NYT: Climate Deniers are Depraved and Corrupt

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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 27, 2018 6:04 am

Krugman would look a lot smarter if he would stop slack jaw mouth breathing……..

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Latitude
November 27, 2018 8:09 am

And he’d be a lot smarter not to practice bold-faced projections.

Honest liberty
Reply to  Pop Piasa
November 27, 2018 9:22 am

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!

Reply to  Honest liberty
November 27, 2018 10:20 am

Wasn’t that part of the International Day of Properly Directed Bigotry ?

Reply to  Honest liberty
November 27, 2018 3:24 pm

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!!

Reply to  Pop Piasa
November 28, 2018 11:47 am

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.

Reply to  Latitude
November 27, 2018 9:29 am

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)

Reply to  Latitude
November 27, 2018 9:31 am

His Lordship Paul Krugman might add “deplorable” to his exquisite vocabulary.

GREG in Houston
Reply to  Latitude
November 27, 2018 10:30 am

He would be a lot smarter if he would simply quit breathing.

Mickey Reno
Reply to  Latitude
November 27, 2018 11:01 am

and poured a jar of mustard on his head…

Phillip Bratby
November 27, 2018 6:06 am

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.

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
November 27, 2018 6:18 am

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.

Komrade Kuma
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
November 27, 2018 1:02 pm


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.


Reply to  Komrade Kuma
November 27, 2018 6:49 pm

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!

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
November 27, 2018 6:21 am


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”.


Reply to  Bad Andrew
November 27, 2018 6:33 am

True, Andrew. It’s become so perverted that they even talk about ‘Earth’s climate.’

Perhaps soon we will be accused of denying carbon.

Reply to  Gamecock
November 27, 2018 6:45 am


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.


Pop Piasa
Reply to  Bad Andrew
November 27, 2018 8:13 am

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.

Reply to  Bad Andrew
November 27, 2018 12:36 pm

Bad Andrew,

I got spat on trying to have a rational discussion with a warmie once, have you had this pleasurable experience as well?


Reply to  Gamecock
November 27, 2018 9:23 am

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.

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
November 27, 2018 3:34 pm

Hey, I’ve heard of ‘space weather’ on these pages. So anything is possible.

Or can be perverted.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Bad Andrew
November 27, 2018 7:41 am

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.

Reply to  Bad Andrew
November 27, 2018 10:22 am

Is that part of Intersectional Reality Management ?

old white guy
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
November 27, 2018 7:30 am

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.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
November 27, 2018 8:03 am

Well, what he’s actually doing is following the progressive mantra – he’s describing himself, and projecting.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Joel Snider
November 27, 2018 8:46 am


Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
November 27, 2018 8:17 am

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.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
November 27, 2018 8:33 am

Well done, Walter.

You’ve managed to hit all the propaganda points being constantly pushed out.

I’m bookmarking this one.

Reply to  H.R.
November 27, 2018 12:23 pm

Already done

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
November 27, 2018 10:54 am

“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.”

Reply to  fred250
November 27, 2018 1:50 pm

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.)

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
November 27, 2018 7:51 pm

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*?

Louis Hooffstetter
Reply to  GeologyJim
November 27, 2018 8:28 pm

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.

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
November 28, 2018 9:00 am

Nah: He should have applied for inclusion in the Seinfeld cast twenty five years ago. He and Kramer could have made a great duo.

Jon Scott
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
November 29, 2018 5:07 am

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.

November 27, 2018 6:06 am

Ah, Krugman, who is wrong about most everything.

joe - the non economist
Reply to  John
November 27, 2018 6:18 am

he has been right on trade issues, -but everything else he has been delusional

Bill Powers
Reply to  John
November 27, 2018 6:20 am

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.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Bill Powers
November 27, 2018 7:27 am

Most of his economic theories are whacko as well. Like all lefties he overestimates the goodness of mankind when it comes to money matters.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
November 27, 2018 9:10 am

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.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
November 27, 2018 9:18 am

He’s also believes that government is capable of being perfect, which is why he views more government as the solution to every problem.

Reply to  John
November 27, 2018 7:23 am

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

Reply to  WXcycles
November 27, 2018 8:38 am

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.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Kenji
November 27, 2018 9:16 am

I prefered Pete Seeger’s cover of her song. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUwUp-D_VV0)

Randle Dewees
Reply to  Kenji
November 27, 2018 1:12 pm

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

Tom Halla
Reply to  Randle Dewees
November 27, 2018 1:41 pm

Daly City is also right on the San Andreas fault, so she should worry about that, too.

Reply to  WXcycles
November 27, 2018 9:28 am

I haven’t thought about that song in ages. And it’s still true to this day.

November 27, 2018 6:08 am

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. 🙂

Reply to  kcrucible
November 27, 2018 6:22 am

… and cartoons.

Tom Halla
Reply to  kcrucible
November 27, 2018 6:36 am

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.

Reply to  Tom Halla
November 27, 2018 7:02 am


Jim Whelan
Reply to  kcrucible
November 27, 2018 7:57 am

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.

Reply to  Jim Whelan
November 27, 2018 1:07 pm

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!

November 27, 2018 6:09 am

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.

Reply to  vukcevic
November 27, 2018 6:26 am

Are you saying I have no sense ??? Except for the Sahel, no climate on earth is changing. NONE.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  vukcevic
November 27, 2018 6:29 am

Good morning to all depraved, corrupt people who think climate doesn’t exist, or something.

Ron Long
Reply to  Alan Robertson
November 27, 2018 6:32 am

Thanks, Alan. Depraved and Corrupt? I herein deny I am corrupt.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Ron Long
November 27, 2018 7:15 am


Reply to  Ron Long
November 27, 2018 7:17 am

I’m only corrupt until someone expects it of me. Then, in a depraved manner I turn honest. It’s hilarious!

Pop Piasa
Reply to  john
November 27, 2018 9:27 am

Oh, double-crosser, ay?

Tom Schaefer
Reply to  Ron Long
November 27, 2018 10:45 am

I was going to say the same thing…by some people’s standards!

Reply to  vukcevic
November 27, 2018 6:32 am

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.

old white guy
Reply to  John Shotsky
November 27, 2018 7:33 am

I read somewhere earlier today that mars has an atmosphere of 95% CO2 yet isn’t warm and has no water.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  old white guy
November 27, 2018 9:29 am

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.

