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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
+10
Thank you.
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
I’ve also read the literature, and you don’t know what you are talking about.
“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.
https://vactruth.com/history-of-vaccine-schedule/
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.
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.
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.
Stratospheric polar vortex over North America at the level of 10 millibars.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2018/11/27/1200Z/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=-102.43,38.34,515
Attack of the polar vortex in the east of the US.
Almost all prominent climate deniers are on the fossil-fuel take. ~ Kruggles
Name one.
First name 10 “climate deniers”;
then, point to the one that is prominent.
So, he is calling us democrats. Got it.
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.
Still waiting for my bag-O-money from Big Oil, I don’t take checks!
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 … … …
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
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?
> 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.
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..
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.
I say Paul should stick with his area of expertise (economics) only he’s mostly wrong there as well.
Funny thing is none of these “economists” have built and operated a successful business, or even a failing business.
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.
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…
Actually it is the warmunists confusing the public about the dangers of global warming.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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
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
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.
In the last 4.5 billion years, the Earth’s “climate” has changed multiple times, from interglacials (kinda Warm Optimums) to Ice Ages (F@ur momisugly%&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@ur momisugly%&ing cold? As a half American stuck in the Great White Frozen North, this creates quite a conundrum…..brrrrrrr….
I actually clicked on “Read more:” and the very first sentence was:
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:
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.”?
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!
By Paul Krugman, Opinion Columnist? Oy vey. Why would anyone care about the opinion of an “Opinion Columnist”?
Regards,
Bob
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.
“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.
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 ?
No surprise it’s from the economist who declared government should pay people to dig holes and fill them in.
… 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.
Climate Believers are moronic, lying, ignoramuses who hate humanity.
We win.
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.
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.