Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Marc Morano – NYT columnist Paul Krugman believes climate “deniers” are depraved and corrupt, because he read a book written by Michael “Hide the Decline” Mann.
The Depravity of Climate-Change Denial
Risking civilization for profit, ideology and ego.
By Paul Krugman
Opinion Columnist
Nov. 26, 2018…
Wait, isn’t depravity too strong a term? Aren’t people allowed to disagree with conventional wisdom, even if that wisdom is supported by overwhelming scientific consensus?
Yes, they are — as long as their arguments are made in good faith. But there are almost no good-faith climate-change deniers. And denying science for profit, political advantage or ego satisfaction is not O.K.; when failure to act on the science may have terrible consequences, denial is, as I said, depraved.
The best recent book I’ve read on all this is “The Madhouse Effect” by Michael E. Mann, a leading climate scientist, with cartoons by Tom Toles. As Mann explains, climate denial actually follows in the footsteps of earlier science denial, beginning with the long campaign by tobacco companies to confuse the public about the dangers of smoking.
The shocking truth is that by the 1950s, these companies already knew that smoking caused lung cancer; but they spent large sums propping up the appearance that there was a real controversy about this link. In other words, they were aware that their product was killing people, but they tried to keep the public from understanding this fact so they could keep earning profits. That qualifies as depravity, doesn’t it?
…
Why would anyone go along with such things? Money is still the main answer: Almost all prominent climate deniers are on the fossil-fuel take. However, ideology is also a factor: If you take environmental issues seriously, you are led to the need for government regulation of some kind, so rigid free-market ideologues don’t want to believe that environmental concerns are real (although apparently forcing consumers to subsidize coal is fine).
…
Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/26/opinion/climate-change-denial-republican.html
Al Gore assured us a few weeks ago that wind turbines and solar panels are now cheaper than coal, so its a bit of a mystery why Krugman believes government regulation is required to force businesses to embrace the cheaper option.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Krugman would look a lot smarter if he would stop slack jaw mouth breathing……..
And he’d be a lot smarter not to practice bold-faced projections.
The same rag that hired and retained racist, sexist Sarah Jeong as editor, and then actively defended her racist and inflammatory, anti white hatred.
The New York times hasn’t had a shred of credibility for decades, now the final nail in the coffin was established with that decision and defense. NYT is globalist, anti-human, satanic propaganda.
That’s the facts… Jack!
Wasn’t that part of the International Day of Properly Directed Bigotry ?
HL, so yer sayin that Durante’s piece on how great Stalin was may have been flawed?. NYT, not fit for a bird cage bottom!!
Krugman can’t be that which he is not — Reasonably bright. He be dumbass, mon.
Even his so-called “Nobel Prize” is a knock-off “memorial”that is magically conjured out of a magic hole rather than being awarded by the actual Nobel Committee.
Has this guy ever held a position that turned out to be correct?
Has he ever contributed to a positive outcome?
(seems projection may be his best quality)
His Lordship Paul Krugman might add “deplorable” to his exquisite vocabulary.
He would be a lot smarter if he would simply quit breathing.
and poured a jar of mustard on his head…
What the hell is a “climate denier”? Does anybody deny there is such a thing as climate?
People such as Krugman are bonkers and should be put away somewhere for their own safety.
A … “climate denier” … is an imaginary creature sustained by positive chi of the CO2 dragon. It is one of the creatures co-mingling with elves who help maintain windmills that magical unicorns sustain during wind-down times.
People who use the phrase, “climate denier”, are themselves inhabitants of La La Land, which is located very close to Oz, just left of the planet Zimdar, as you face North into the night sky from Earth in the real world.
RC,
hey mate,
you leave Oz out of this. We are nowhere near Zimdar. Look on a map, we are just to the west of the Land of the Long White Cloud and are the land that time forgot for about 50,000 years. Dunno why, we aren’t that boring…
Anyway, we don’t even bother to look north into the night sky, south is much more interesting.
Alpha Crucis rules, dude!
We do try to deny climate but ours is so all over the place in the natural order of things it is really hard to maintain that stance and if Gaia finds out we are ‘denying’ well she just bites us on the bum (ass) – hard. By the same token our flora is just loving the extra CO2.
Cappice?
Just look at any map. We’re the big country at the top of the world. Not at the top on your map? You’re holding it upside down!
Philip,
I deny there is a physical reality called climate. By definition, climate is a statistical abstraction.
So, it depends on if you accept a statistical abstraction as a “reality”.
Andrew
True, Andrew. It’s become so perverted that they even talk about ‘Earth’s climate.’