Reply to  AGW is not Science
November 27, 2018 10:10 am

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!

Pop Piasa
Reply to  old white guy
November 27, 2018 9:57 am

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.

Reply to  Pop Piasa
November 27, 2018 11:26 am

Venus had a much thicker atmosphere to begin with. It’s gravity is also a lot higher than Mars’.

Reply to  Pop Piasa
November 27, 2018 1:15 pm

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.

Reply to  John Shotsky
November 27, 2018 10:47 am

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…

Reply to  vukcevic
November 27, 2018 11:54 am

Actual Mann does , otherwise no hockey stick, for to get the stick effect he needed to remove past changes in climate .

Honest liberty
November 27, 2018 6:20 am

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

joe - the non economist
November 27, 2018 6:21 am

“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.

November 27, 2018 6:22 am

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.

R Shearer
Reply to  shrnfr
November 27, 2018 6:38 am

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.

Reply to  shrnfr
November 27, 2018 6:42 am

2) How much is ‘many’ ?
3) Judging by the comments here, i’m pretty shure there are very little PhDs in this area.

Reply to  States
November 27, 2018 6:53 am

“i’m pretty shure there are very little PhDs in this area.”

English not your native tongue?

R Shearer
Reply to  States
November 27, 2018 7:28 am

I have a PhD in chemistry and I’m over 6′ tall.

Jim Whelan
Reply to  R Shearer
November 27, 2018 7:50 am

LOL! but:
Just because there’s a large PhD in the group does not mean there aren’t some very little ones too.

Reply to  Jim Whelan
November 27, 2018 8:04 am

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./

Reply to  R Shearer
November 27, 2018 8:11 am

Oh, yeah, I see what you did there!

Reply to  R Shearer
November 27, 2018 1:16 pm

Mann has a large PhD. However it’s not large in the vertical dimension.

John Endicott
Reply to  States
November 27, 2018 8:07 am

States, it’s not the size of the PhD that matters.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  John Endicott
November 27, 2018 9:02 am

‘Zactly. It’s how you use it.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  John Endicott
November 27, 2018 9:21 am

I thought PHD stood for Piled Higher and Deeper…

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Joe Crawford
November 27, 2018 9:32 am

It sure does in Michael Mann’s case!

mike the morlock
Reply to  States
November 27, 2018 11:13 am

States November 27, 2018 at 6:42 am
Hello States, I suggest you don’t drink and post. Your spelling and grammar suffers.


Bill Powers
November 27, 2018 6:22 am

You can always be sure you are on the side of the truth when the other side is calling you names.

November 27, 2018 6:27 am

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.

Bill Powers
November 27, 2018 6:27 am

You know you are on the side of the truth when the other side begins calling you names.

November 27, 2018 6:30 am

Paul Krugman? *yawn*

Reply to  PaulH
November 27, 2018 8:42 am

I beg to differ, PaulH, but only in degree.

Paul Krugman? *zzzzzzz*

November 27, 2018 6:32 am

“Almost all prominent climate deniers are on the fossil-fuel take.”

Did he name any of them? Can he name any of them?

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
November 27, 2018 6:53 am

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”?

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
November 27, 2018 9:27 am

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.

George Daddis
Reply to  AGW is not Science
November 27, 2018 11:05 am

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?

Reply to  AGW is not Science
November 28, 2018 6:20 pm

“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.

Walter Horsting
November 27, 2018 6:35 am

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…

Reply to  Walter Horsting
November 27, 2018 8:42 am

“Green” Energy is the most regressive tax on the poor ever devised by the Socialists

R Shearer
November 27, 2018 6:35 am

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.

T. Port
November 27, 2018 6:38 am

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.

Another Ian
Reply to  T. Port
November 27, 2018 12:31 pm

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

November 27, 2018 6:39 am

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.

November 27, 2018 6:47 am

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.

David Lupton
November 27, 2018 6:56 am

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?

Reply to  David Lupton
November 27, 2018 9:30 am

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.

Reply to  BFL
November 27, 2018 4:15 pm

You can find “some research” to prove anything you want to prove.

steve case
November 27, 2018 7:03 am

dog·ma; noun; a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

Joe Wagner
November 27, 2018 7:07 am

I don’t know about anyone else, but to be called Depraved by Krugman is a mark of honor in my book.

November 27, 2018 7:10 am

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 :-).

Reply to  LdB
November 27, 2018 11:58 am

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 .

November 27, 2018 7:13 am

Relevance deficit disorder is a terrible thing.

Get well Paul.

Robert W Turner
November 27, 2018 7:24 am

Sounds like Mann’s book was just logically flawed enough for the simpletons to grasp it.

Dave O.
November 27, 2018 7:37 am

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.

Mark - Helsinki
November 27, 2018 7:46 am

I said it before and I’ll say it again/

Re smoking.

When you smoked for a few years and started coughing up half a lung, and didn’t quit decades before it made you ill, it’s not the fault of tobacco companies, it’s your fault for being an utter moron.

The claim that we need scientists to tell us inhaling smoke! is bad for you, is the most ridiculous thing ever.

I wish this myth would just die. People who notice the adverse effect of smoking, and keep doing it, only have themselves to blame.

Especially with cigarettes from back then, after a decade you were hacking up, if that is not a clue that what you are doing is bad for you, then.. don’t reproduce, the gene pool is better off without your genes

Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
November 27, 2018 8:09 am

They smoking argument is also invalid because there is no upside to smoking aside from a personal gratification where burning fossil fuels has a huge positive upside. Paul Krugman is like an antivax campaigner that one child that died because of the vaccination means that no child should be vaccinated. They leave out any normal intelligent discussion that yes that one child may have died but a hell of a lot who would have otherwise died were saved. Mosher was pushing this same argument with attributed deaths in Europe so I think it is an intelligence test of sorts that these guys basically fail.

Reply to  LdB
November 27, 2018 9:23 am

It’s not even the case where any child died because of vaccinations.
The case is much weaker.
A child had vaccination. Some time later that child died.
Therefore the vaccination killed the child.
Therefore all vaccinations are both dangerous and of no medical value.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  MarkW
November 27, 2018 4:51 pm

I once saw a post by an anti vaxxer asking if there was any proof that vaccines actually work. The very best and most succinct response I saw was

Got polio?

