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.
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…
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.
Aye, Laddie…’tis. I am saddled with guilt…
He is the denier since he denies the models Failed.
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.
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.
Said the political Nobel to the other political Nobel.
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?
“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.
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.
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.”
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
Our CIVILIZATION is on the “fossil fuel take.”
Anybody who takes serious anything that Mann says or writes is an ignorant fool.
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.
There is no joy in market distortion-ville tonight.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-biofuels-exclusive/exclusive-epa-will-not-reallocate-waived-biofuel-volumes-to-2019-official-idUSKCN1NW221?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FtopNews+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+Top+News%29
“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.
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.
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!))
Roger,
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.
” denying science for profit, political advantage or ego satisfaction ”
And a chance to survive the harsh winter.
How can telling the truth be depraved and corrupt?
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.
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.
My question is this, how does Al Gore have any credibility left, wasn’t the earth suppose to be ice free in 2013?
Because the progressive press says he does. No deeper than that.
They protected him from multiple rape allegations, too.
Multiple rape charges just like his former boss……
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”.
MJE
“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