Perhaps soon we will be accused of denying carbon.
Gamecock,
My personal experience with discussing climate related issues with believers invariably resolves into them wanting to not have a discussion because their beliefs about it are more important than an honest dialogue.
Andrew
There are now 3 things not to discuss among the genteel townspeople, religion, politics, and the mixture of those two, commonly referred to as climate change.
Bad Andrew,
I got spat on trying to have a rational discussion with a warmie once, have you had this pleasurable experience as well?
Craig
If it is “proper” to speak of a “global climate”, then is it proper to speak of a “solar system climate” ? … a “galactic climate” ? … a “cosmos climate” ?
Let’s work out some anomalies for the solar system and talk about REAL gloom and doom.
Hey, I’ve heard of ‘space weather’ on these pages. So anything is possible.
Or can be perverted.
A half a century ago children were introduced to the different climatic zones in geography classes.
Over these years I have not seen significant areas moving from one to another zone. I have seen a level semi-desert area become a desert area with dunes in the space of a year and for the area to change back as quickly. Real change would surely be indicated by a Mediterranean climate area becoming a summer rainfall area or a temperate area becoming a hot desert.
When climate alarmists bandy around increases of between 2 and 8 degrees centigrade but have no way to measure temperatures accurately at weather stations spread uniformly across the globe, I reserve my right to be skeptical.
Is that part of Intersectional Reality Management ?
when Mr. Krugman has the power of God he may get some respect on his climate views but until that time I will accept the fact that man cannot change the climate.
Well, what he’s actually doing is following the progressive mantra – he’s describing himself, and projecting.
➕💯
I deny that the so-called called climate record is a reliable record. I deny that the true record of the weather (as opposed to the ones cooked up by so-called “scientists”) supports a claim that the weather is measurably warmer now than it was in the first half of the 20th Century. I deny that climate models are anything other than mathematical masturbation. I deny that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has any ill effect on any biological system. I deny that the so called climate scientists are honest men. I deny that so called climate scientists have engaged in anything other than fear mongering. I deny that polar bears are in any danger from warmer weather in the arctic. I deny that sea levels are rising faster than they have in the recent past. I deny that so called “tropical” diseases have any causal relation with warmer weather. I deny that any of the weather events of the last year, or any other year are related to any changes in the general climate.
I affirm that the whole miserable theory of anthropogenic catastrophic global warming was created and advanced for the sole purpose of scarring people into surrendering their freedom, their property, and their prosperity to a global socialist government. I affirm that a warmer world is a happier, healthier, and more prosperous world. I affirm that CO2 is absolutely necessary for the existence of life on earth, and that we, and all other living things, are better off at 400 ppm than we were at 280 ppm. I affirm that it is more likely that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is due to the end of the Little Ice Age than it is due to human activity. I affirm that humanity would be far better off by the aggressive exploration of fossil fuel energy resources to bring prosperity to Africa and Asia, than it would be by halting any change in the general climate.
Well done, Walter.
You’ve managed to hit all the propaganda points being constantly pushed out.
I’m bookmarking this one.
Already done
“than it would be by halting any change in the general climate.”
Wording??. how about…
” than it would be by pretending we can halt any change in the general climate, and wasting money trying to.”
In context, it should be “scaring” rather than “scarring”. Scarring is going on as well.
I suggest changing “honest men” to “honest people” since alleged climate scientists are male, female, and perhaps more than a few are indeterminates.
Yes, this is a keeper, perhaps it can grow like the list of things that alleged AGW/CC is supposed to be causing. Of course, if presented verbally to an accuser, it will provoke anything from blank stares, through hissy fits, to violence. (Make sure you are skilled in martial arts or have a support person who is.)
What could possibly be better than a book by a “climate scientist” whose methodology and results have been thoroughly refuted by “amateur” statisticians, geologists, and such (as well as by the Wegman panel) that is illustrated by a cartoonist imbued with deep leftist leanings?
Well, BETTER would be such a load of offal slobberingly endorsed by a thoroughly failed “economist” (and a Nobel one, afterall) who has failed in every prediction he ever made. Heh. Worse than Paul Ehrlich or John Holdren.
Mann, the Cartoon Climate Scientist (not a Nobelist, although so claimed), illustrated by a no-talent cartoonist and both glowingly trumpeted by a “Nobel Laureate” so-called economist with absolutely no track record of accurate (even passingly) forecasts/predictions/scenarios.
Who believes any of this cra*?
The fact that Paul Krugman believes Michael Mann is a scientist speaks volumes.
Michael Mann is a scientist like Jeffrey Dahmer is a chef.