Polio was still a scourge shortly before I was born. I personally am enormously grateful to the scientists that developed, and continue to develop vaccines to protect us from such horrifying threats to our wellbeing.

Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
November 28, 2018 2:23 pm

Thank you.

Honest liberty
Reply to  LdB
November 27, 2018 10:15 am

Ldb, those of us opposed to forced vaccination have read the literature, read the statistics, read the inserts, recognized the patterns of collusion/conflicts of interests between big pharma and the government FDA, Emory University, CDC, 1986 vaccine injury act, the history of rapidly declining cases of these supposed virus caused diseases before vaccination, sure to increased quality of food and sanitation, that incidences of neurological damage from polio was before 1% of affected, with paralysis being typically temporary and isolated, with less than 4% of those paralysis being permanent. The whole conjecture that increased anti bodies necessarily creates immunity is not proven and more than likely only masks the symptoms. There is, by the way, quite enough information regarding agriculture practices employed in the early 20s that relied heavily on heavy metals for pesticides, which as they subdued when it became obvious those neurological damage symptoms were similar to polio, rates and severity dropped dramatically, years before the vaccine was instituted.

What people like myself, who don’t agree vaccination is necessary, simply want is the option to make decisions for myself and my children, to ensure the best health and wellness. Mandatory injection of neurotoxins, adjuvants and incipients such as aluminum and Mercury/thimerisol, formaldehyde (that do cross the blood brain barrier and bio accumulate), for which the vaccine couldn’t take hold, is wholly invasive and tyrannical. The whole concept of herd immunity was pulled from thin air.
BTW, those are in modern vaccines as my wife is pregnant and I’ve requested inserts before anything gets injected..

All three I mentioned are listed in the fly vaccine and hepatitis B vaccine they want to administer to my pregnant wife, yet the insert States it is not dictated to administer to children under 4. How about that baby that receives that through it’s connection with the mother.

Now, if you desire to take those risks, and as far as I’m concerned, with an astronomical rise in autism, immunological diseases, (I have psoriasis and my sisters doctor just recommended holding off on some vaccines because of increased risk of family history for her baby twins), then by all means inject you and yours with whatever you think is safe, after all shouldn’t they be protected from us anti vax savages?
But the moment you attempt to force something into my child or support a violent state to carry that out, we have problems and I can assure you I will fight with every last breath and bullet to protect my children… And I know how to use what I own quite well.

If in the other hand you politely disagree and wouldn’t attempt to force another human to inject something they find reprehensible into their child, then carry on in peace my friend. Let’s hope we can all remain peaceful

Reply to  Honest liberty
November 27, 2018 11:29 am

I’ve also read the literature, and you don’t know what you are talking about.

Reply to  MarkW
November 27, 2018 12:49 pm

“I’ve also read the literature,”
Like climate alarmists, selectively I assume. I propose that the major problem in this area is the enormous increase in the number of vaccinations over the decades, many of which don’t make a lot of sense to begin with (unless pharma profit margin is considered) and then in addition it is nearly impossible to find a doctor who will delay or spread the shots out or allow selective vaccination. In 1950 there were only 7 shots required, in 2013, 36. In countries such as Japan, Scandinavia, Iceland and others there were only 11-13 shots required, so must we assume that they are sicker or less intelligent? You won’t understand until you see a child in the family go into spasms or into a shock state and later have autism. Unfortunately the only present option is usually to not have them at all.

Reply to  MarkW
November 27, 2018 1:19 pm

There is no evidence that the vaccine schedule is a problem.
There is no evidence that vaccination in general is a problem.
Those who believe that everything is being done because it means profit for big business of some kind, really need to check their paranoia at the door before attempting to begin rational discussions.

Reply to  Honest liberty
November 27, 2018 4:08 pm

There is a glaring problem with your argument, there is a disproportionate rate of numbers affected in white caucasian versus hispanic and asians even when the immunization rates are identical. A simple search of “rates of autism by ethnicity” will give you multiple references all reporting the same thing. There is also a disproportionate rate of boys affected to girls.

That leaves open two choices
1.) The rates are identical and for some reason it’s not being reported in one group. With boy/girl rates that difference is really hard to understand because in any socio-economic group the numbers are approximately 50%.
2.) There are some genetics around sex/ethnicity at play

So the problem with autism is there is something more at play than immunization because you have data that doesn’t fit your belief. If it was the immunization causing the effect the rates would be flat and constant between sexes and ethnicity.

As far as I care it is your choice, but if autism is your reason for not vaccinating then you need to be accept the consequences knowing that your reason is horribly flawed and almost certainly wrong. What the data says is there is almost certainly some genetics at play with Autism.

I would have thought the fact you have psoriasis, which is another heavily linked genetic condition would have made it easier for you to understand but I assume you blame something for the condition.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
November 27, 2018 10:18 am

Even back in the 30’s coaches would impress on their runners the importance of giving up smoking during track season. I can’t think people weren’t at least somewhat aware that it wasn’t doing you any good, even if they didn’t know exactly how bad it was.

November 27, 2018 7:57 am

Stratospheric polar vortex over North America at the level of 10 millibars.

Reply to  ren
November 27, 2018 8:05 am

Attack of the polar vortex in the east of the US.
comment image

November 27, 2018 8:01 am

Almost all prominent climate deniers are on the fossil-fuel take. ~ Kruggles

Name one.

Reply to  Rob_Dawg
November 27, 2018 9:41 am

First name 10 “climate deniers”;

then, point to the one that is prominent.

November 27, 2018 8:03 am

So, he is calling us democrats. Got it.

November 27, 2018 8:04 am

Krugman: Almost all prominent climate deniers are on the fossil-fuel take.

That is a complete fallacy. It says in plain English that anyone who “denies” climate (whatever that means) is receiving some sort of profit from the fossil fuel industry. That is completely not true. He offers nor proof of his statement, just throws it out to be accepted as Krugman’s Gospel of the Whine. It’s amazing that he inserted “prominent” into that sentence as a modifier.

He’s just looking for attention again, isn’t he?

