–2100 relative to 1986–2005 (medium confidence).”
So the report does not prophesize doom with the certainty Krugman implies. In fact, it does what activists seldom do — explicitly state the certainty of its conclusions (the IPCC’s reports also do this). We might get tolerable rise of 0.5°–1.3°F under RCP2.6 — the most favorable of the four scenarios in the IPCC’s AR5 report (it might be easy to do; see these details). On the other extreme, their worst-case RCP8.5 scenario is nightmarish but unlikely.
What becomes clear to anyone following the climate debate, however, is that hardly any climate skeptics are in fact trying to get at the truth. I’m not a climate scientist, but I do know what bogus arguments look like — and I can’t think of a single prominent climate skeptic who isn’t obviously arguing in bad faith.
A sensible person would stop reading with this pitiful attempt to delegitimize scientists who disagree with him. Only hard-core hacks write like this. Climate activists describe prominent climate scientists like Roger Pielke Sr. and Judith Curry as “skeptics”. Krugman’s description is quite mad applied to them.
Take, for example, all the people who seized on the fact that 1998 was an unusually warm year to claim that global warming stopped 20 years ago — as if one unseasonably hot day in May proves that summer is a myth.
With this science denial Krugman shows the brotherhood of the far-right and far-left. Here he vaguely refers to what climate scientists call the “pause” or “hiatus”. Hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals and reports have discussed this since the early ones in 2009. Scores discussed evidence showing the pause. After that was well-established, scores discussed possible causes of the pause (a debate still not resolved). Some discuss when the pause will end (with the 2015 El Nino either making a pause in the pause, or more likely ending it). Those links go to posts with citations, abstracts, and links to a sample of 150 papers about the pause.
Or all the people who cited out-of-context quotes from climate researchers as evidence of a vast scientific conspiracy.
I agree with Krugman on this, and have written several posts about it (for example, here).
Or for that matter, think of anyone who cites “uncertainty” as a reason to do nothing — when it should be obvious that the risks of faster-than-expected climate change if we do too little dwarf the risks of doing too much if change is slower than expected.
This is a creative use by Krugman of the false dilemma logical fallacy to mischaracterize his opponents. The alternatives are not a binary do nothing or something. The world faces many serious threats in addition to climate change (details here and here). We have limited resources and must allocate them wisely among these threats. Krugman does the usual climate activist trick of focusing on the fringe that denies the reality of global warming — and ignoring the serious debate about how much warming, when, with what effects. Understanding those is necessary for effective policy action.
Conclusions
This is propaganda, characteristic of how activists have conducted their campaign to build support for massive public policy action to fight climate change. They’ve been at it since Hansen’s 1988 Senate testimony. It has not worked.
- Why the campaign to warn people about climate change fail: incompetence.
- Focusing on worst case climate futures doesn’t work. It shouldn’t work.
- Manichean paranoia has poisoned the climate debate.
It is not too late. Climate scientists can restart the climate change debate – & win. For more information about this see putting this proposal in a wider context of science norms and the climate science literature.
For More Information
Hat tip to Michael Bastasch at the Daily Caller for locating the Third Draft of Climate Science Special Report at Internet Archive.
For more information about these matters see the keys to understanding climate change, my posts about climate change, posts about the insights of Paul Krugman, and especially these with good news about the climate…
- Good news! Coal bankruptcies point to a better future for our climate.
- Good news from America about climate change, leading the way to success.
- Ignoring science to convince the public that we’re doomed by climate change.
- Paul Krugman explains how to break the climate policy deadlock.
- “Good news for the New Year! Salon explains that the global climate emergency is over.“
- Stratfor gives us good news, showing when renewables will replace fossil fuels.
- The IPCC gives us good news about climate change, but we don’t listen.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If Krugman can’t create a straw man opponent when he writes, he finds that he has nothing to say.
And as pointed out here, if one performs even a cursory review of Krugman’s essays, it is obvious he really has nothing to argue except to demonstrate how shallow and reactionary he is.
You give Krugman way too much credit.
He did contribute to economics years ago, but has since descended into pure far left demagoguery. The fact is that much of his political advocacy is refuted by his own economic papers.
The guy was never a good economist nor a compelling author. In fact he is a BS artist who plies his craft perfidiously.
One of the reasons Krugman thinks “doing something” is better than “doing nothing” is that 1) he and other alarmists tend to way lowball the costs of renewables (e.g., Denmark even with modest renewables –and a link to France’s nuclear for backup) has 3x the cost of US electricity) and efficacy of “doing something” and downplays the problem of intermittancy) and 2) they ignore how much the developing world is harmed by even a small increase in the cost of energy. Africa might be able to develop, but not at all if energy costs twice as much. Poverty is ignored by comfy western elites.