And Paul Krugman is a loser.
Nah: He should have applied for inclusion in the Seinfeld cast twenty five years ago. He and Kramer could have made a great duo.
It is the lazy language of fanaticism. Analize any terms in the anarcho fascist library and you come up with illiterate nonsense and that nonsense is spouted by the “believers” who have not a clue what the club belief is but they will wail and screech all the more loudly because like the cowards they are they fear being excluded from groupthink…..the Lord of the Flies. There are only a few degrees of freedom between verbal attacks and physical attacks and the perps will believe they fight for the cause of righteousness. Facts are irrelevant to fanatics, as is justice and defence of truth, belonging to the winning team is all that matters. Remind you of a certain ideology which created a world war in the 20th century? How many “believed and saluted” when they thought they were on the winning team. How they ran and pretended it was nothing to do with them when the house of cards collapsed.
Ah, Krugman, who is wrong about most everything.
he has been right on trade issues, -but everything else he has been delusional
MOST? You sentence doesn’t need a modifier. I find it is always good for a laugh when the Propaganda Ministry trots him out to expound on anything.
Most of his economic theories are whacko as well. Like all lefties he overestimates the goodness of mankind when it comes to money matters.
ALL leftest theories assume the ultimate goodness of mankind. That’s why they have never work anywhere they’ve been implemented. It doesn’t take but a couple of weeks at Parris Island for the thin veneer of civilization to disappear on most attendees.
He’s also believes that government is capable of being perfect, which is why he views more government as the solution to every problem.
An economist getting all puritanical about science though … must be one of those ecumenical multi-disciplinary thingies. Break out the marshmallows and guitars and sing along Paul!
Little boxes on the hillside
Little boxes made of ticky-tacky
Little boxes on the hillside
Little boxes all the same
There’s a pink one and a green one
And a blue one and a yellow one
And they’re all made out of ticky-tacky
And they all look just the same
And the people in the houses
All went to the university
Where they were put in boxes
And they came out all the same
And there’s doctors and lawyers
And business executives
And they’re all made out of ticky-tacky
And they all look just the same
The Universities sure are cranking out little boxes of conformity, aren’t they. Not quite what Malvina Renolyds had in mind … but that’s the way it is with leftism … they are always “projecting” their own deficiencies onto others.
BTW … Malvina’s “little boxes” … aka “zipper houses” on the hills of Daly City now sell for $1M. It appears as though conformity sells.
I prefered Pete Seeger’s cover of her song. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUwUp-D_VV0)
My daughter and her husband live in one of those – high up on the crest near the cliff edge. That is a wild micro-climate, wet and windy. Everything is soaked all the time. The views can be astounding but I’d go mad there
Daly City is also right on the San Andreas fault, so she should worry about that, too.
I haven’t thought about that song in ages. And it’s still true to this day.
Hell of an investigative journalist there… his ‘research’ is reading a biased book written by someone with a profound conflict of interest in the matter. 🙂
… and cartoons.
It is just Krugman being Krugman. He also predicted a depression if Trump won. But he writes for the New York Times, and it’s readership wants their prejudices confirmed.
+100!
Go to the web site referenced in the article for the book. Check out the reviews all of which are from some of the most egregious warmunists on the planet. Then check out the sample chapter on what science is. That chapter never talks about the scientific method at all. It talks about peer review and meetings of scientists and makes absurd claims about how anyone who could contradict the CAGW narrative would be celebrated as a scientific hero. Then is dives into a “defense”(which is not a defense at all) of the hockey stick). So the web site intended to sell the book demonstrates it is garbage.
Had some entertainment on Thanksgiving Day by telling the folks how Kenji the dog was accepted into the “Union of Concerned Scientists” for a small donation. The look on my lefty mom’s face was priceless!
How stupid he can get?
No one I know denies climate existence and anyone with any sense doesn’t deny that climate changes, always did and always will do. What is questionable is that some kind climatic catastrophe is due in a year or two, decade or two or even century or two. On millennial scale things may get bad not from warming but the current interglacial could be coming to its end.
Are you saying I have no sense ??? Except for the Sahel, no climate on earth is changing. NONE.
Good morning to all depraved, corrupt people who think climate doesn’t exist, or something.
Thanks, Alan. Depraved and Corrupt? I herein deny I am corrupt.
Denier!
I’m only corrupt until someone expects it of me. Then, in a depraved manner I turn honest. It’s hilarious!
Oh, double-crosser, ay?
I was going to say the same thing…by some people’s standards!