The only REAL change I’ve noticed in the last 15 years is that when winter weather starts its process, humidity levels don’t seem to drop. I used to get zapped by metal fixtures such as sink faucets and doorknobs in the winter. That has not happened since 2003, maybe earlier. That is a clue that something is changing in the long-term, which is a factor in REAL climate change.

Less hysterics on Krugman’s part would be a real good idea.

Reply to  Sara
November 27, 2018 8:09 am

Still waiting for my bag-O-money from Big Oil, I don’t take checks!

The Depraved and Deplorable Vlad the Impaler
Reply to  Sara
November 27, 2018 8:48 am

If someone else is getting all my cheques and other recompense from ExxonMobil, PLEASE notify “ctm” or Anthony (or Jo), so they can forward all my money to me … … …

Another Ian
Reply to  The Depraved and Deplorable Vlad the Impaler
November 27, 2018 12:38 pm

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

Another Ian
Reply to  The Depraved and Deplorable Vlad the Impaler
November 27, 2018 12:44 pm

In the 1970’s a university student newspaper had an item on the “shocking “number of sex acts occurring on campus.

Next issue had a letter to the editor quoting the data from that article and concluding with the question

“Who is getting our share?”

My other comment here is a double post – somehow?

Reply to  Sara
November 27, 2018 1:54 pm

> I used to get zapped by metal fixtures such as sink faucets and doorknobs in the winter. That has not happened since 2003, maybe earlier.

Maybe you are getting older and your skin isn’t as moist and supple as it used to be? When I was a kid the snow was up to my waist. Now it rarely reaches my knees. It wasn’t the snow that changed.

November 27, 2018 8:06 am

Bless his heart…

Krugman knows less about CAGW than he does about economics…

This jerk would likely have been Sec Treasury had Hillary won…imagine the harm that tag team from hell would have caused to the US economy..

Reply to  SAMURAI
November 28, 2018 3:29 am

And Gore as Sec Energy, Oreskes as Sec State, and Musk as Sec Transportation.

They are the Power Rangers and the economy is the monster of the week.

Now go thank your lucky stars that Trump happened.

John Endicott
November 27, 2018 8:13 am

I say Paul should stick with his area of expertise (economics) only he’s mostly wrong there as well.

Reply to  John Endicott
November 27, 2018 8:16 am

Funny thing is none of these “economists” have built and operated a successful business, or even a failing business.

November 27, 2018 8:14 am

In response to Krugman , I wrote a polite comment using quotes from AR5 on Extreme Weather. Never saw the light of day. Typical liberal censorship.

herb stevens
November 27, 2018 8:19 am

The day I start believing anything that Paul Krugman utters about the atmosphere is the same day that I take my MRI to be read by my accountant…

November 27, 2018 8:24 am

Actually it is the warmunists confusing the public about the dangers of global warming.

November 27, 2018 8:27 am

It seems a bit rich for Paul Krugman, who happily took $50,000 in 1999 to serve as a consultant on an Enron advisory board, and who later that year wrote a highly complimentary piece on Enron in Fortune, to accuse almost all prominent “climate deniers” of being on the fossil fuel take. As far as I can tell, most prominent skeptics are not “on the take” at all, or have at most been paid small amounts of money to give a speech or testify under oath at a trial.

Like Michael Mann complaining of being on the receiving end of harassment, it seems that Krugman’s mirror may similarly need some cleaning.

John Endicott
Reply to  Reacher51
November 27, 2018 10:44 am

Paul K., like most leftists, is simply projecting. He knows that he was “bought and paid for” (to give Enron a complimentary piece in your example), so he assumes those he disagrees with are similarly “bought and paid for” for the positions they advocate.

Reply to  John Endicott
November 27, 2018 11:33 am

Years ago, Heartland got a small grant from one of the oil companies that amounted to only a few percent of their operating budget for that year.
Ever since, according to the CAGW crew, Heartland is “in the pay of big oil”.

A few years ago, our host Anthony was working on a project, he got a one time grant from Heartland to help pay for that project.
Ever since, according to the CAGW crew, Anthony is “in the pay of big oil”.

They have no use for reality.

Roger Knights
Reply to  MarkW
November 28, 2018 12:17 am

“he got a one time grant from Heartland”

Actually, Heartland linked him up with a private donor, who volunteered to fund the project, for which Watts was not the recipient, but only the unpaid (?) project manager. He was going to hire a programmer to put a friendly front end on a government climate-data site. But the government in the meantime did its own front-end, so the project was dropped and no money was transferred, IIRC.

November 27, 2018 8:28 am

Ahhh … I see … back with the comparison to cigarette companies DENYING the dangers of their products. Yep, that’s been quite the lucrative Lawfare skirmish for the Trial Lawyers. However THIS “denier” was born in 1955. By the time I reached “smoking age” … the Surgeon General of the USA had already loudly, and scientifically, declared that “Smoking causes Cancer” … and affixed WARNING labels on cigarette packages – followed by radio and TV bans on cigarette advertising.

So THIS “denier” never ever smoked. And never questioned the solid science linking cancer and smoking … despite the fact that my lifelong smoking grandmother lived a healthy life till passing away peacefully in her sleep at the age of 93. That fact didn’t alter my disgust with smoking based on the SCIENCE.

However, the “science” of global warming is NOT the same thing. No direct cause and effect, nor epidemiology, has “proven” global warming. In fact, every time the so-called scientists claim that events such as the Camp Fire in CA is “caused” by Global Warming … the “science” gets flimsier and flimsier. These “scientists” claimed “drought” caused the Camp Fire … nonsense. And as if to mock these faux-scientists … it started raining and snowing 1-week after the fire, and N. CA is set to receive a record amount of November (early season) rain and snow.

All I can say is that I made a shitload of $$$ betting AGAINST the advice of Paul Krugman who predicted a US Stock Market CRASH after Trump’s election. Much to the contrary the stock market BOOMED to the tune of a 35% increase.

November 27, 2018 8:28 am

Nine years since Climate Gate.
Has anyone kept a tally of;
*Skeptics turned Warmists
*Warmists turned Skeptics
*10-year predictions made in 2008 that have come true in 2018

John Endicott
Reply to  Hal44
November 27, 2018 12:28 pm

Nine years since Climate Gate.
Has anyone kept a tally of;
*Skeptics turned Warmists

no idea, but doubt it’s very many

*Warmists turned Skeptics

There’s a few, but no idea of how many

*10-year predictions made in 2008 that have come true in 2018

survey says: ZERO

November 27, 2018 8:34 am

Equating Climate Skepticism with Big Tobacco is really getting old. It’s a Red Herring all Alarmists use, and it just falls flat every time.

