Krugman on the Climate Change Conspiracy
nytimes.com
Krugman on the Climate Change Conspiracy
1–10 of 52 posts
Re: Krugman on the Climate Change Conspiracy
#2> Climate change poses a clear and present danger to our way of life. How can anyone justify failing to act?
Virtually complete predictive failure over the better part of the last decade. How can anyone justify acting?
Re: Krugman on the Climate Change Conspiracy
#3I'll never understand why those who argue that there's such a serious problem with climate change also seem to not want to debate the topic much. If this is just a matter of science then shouldn't the facts speak loudly enough that those who argue to the contrary wouldn't have much to say at all? And why all the pressure to force through this issue through Congress without proper time for review? Weren't Democrats mad about it when Bush did that for the Patriot Act? I think they were correct in this objection but now they don't seem to mind as much.
I don't know if Krugman is right or wrong about climate change but one thing is pretty clear to me: If you're arguing about science using words like treason and betrayal is out of line.
I'd be interested to know if someone who believes that global warming is something that requires our immediate attention can explain why arguing against it so dangerous.
Re: Krugman on the Climate Change Conspiracy
#4Krugman is a dismal scientist (a.k.a. economist), not a real scientist. His pedantry and demagogy are too much to bear. He can't even predict the effects of economic policy and now he's trying to predict the weather? What next?
Contrary to popular belief, the ice caps are not shriking all the time. Sure, they were shrinking really fast some years ago, and everyone went hysterical because of the rising sea levels and drowning polar bears. But when the ice caps started growing again, no one said a thing. If that isn't cherry-picking, I don't know what is.
Re: Krugman on the Climate Change Conspiracy
#5> Climate change poses a clear and present danger to our way of life. How can anyone justify failing to act? Virtually complete predictive failure over the better part of the last decade. How can anyone justify acting?
I tried to explain the same thing on my blog a while back, I would be interested in getting your two cents:
http://www.nimonik.ca/2009/05/global-warming-models-are-inhe...
thanks in advance.
Re: Krugman on the Climate Change Conspiracy
#6Krugman should take his own words to heart when it comes to economics.
But if you watched the debate on Friday, you didn’t see
people who’ve thought hard about a crucial issue, and are
trying to do the right thing. What you saw, instead, were
people who show no sign of being interested in the truth.
They don’t like the political and policy implications of
climate change, so they’ve decided not to believe in it —
and they’ll grab any argument, no matter how disreputable,
that feeds their denial.
Re: Krugman on the Climate Change Conspiracy
#7Krugman is a dismal scientist (a.k.a. economist), not a real scientist. His pedantry and demagogy are too much to bear. He can't even predict the effects of economic policy and now he's trying to predict the weather? What next? Contrary to popular belief, the ice caps are not shriking all the time. Sure, they were shrinking really fast some years ago, and everyone went hysterical because of the rising sea levels and…
Your data is wrong. Did you even bother to check?
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic_thinice.htm...
"Until recently, the majority of Arctic sea ice survived at least one summer and often several. But things have changed dramatically, according to a team of University of Colorado, Boulder, scientists led by Charles Fowler. Thin seasonal ice -- ice that melts and re-freezes every year -- makes up about 70 percent of the Arctic sea ice in wintertime, up from 40 to 50 percent in the 1980s and 1990s. Thicker ice, which survives two or more years, now comprises just 10 percent of wintertime ice cover, down from 30 to 40 percent.
According to researchers from the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo., the maximum sea ice extent for 2008-09, reached on Feb. 28, was 5.85 million square miles. That is 278,000 square miles less than the average extent for 1979 to 2000."
And yep, parts (but only parts) of the Antarctic ice cap are growing -- but guess why? Warmer air creating more snowfall.
You people are hopeless. Data, facts, evidence -- none of it sways you. It's like some religion.
Re: Krugman on the Climate Change Conspiracy
#8I'll never understand why those who argue that there's such a serious problem with climate change also seem to not want to debate the topic much. If this is just a matter of science then shouldn't the facts speak loudly enough that those who argue to the contrary wouldn't have much to say at all? And why all the pressure to force through this issue through Congress without proper time for review? Weren't Democrats ma…
"I'd be interested to know if someone who believes that global warming is something that requires our immediate attention can explain why arguing against it so dangerous."
Because the global warming hysteria is an ideology, not Science. You can't argue against über-dogmatic fanatics who know nothing about Science.
If they knew about Science, they would know that "global warming" is a meaningless, stupid name. Understanding the global climate is an infinite-dimensional problem, and one just can't reduce all that complexity to one single bit.
Moreover, "climate change" is also retarded. Call it "global climate crisis" or something.
Re: Krugman on the Climate Change Conspiracy
#9> Climate change poses a clear and present danger to our way of life. How can anyone justify failing to act? Virtually complete predictive failure over the better part of the last decade. How can anyone justify acting?
For the most part I agree with you. But I'm a big believer in "better safe than sorry" and in that spirit I'd like to see some sensible change. The problem with an extreme position like "the world is going to end" is it makes those who don't agree with you instinctively jump to the opposite extreme.
The truth is the United States had been steadily making progress on reducing our impact on the planet all the way through the Clinton administration. It was only when the Global Warming nuts popped up that the Conservative side felt the need to throw on the brakes.
Now we have two irrational extreme's competing against each other.
Re: Krugman on the Climate Change Conspiracy
#10Krugman is a dismal scientist (a.k.a. economist), not a real scientist. His pedantry and demagogy are too much to bear. He can't even predict the effects of economic policy and now he's trying to predict the weather? What next? Contrary to popular belief, the ice caps are not shriking all the time. Sure, they were shrinking really fast some years ago, and everyone went hysterical because of the rising sea levels and…
Your data is wrong. Did you even bother to check? http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic_thinice.htm... "Until recently, the majority of Arctic sea ice survived at least one summer and often several. But things have changed dramatically, according to a team of University of Colorado, Boulder, scientists led by Charles Fowler. Thin seasonal ice -- ice that melts and re-freezes every year -- makes up about 70…
Funny, but the data I had told a rather different story. Gonna look for the URLs to back it up and I will be right back.
"None of it sways you" -> please spare me of your attacks. They don't add anything to the discussion and they only weaken your point.