Climate denier is a catchall phrase for anyone that does not believe that CO2 is responsible for any change in climate. They don’t even use ‘CO2’ anymore, they say ‘carbon’. So, now we all have a carbon footprint, and carbon is evil.
I would be called a climate denier by the warmers, but the fact is that I simply don’t believe CO2 is at the root of it all.
I read somewhere earlier today that mars has an atmosphere of 95% CO2 yet isn’t warm and has no water.
Doesn’t have a “runaway greenhouse effect” either. Wonder where all of Mars’ “trapped heat” goes?? Or MAYBE, just MAYBE, CO2 doesn’t “trap” jack sh!t, and the Climate Nazis simply have it all wrong.
Only because humans don’t live there. Just wait, as soon as the first Mars colony is established, then some scientist will find not only a Runaway Marsal Warming problem, but it will be Worse Than We Thought!
That’s because Mars lost its magnetic field and solar wind stripped the atmosphere from it, they say. https://www.space.com/31044-mars-terraforming-nasa-maven-mission.html
Odd that Venus has a very low magnetic field and is hit with denser solar wind being closer, yet its CO2 atmosphere is extremely thick and dense.
It seems a little magnetism goes a long way.
Venus had a much thicker atmosphere to begin with. It’s gravity is also a lot higher than Mars’.
Being a larger planet, it had a larger core which took longer to cool off to the point where it would lose it’s magnetic field.
Thank you, John.
That’s the way I have tired to come up with to explain to my grandchildren that it is not very scientific to blame changes in a complex system that has outside influences upon a single variable that might not be even significantly influenced by humans.
Gums sends…
Actual Mann does , otherwise no hockey stick, for to get the stick effect he needed to remove past changes in climate .
The feed on my Motorola Droid turbo 2 still appears even though I use duck duck go. I don’t know how to disable it. Anyway. Everyday, it’s littered with MSM global caca hand waiving. The headlines are atrocious and it’s all the usual suspects.
I am struggling with patience because I detest liars, and that is exactly what those rags are, as well as the writers who rhyme with rags
“so rigid free-market ideologues don’t want to believe that environmental concerns are real (although apparently forcing consumers to subsidize coal is fine).”
Alas – an economist (nobel prize winner at that) – who doesnt know the difference between a real subsidy and a fictious subsidy.
Has this guy ever been right? I think if you did a survey of the folks here you would find several things:
1) Nobody gets a dime from anybody in the fossil fuel business ex some incidental dividends on some stock.
2) Many of us have solar panels installed.
3) Many of us have PhDs in the area.
4) Almost all of us have done extensive historical research about this.
Gad, please, Stand not on the order of your going Crudman, but go.
Well, I do recall that he said the internet would be like a passing fad and would have no more effect on businesses and the economy than fax machines.
2) How much is ‘many’ ?
3) Judging by the comments here, i’m pretty shure there are very little PhDs in this area.
“i’m pretty shure there are very little PhDs in this area.”
English not your native tongue?
I have a PhD in chemistry and I’m over 6′ tall.
LOL! but:
Just because there’s a large PhD in the group does not mean there aren’t some very little ones too.
Today I self-identify as a chemist with a PhD. It’s such a relief after being trapped inside all this carbon denying my chemistry./
Oh, yeah, I see what you did there!
Mann has a large PhD. However it’s not large in the vertical dimension.
States, it’s not the size of the PhD that matters.
‘Zactly. It’s how you use it.
I thought PHD stood for Piled Higher and Deeper…
It sure does in Michael Mann’s case!
States November 27, 2018 at 6:42 am
Hello States, I suggest you don’t drink and post. Your spelling and grammar suffers.
michael
You can always be sure you are on the side of the truth when the other side is calling you names.
I think we can turn that comparison around and claim that global warmists are climate deniers, based on facts, not on the irrelevant existence of some (not all) tobaccco companies, who knew no more than the scientists did about the dangers of tobacco. Why would Krugman think that tobacco companies had any inside information about the effects of their product? And the various tobacco companies did NOT all react the same as more information became available.
You know you are on the side of the truth when the other side begins calling you names.
Paul Krugman? *yawn*
I beg to differ, PaulH, but only in degree.
Paul Krugman? *zzzzzzz*
“Almost all prominent climate deniers are on the fossil-fuel take.”
Did he name any of them? Can he name any of them?
Well, I’m not good at math but since there isn’t anyone denying that the climate changes, how many is “almost all” of “none”?
I’m so sick of this “argument.” If the unspoken message is “money corrupts,” then this idiot needs to consider the massive multiples of the supposed “fossil fuel money” that have been spent by governments and NGOs to promote Climate Nazi-ism.