November 27, 2018 8:36 am

In the last 4.5 billion years, the Earth’s “climate” has changed multiple times, from interglacials (kinda Warm Optimums) to Ice Ages (F@%&ing cold), so….
..When exactly did the “climate” STOP” changing ? When exactly did the “climate” start “changing” again? And is it “changing” to Warm Optimums or F@%&ing cold? As a half American stuck in the Great White Frozen North, this creates quite a conundrum…..brrrrrrr….

November 27, 2018 8:37 am

I actually clicked on “Read more:” and the very first sentence was:

The Trump administration is, it goes without saying, deeply anti-science.

Projection much? I mean, anyone who presents a theory so vague it cannot be falsified is clearly anti-science, they flunk Science 101.

As far as the parts quoted here:

Almost all prominent climate deniers are on the fossil-fuel take.

Aside from the silliness of “denying climate”, let’s assume that he meant (in the pejorative, or course) anyone who denies the dogma an-increase-of-atmospheric-CO2-will-cause-such-a-disastrous-affect-on-climate-that-the-whole-world-must-take-emergency-action, then that fits me to a “T”, but I haven’t seen one damn dime from any fossil fuel companies! Is that another insult, this time trying to be sneaky, if any individual such as me asks “Where’s my money?”, he can respond, “Then you’re clearly inconsequential.”?

November 27, 2018 8:44 am

Poor Krugman. Some deniers are driven by money or politics – but I am driven by science. And the science does not add up to what the IPCC is selling!

November 27, 2018 8:45 am

By Paul Krugman, Opinion Columnist? Oy vey. Why would anyone care about the opinion of an “Opinion Columnist”?


November 27, 2018 8:55 am

Krugman is right about one thing, follow the money. But that is true on both sides of the issue and if no money were involved there would probably be no issue to discuss since there is really no problem being experienced attributable to climate. I’m using power and money as interchangeable in this logic.

Tom in Florida
November 27, 2018 8:55 am

“even if that wisdom is supported by overwhelming scientific consensus?”

In the New World Dictionary the word “evidence” is now spelled c-o-n-s-e-n-s-u-s.

November 27, 2018 9:01 am

The irony is Mann really is a denier of climate change , for without this denial his ‘infamous ‘ hockey stick falls flat. So the guy’s own ‘hero ‘ is the very thing he calls ‘depraved’

I wonder if any one has told him ?

Chris Hoff
November 27, 2018 9:02 am

No surprise it’s from the economist who declared government should pay people to dig holes and fill them in.

Reply to  Chris Hoff
November 27, 2018 9:49 am

… but it would have worked wonderusly had we done it right … we didn’t dig enough holes … it would have worked if we had kept digging (and filling) and digging.

it woulda worked.

Bruce Cobb
November 27, 2018 9:08 am

Climate Believers are moronic, lying, ignoramuses who hate humanity.
We win.

November 27, 2018 9:13 am

I am sure the irony of him using a term related to the Holocaust while doing the same things the Nazis did to the Jews is lost on him. The National Socialist party also accused the Jews of being depraved and corrupt.

I always find that the prophets of tolerance are the most intolerant people of all. Their thinking is so twisted that they do not see their own hypocrisy. In fact, they are incapable of seeing it. Well, CAGW true believers are also incapable of seeing their own hypocrisy. True believers like Paul Krugman are accusing people of doing what they are doing, just like the social justice prophets of tolerance are accusing others of intolerance while they tolerate no alternative viewpoint.

November 27, 2018 9:14 am

That’s been my experience with leftists. They do not believe it is possible to disagree with them honestly.
Therefore those who disagree with them must be evil.

The next step is always the gulags.

herb stevens
November 27, 2018 9:22 am

As a enthusiastic skeptic, I have a confession to make. After a certain number of fill-ups and purchases of stuff in the convenience store, Shell Oil gives me a 5 cent discount on the next fill-up. You caught me red handed, Mr. Krugman…

Reply to  herb stevens
November 27, 2018 9:54 am

I haven’t heard of you before Herb.

Your admission shows that it’s even the non-prominent deniers that are on the take!

Again, it’s worse than we thought.

herb stevens
Reply to  DonM
November 27, 2018 10:07 am

Aye, Laddie…’tis. I am saddled with guilt…

November 27, 2018 9:24 am

comment image

November 27, 2018 9:27 am

He is the denier since he denies the models Failed.

November 27, 2018 9:36 am

Those that live by the sword, die by the sword. I can only hope that when the true denialists – Paul Krugman and his ilk – are seen for what they are, they get the same treatment they want to mete out to others, themselves.

Reg Nelson
November 27, 2018 9:36 am

There used to be a time when economists focused on the economy and economic growth. Now the field is filled with a bunch SWJ’s sucking on the taxpayer teat.

I remember reading about an often cited paper on wealth inequality produced by UCLA professors . The author’s openly admitted that their estimate was essentially a wild guess. There is no actual data collected on wealth in the US. Another paper used a phone survey to prove wealth inequality. Imagine that, some random stranger rings you up and wants to how much money you have. What sane person would give that information to them.

November 27, 2018 9:53 am

Said the political Nobel to the other political Nobel.

Schrodinger's Cat
November 27, 2018 10:07 am

Alarmists seem to be all over the news at the moment, pumping out their message of imminent doom. People are beginning to believe it, under the sheer onslaught of propaganda. Even if they were doubtful before, now they think it must be serious.

From my perspective, we seem to be in a long, quiet spell as far as the science (or even the climate) is concerned, so it is worrying to witness what seems to be a coordinated effort to strike fear and alarm. The warmists seem to be going from strength to strength even though the have no observational evidence to support their dramatic claims. What can we do?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Schrodinger's Cat
November 27, 2018 3:51 pm

“Alarmists seem to be all over the news at the moment, pumping out their message of imminent doom. People are beginning to believe it, under the sheer onslaught of propaganda. Even if they were doubtful before, now they think it must be serious.”