Krugman is a junk scientist and a junk economist.
“the fringe that denies the reality of global warming.” Please define that reality. I might join the fringe if your reality includes imminent catastrophe and the ability of a mix of wind mills and socialism to stop it.
‘why 30 years of climate crusading has produced so little policy action in the US.’
Hmmm. I’ve actually seen a LOT of policy action – just nothing that does anything to remotely affect the climate one way or another (insert standardized quote ‘just a beginning, just a BARE beginning’), but they have produced a near-constant barrage of economy-damaging, anti-human, anti-liberty-stuff that, for some reason, makes the eco-types feel good.
Krugman is a brilliant economist
********************************************
bull**it
I stopped reading there
Clever would be a better word.
Krugman is a brilliant clever?
Hmm…that may be.
What is a clever?
I remember when C02 was 5000 ppm and we thought nothing of it! The fishing was good, and those trilobites, steamed with some kelp, delicious!
Yeah, but it sure was hard to find a decent pizza.
The published record of temperature change since 1880 appears to provide a good map of what future temperature change will be. The pause in temperature rise that began in about 2004 should last until about 2034. It will no doubt be punctuated with some El Nino years with their temporary temperature spikes whose cause is known. The amount of continuous warming during the rest of this century will probably be only about thirty-six years worth (2034-2064 and 2094-2100) unless the pattern established in the available temperature record changes.
“The published record of temperature change since 1880 appears to provide a good map of what future temperature change will be.”
This is like saying that a graph of the temperature change from 6:00 AM to 4:00 PM gives us a good trend line for what the temperature will be tomorrow.
Saying that the temperatures on the earth will either be flat or up over the next century is 100% speculation.
It is not in the least bit supportable by either empirical observations or by logic.
The only support for the notion is the warmista religious tenet that says that CO2 is the temperature control knob of the atmosphere.
It is not.
Cooling over the nest several decades is more likely than warming or flat temps.
In fact, the surface may already be cooling, given that the published records are a worthless pigslop of unjustified manipulations of what was actually recorded, made up crap inserted for huge swaths where no surface measurements are made, and unmeasured and unaccounted for corruption due to increasing amounts and density of pavement and buildings around many recording stations.
The actual trend in the only place on Earth with good coverage and long term record keeping is clear: Hot days are decreasing dramatically for over 80 years.
If we are lucky, the mild weather will continue unabated for a century or more.
Actual history tells us that we are more likely to get a 30 year cooling trend, which may be sharp and dramatic.
There is no basis to correlate the temperature change from day to day to the temperature change over 137 years. While a pattern may not occur from day to day, one could be discerned over a period of 137 years. Will it continue? Maybe not but best evidence would lead one to believe it probable. As far as the quality of the recorded temperature data, we can choose not to use it but would that be a wise choice? .
Based on the information I am aware of, climatologists believe that a 500 year period of warming began around 1850. It followed the 500 year period of cooling that began around 1350 and which included a period nicknamed “The Little Ice Age.” That 500 year cooling period had been preceded by a 500 year warming period that began around 850 which included a period known as “The Medieval Warm Period.” The question I would have is did these periods feature 30 year cycles of warming or cooling alternating with 30 year periods of pause in the warming or cooling?
It is tragic that what should have been a debate among scientists evaluating the data on weather and climate objectively, has instead degenerated into a partisan political diatribe. Krugman’s recent article (7i/8) only adds to that tragedy. In pursuit of his political agenda, facts are distorted and thousands of scientists including myself are insulted and denigrated. Thus, instead of citing the abundant data in its totality, he denounces us as tools of the fossil fuel industry, of trying to destroy civilization, of acting in bad faith, and of denying the facts: all ad-hominem slurs and hardly the proper behavior from a Nobel Loreate discussing an issue with fellow scholars.
I have been studying the issue of anthropogenic global warming/climate change for the last thirty years and have published some dozen articles on the subject. No doubt Krugman hasn’t read them yet he tells us that he knows what “bogus arguments look like”. There is nothing in the data that supports the supposition that atmospheric CO2 is the driver of weather or climate. Atmospheric CO2 is controlled by a variety of other sources and sinks and not by human emissions. Furthermore, the greenhouse effect is an undefined, pure fiction. Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant but is a basic ingredient in the Earth’s ecosystem on which all life depends via its essential role in photosynthesis.
In addition to the unfolding tragedy, there is a kind of delicious irony in witnessing Trump, that pathological liar and megalomaniac, becoming the instrument for finally bringing the nation back to its senses about climate change.