If Krugman really believes that “money corrupts” he should forget how much has been spent to date arguing for either side’s position and instead focus on how much will be spent in the future by governments and individuals if his opinion and recommendations are followed.
Contrast that with a path forward that assumes “no big deal, the climate is changing as climate has always changed.”
Which scenario generates a Pot of Gold for the existing and new corporations cashing in on that initiative?
“I’m so sick of this “argument.” If the unspoken message is “money corrupts,” then this idiot needs to consider the massive multiples of the supposed “fossil fuel money” that have been spent by governments and NGOs to promote Climate Nazi-ism.”
It also ignores the fact and some of the large research centers, like CRU, were getting fossil fuel money. Another inconvenient truth.
Progressives are depraved wanting to waste $127 Trillion on Massively unsustainable RE: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/05/monumental-unsustainable-environmental-impacts/
They are for energy poverty while trying to fight the most important trace gas of life…CO2…
“Green” Energy is the most regressive tax on the poor ever devised by the Socialists
I always look for the most expensive gas station and fill up with premium, even when renting a car. I wish government would force all stations to sell gasoline at the same low price to protect me.
As I recall “desertification” was the big environmental fear in the 60s/70s. Deserts were increasing their range all around the planet. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere apparently turned that around as I believe NASA has confirmed about a 17% increase in greening of the globe. Krugman probably does not know about it because he only listens to one side of the issue. Even so, to simply dismiss as Krugman does, the tremendous financial and career pressures promoting the climate doom scenario, and only talk about the fossil fuel industry is astoundingly naive on his part. But the left has a certain narrative running in their heads and all issues, not just climate change, are tailored to fit comfortably.
Have a read of this book
D.S.G. Thomas and N.J Middleton (1994) “Desertification: Exploding the Myth” Wiley
Sounds like it was a UN practice run for “global warming” to me
This is simply more of the routine liberal tactic of accusing your enemy of being exactly who your are and doing exactly what it is that you’re doing yourself.
Basket of deplorables. That worked so well for Hillary.
You could intimidate some folks by calling them deplorable. On the other hand, you’re just as likely to make them hate you and stiffen their resolve. You’re not going to convert anyone. You might keep some sheeple from breaking ranks.
The left thinks the right is a group of morons. That just gives rise to populism. As I have oft said, Trump’s election is a mild rebuke to the left. They should learn a lesson but that doesn’t look like it’s happening.
Having recently read “Blueprint” by Robert Plomin, which shows that most cause and effects that we ascribe to ‘environment’ are actually driven by genetics, i start to wonder whether the tobacco deniers might have had a point when they said correlation does not necessarily imply causality. If smoking reduces life expectancy, one would expect to see a significant increase in life expectancy correlated to increasing demonisation of smoking. Is anyone aware of any research on the subject or is the science settled?
Some research at the time indicated that the major use of pesticides, fungicides and cheap fertilizers that had significant levels of radioactive compounds were probably the major contributors, but there were never efforts to modify growing methods. However there also were (and still are) many additives that are probably harmful. No studies were ever done as to whether “organic” or filtered tobacco was safe/safer. The FDA took a hostile stance and made no effort to regulate additives (at the time) or growing methods but simply said that smoking tobacco was severely detrimental, period.
In areas of curative research, the FDA/NIH are basically owned by “big” pharma with numerous instances of actively suppressing external cheaper or more innovative approaches, especially in the areas of cancer and cell replacement/regrowth after major injury. These exposures are indicative of management criteria and indicates that there are probably many more instances that weren’t uncovered. A former director in a speech said that even if a cancer cure were found by an individual or a small company that it could never be approved as such research would only be legitimate in a “deep pockets” pharma company.
You can find “some research” to prove anything you want to prove.
Dogma
dog·ma; noun; a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
I don’t know about anyone else, but to be called Depraved by Krugman is a mark of honor in my book.
Maybe we should set Lew onto him that is a conspiracy theory after all, everybody is on the take from oil companies. Oh wait only deniers have conspiracy theories CAGW supporters are pure as diven snow even when they commit crimes :-).
In Lew papers work the majority of those that thought the moon landings where faked where …..AGW supporters . So even that paper show that claim is simply not sure .
Relevance deficit disorder is a terrible thing.
Get well Paul.
Sounds like Mann’s book was just logically flawed enough for the simpletons to grasp it.
I’m sure nobody is putting up roadblocks in order to prevent Paul Krugman from spending his millions to find an alternative to fossil fuels. In the mean time, his ranting and raving is nonsensical.