I think the Alarmists are energized by these two latest CAGW reports. It gives them confidence that they are on the right side of the argument. They don’t realize that their confidence has no scientific basis. It’s all speculation.

It’s amazing how far this CAGW meme has gone on not much more than the greenhouse gas theory and a bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart, although considering the money and misinformation involved, it is understandable.

Still, CO2 is increasing and temperatures are cooling, which is the exact opposite of what the CAGW hypothesis claims will happen, so Alarmists shouldn’t be too sure of themselves.

Jan E Christoffersen
November 27, 2018 10:12 am

It’s COP season again, this time in Katowice, Poland. We just have to accept that, in the run-up to COP 24, we will be overwhelmed by media reports of climate doom and gloom. It happens every year at this time in November.

Breathe deeply and relax.

November 27, 2018 10:15 am

I think David Catron in the American Spectator summed up the raison d’etre of Krugman (and the NYT) quite nicely a few years ago (the article was about the ACA but the logic extends perfectly; just substitute global warming for Obamacare)

“So, if progressives are intellectually superior to the rest of us, why can’t they figure out that Krugman is lying about the history of Obamacare? They don’t want to, of course. They need to see themselves as a cut above the hoi polloi. If they admit the truth about Obamacare’s tawdry legislative history and subsequent failure to accomplish any of its goals, it means people like you and I were smarter than they were from the jump. Even worse, it might mean we’re right about other things as well. In the end, that’s what Paul Krugman gets paid for — perpetuating the pathetic progressive superiority complex.”

November 27, 2018 10:23 am

I believe that comments about any endeavour should be preceded by stating author’s credentials:
“Hi, I’m Dr. Joe Doe and I’m a dentist; however, I read the best book on CVT and I think these should be mandated on all cars, bikes and airplanes.”
And in this case — the credentials should be due-fully expanded — “… and I was awarded a certain Prize just a year before Obama got his.”

michael hart
November 27, 2018 10:24 am

“But there are almost no good-faith climate-change deniers.”

Not knowing what he said, he said it. I have never met a single person who denies that climate ever changes, and I bet he hasn’t either.

Steve O
November 27, 2018 10:25 am

Remember, money is corrupting. But it’s only corrupting to one side.

Full disclosure: I’m a depraved shill for the “fossil fuel lobby.” We’re afraid that oil will be left in the ground that nobody will want to buy.

Tom Schaefer
November 27, 2018 10:42 am

The crescendo is unhinged denunciations from the AGW crowd is being triggered by their fear of the next few years of data that will completely debunk their cause/project.

Robert of Texas
November 27, 2018 10:44 am

Woo hoo! I am “Depraved” and “Corrupt” now! (jotting these down, adding the the list of all the things I am because I don’t agree with their opinion)

Why do people get off on trying to burn the heretics? Is this a human condition? Are they just too mentally blind to see this? They are so threatened by people skeptical of their own view – this implies they are not really certain of their own beliefs.

November 27, 2018 10:51 am

Our CIVILIZATION is on the “fossil fuel take.”

E J Zuiderwijk
November 27, 2018 10:56 am

Anybody who takes serious anything that Mann says or writes is an ignorant fool.

November 27, 2018 10:57 am

The pseudoscience ecosystem is being sustained by slow moving actual climate data to fact check it. What an ideal medium for growth of the alarmist pathogen.

Clyde Spencer
November 27, 2018 11:16 am

“Almost all prominent climate deniers are on the fossil-fuel take.” — Krugman

This is a commonly-held delusional position for which I have never seen compelling evidence. I can state unequivocally that I’m not “on the fossil-fuel take,” but then I don’t really qualify as being “prominent.” It seems to be beyond the ken of alarmists that others might hold a legitimate difference of opinion derived from the same facts. Skeptics come to a different conclusion because they demand reasonable uncertainty ranges in numbers, and compelling evidence (10-70% doesn’t cut it!). That is, it is my opinion, that alarmists have much lower standards of proof — and in many instances, inflated opinions of their intelligence and competence.

But, the accusation of ‘being on the take,’ is actually an ad hominem attack that seems reasonable enough that those making the claim don’t expect to be challenged for making the statement. In the meantime, it manages to plant a seed of doubt about the objectivity of the so-called “climate denier.” Therefore, as with all ad hominem attacks, it manages to diminish the importance of the remarks by the skeptics among those who are gullible and uncritical thinkers — all without having to provide so much as a footnote to rebut that which they don’t want to believe.

We really should start to object more vigorously to those who resort to such disingenuous attacks by pointing out the logical fallacy and making it clear that it is typically the position of last resort for those lacking facts.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
November 27, 2018 12:10 pm

It’s just the Goebbels method at play again – constant repetition of very simple hate messaging, that exploits already-existing prejudice – it’s their only playbook.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
November 28, 2018 12:33 am

Technically, if a prominent skeptic gets paid for having an article of his published or posted by a conservative group (which naturally got some money from Big Oil), or for giving a talk at an evening dinner event or conference (like expenses for a Heartland annual gabfest), or for having his book published by Heartland (which once received money from an oil company), or gets a consulting fee from an entity with a link to fossil fuel, then he is on the take (indirectly).

Warmist professors get paid for these sort of activities too. And they do worse, some of them. Hansen accepted a $250,000 prize from the Heinz foundation for his activities, despite a federal regulation prohibiting its employees from accepting any money from outside entities for their work-related activities. (When confronted about this, Hansen said, approximately, “It isn’t for me, it’s for the grandchildren.” (Al Capone should have thought of that defense!))

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Roger Knights
November 28, 2018 12:06 pm

Receiving an honorarium to help defray travels costs, or waving a conference registration fee, is an entirely different situation from getting a subsidy of $100K or more. The federal government generally only requires that ‘gifts’ or more than $25 be reported because it is not that something of monetary value has changed hands, it is the question of whether the value is great enough to corrupt the recipient. I would suggest that when academics routinely receive research grants of 6 or 7 figures, it is clearly of a magnitude that it should raise some flags about objectivity. Yet, if the Heartland Institute spends a few thousand to publish a report, the alarmists are yelling “Corruption,” but see no problem with a department receiving enough money to pay a professor’s salary, and employ a couple of graduate students. It should be obvious that there are double standards with respect to the role of money in the objectivity of research.

David M Anderson
November 27, 2018 11:42 am

” denying science for profit, political advantage or ego satisfaction ”

And a chance to survive the harsh winter.

November 27, 2018 12:07 pm

How can telling the truth be depraved and corrupt?

November 27, 2018 12:40 pm

You know a liberal progressive is speaking when they unjustly accuse you of doing exactly the evil that they are doing. It’s a technique called “deflection”.

Paul Krugman has been wrong about everything in his supposed field of expertise (economics) so he has decided to branch his ineptitude out into other disciplines.

November 27, 2018 12:42 pm

Q: What’s the difference between Michael Mann and Paul Krugman?
A: One claims a Nobel prize he didn’t get, the other got a Nobel prize he didn’t earn.

Steven Hill (from Ky)
November 27, 2018 12:43 pm

My question is this, how does Al Gore have any credibility left, wasn’t the earth suppose to be ice free in 2013?

Joel Snider
Reply to  Steven Hill (from Ky)
November 27, 2018 3:35 pm

Because the progressive press says he does. No deeper than that.

They protected him from multiple rape allegations, too.

Steven Hill (from Ky)
Reply to  Joel Snider
November 27, 2018 3:50 pm

Multiple rape charges just like his former boss……

November 27, 2018 1:13 pm

While the comments are interesting, they are missing the main point. Today we are seeing the result of a biased education system. Back when I left school at 14 years of age, 1942, we had been taught all of the essentials to be able to go to work.

These days we see what could almost be described as more years of government
paid ” Baby sitting”as they attend school for 4 more years “, but it makes the unemployed figures look a little better by keeping them in school a bit longer. I doubt if their state of learning improves by very much.

Today we see the result of what can only be called “Brainwashing”by teachers who themselves were also “Brainwashed”.

So all attempts to explain how the weather works must allow for the fact that their thinking is at a very low level of being able to understand things. i.e. a very low actual IQ.
So its a case f “Keep it simple stupid”.

Something like “The sea is 73 % of the Earths surface, and the Sun warms that vast body of water. The winds then blow that heat energy around the world. That is called weather, and a tiny trace gas does not make enough of a difference to affect it.

Explain the the molucle CO2 is mostly Oxygen, and is measured in parts per million, and is essential for all life on Earth,. That it does not retain heat, but passes it onto other gases, and this is important, “We all breath it out”.

Things like the 1930 tees were far hotter than today, and a mention that the Minions , Romans, and the more recent MWP was a warm and good time.

But keep it simple.
Computer models are like the fortune telling lady at the fairground, and that all of the IPCC’s so called facts is in the “What if”way of thinking.

That colourerfull Graphs are made by pre-programmed Computers, and are not always true.

And finally CO2 is making the planet far greener and thus feeding the semi starving “Third World”.


Roger Knights
Reply to  Michael
November 28, 2018 12:38 am

“Today we are seeing the result of a biased education system. Back when I left school at 14 years of age, 1942, we had been taught all of the essentials to be able to go to work.

“These days we see what could almost be described as more years of government
paid ”Baby sitting” as they attend school for 4 more years “, but it makes the unemployed figures look a little better by keeping them in school a bit longer. I doubt if their state of learning improves by very much.

“Today we see the result of what can only be called “Brainwashing”by teachers who themselves were also “Brainwashed”.”

“The effects of such education are already distressingly visible in the Republic. Americans in the days when their education stopped with the three R’s, were a self-reliant, cynical, liberty-loving and extremely rambunctious people. Today, with pedagogy standardized and school-houses everywhere, they are the herd of sheep (Ovis aries).”

“All that is taught to the end of grammar school could be imparted to an intelligent child, by genuinely scientific methods, in two years and without any cruelty worse than that involved in pulling a tooth. But now it takes nine years,”

—H.L. Mencken

November 27, 2018 1:23 pm

Currently Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York are experiencing serve cold weather.
Imagine the death rate and carnage that would have been caused if Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York were powered mainly by ‘renewable’ wind and solar.
Just imagine…
Just imagine if Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York sometime in the future, mandated renewable were to be the main power suppliers, and that citizens could ONLY drive battery powered vehicle.

Yes, just imagine.

Ridiculous, eh?
But that is what so many of your political representative wish to do. Then they could bath themselves in the glory of virtue signaling (while no doubt, scamming a profit for themselves.) The glorious virtue of killing folk to save the world! Just like the TOBACCO industry these politicos know that in adverse weather renewables are an expensive (to human health) liability

So next time you vote, listen well. Are these people wanting your vote, the murdering sociopaths/psychopaths that via promoting ‘renewables’ are actually advocating your ‘death by misadventure’ ‘engineering failure’ and many other excuses? If they are, and you do not have a death wish, avoid them, AND DON’T VOTE FOR THEM!

November 27, 2018 1:46 pm

Seeing that Israel is surrounded by Muslim oil empires, why might the Jews that own the big banks and big media want to scare the public away from using oil? Seeing that stock market commodities like farm crops depend on the weather, why do investment bankers spend large sums of money on climate scientists? Why was the cooling trend through the 1900’s changed to a warming trend at the same time as the creation of the Chicago Climate Exchange in 2000 from which investment bankers hoped to make billions of dollars trading carbon credits?


How many billions or trillions of dollars did investment bankers lose when the nuclear industry collapsed after the accident at Three Mile Island? Why did the price of uranium, which plunged to $10/kg aftet TMI suddenly rise to $140/kg amidst the global warming propoganda? Why was Al Gore in business with the head of assett management at Goldman Sachs?


Why does the media like to trot out experts on shrinking rulers and particles in two places at the same time when the warming and cooling is accounted for by textbook geology and highschool science?

Steven Hill (from Ky)
November 27, 2018 1:58 pm

I am a climate realist and follow Joe Bastardi, it’s water vapor people. Joe says this may end soon followed by a cooling period. http://www.weatherbell.com

November 27, 2018 2:29 pm

Typical Krugman. He starts out by making a false statement (what ordinary people call lying) and asserts it as an acknowledged fact. Then he whips up a strawman or two based on his false statement, such as accusing opponents of absurd statements that they never made, etc. Then he hauls out the nasty, saying how could any honest or moral person take such a stance (when in actuality, nobody ever did, except in his article.)

Outside of Manhattan, the man has been a pitiful joke for at least 10 years. Now he extending his field of ignorance and hatred into the climate discussion. Oh goodie.

November 27, 2018 2:34 pm

“that wisdom is supported by overwhelming scientific consensus”

I don’t understand why people fail to recognize that the phrase “scientific consensus” is an oxymoron. A “consensus” is just a group opinion. There is nothing scientific about an opinion.

CD in Wisconsin
November 27, 2018 2:55 pm

When he discusses climate (among other things), Mr. Krugman needs to take note….

“….The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts…..”.

—Bertrand Russell

Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/bertrand_russell_121392

Among other realms of human knowledge today, it is sad and tragic to see science populated with fools and fanatics.

November 27, 2018 3:29 pm

Per Krugman:
…”But there are almost no good-faith climate-change deniers.”
Holy cow, how do you even parse the phrase “good-faith climate-change deniers”.
Take it a word at a time, and you could write a (another) book.

November 27, 2018 3:51 pm

One thing that surprises me is that many of the alt media and conspiracy blogs are jumping on the AGW bandwagon. Paul Craig Roberts, Alex Jones, Stephen Lenderman, Global Research, MOA, Naked Capitalism, etc. For most of them its outside what they normally cover. I’m guess someone is throwing some money at them to get support this position. Paul Craig Roberts who has complete disdain for MSM in his first post on this topic used CNN as his main source for claiming it was True. LOL.

I read somewhere the Climate Industry is worth at least 1.5 trillion and the potential to increase by orders of magnitude should carbon tax and trading take off, and that would likely dwarf the Oil &Gas Industry . The big players in Oil&Gas will themselves grab a piece of the action as they are already interlocked with the financial sector, so their opposition to AGW is overstated IMO.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Pft
November 28, 2018 12:55 am

Here’s another jumper: Max Boot, a conservative columnist for WaPo, on the 26th, wrote an article reciting shallow warmist talking points titled, “I was wrong on climate change. Why can’t other conservatives admit it, too?”


Maybe the Pranksters on Olympus are trying to get maximum conversion to warmism before pulling the rug out from under us all (except we happy few) with another little ice age.

November 27, 2018 5:16 pm

With this kind of Krugman totalitarian view, I feel camps for deniers are next…

Wiliam Haas
November 27, 2018 6:21 pm

There is no consensus regarding the AGW conjecture. scientists have not been first registered than then voted on the validity of the AGW conjecture. It they had it would have been meaningless anyway. Science is not a democracy. Scientific theories are not validated through a voting process. The laws of science are not some sort of legislation. There must be something really wrong with a theory if they have to quote “consensus” as a reason to believe it.

It is my belief that mankind’s burning up the Earth’s very finite supply of fossil fuels is not a very good idea and I would like to use AGW as another reason to conserve. At first AGW seems to be quite plausible but upon closer inspection I find that the AGW conjecture is based on only partial science and cannot be defended. Based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, one can conclude that the climate change we have been experience is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rationale to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. Its all a matter of science.

One of the biggest problems with the AGW conjecture is that it depends upon the existence of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere with LWIR absorption bands. Such a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s atmosphere, or anywhere else in the solar system for that matter. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction so hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction as well. If CO2 really affected climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused at least a measurable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. Sure, CO2 absorbs LWIR radiation but it also radiates it out again because good absorbers are also good radiators. CO2 also transfers heat energy by conduction and convection just like all the other gases in the troposphere and in the troposphere heat transfer by convection and convection is much more important that heat energy transport by LWIR absorption band radiation. If any gases are more likely to trap heat then it would be the non-greenhouse gases that are such poor radiators to space. This is all a matter of science.

I have never worked for or have been paid by any of the energy related companies. No one is paying me to provide my opinion which is based on science.

November 28, 2018 6:11 am

Ol’ Shifty Eyed Krugman is at it again.

D Cage
November 28, 2018 10:13 am

Surely depraved and corrupt is telling people the science is beyond question when simply having answers to any question you can throw at them would do wonders for belief. My demands are very simple.
Since the change is no longer global then show me a good or better still perfect match between fossil fuel usage and the hot spots. Stop convincing me you have no case in science by using terms like denier for those who are not prepared to take scientists as being above god and faith in them absolute and unquestioning. Denier with its easily provable, even if believers choose to ignore the search engine’s proof of universal limit to its use, almost only for holocaust and climate change is defamation by association and as a tactic beyond question depraved and corrupt. ( I accept it also finds use in connection with stockings but feel it is fair to discount that.)

Jan Barstow
November 28, 2018 4:25 pm

I have a hard time understanding why these people are so incredibly confident about a temperature residual that is barely discernible from the data — and projecting from the short amount of data we have to extrapolation points a hundred years away. I get that Mann is confident that the climate never varies by much and that somehow that justifies every bone headed policy that anyone wants a tax to support?!

I look at this data and so much of it is just noise. There is very little in the way of patterns to discern unless you look at the data just right — but by that measure you can also get data that makes it look like there is no overall trend. Most of this looks like the effects of urbanization. I have seen temperature sets from stations in rural areas and they do not seem to indicate a change beyond noise.

How can they have a level of confidence about this to demand worldwide change? This is especially true when you consider the fact that increasing the standard of living by using energy will end up decreasing birthrates in the developing world by increasing education and access to contraception.

Where does this psychotic level of self righteousness come from?

John G
December 1, 2018 1:09 pm

Bullfeathers! For two years now I’ve notice cooler temperatures. That shouldn’t be happening . . . first off, if I’m noticing cooler temperatures, which I never have before, there’s probably something to it . . . yet I still see claims of ‘warmest year ever!’ Secondly, we’re coming out of an interglacial . . . we should expect it to get colder . . . slowly but inevitably colder probably at varying rates. Man certainly isn’t going to cancel out the natural cycle of glaciers/interglacials. The Warmists are desperate to keep the scam going . . . gullible people are their source of political power in the same way Democrats need poor people dependent on government to get elected. That’s the real weakness of Democracy, people can be scammed. Krugman is full of it which anyone should be able to see with their own eyes.

%d bloggers like this: