Krugman: Republicans' Climate Change Denial Amounts To Treason

The New York Times:

So the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill. In political terms, it was a remarkable achievement.

But 212 representatives voted no. A handful of these no votes came from representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected the bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases.

And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn't help thinking that I was watching a form of treason -- treason against the planet.

Read the whole story: The New York Times

Comments

[research]

Please! Stop the Hysteria!

The deniers ARE a group fomented with big bucks by the CO2 emitters coal and oil.

The People worried about human climate change are nearly all sincere.

Humans HAVE increased CO2 levels to several times any level since BEFORE the ice age cycles started, about 3 million years ago, when the temperature were much higher.

But:

Climate is CHAOTIC.

Most Chaotic systems "SWITCH" from one "Strange Attractor" to another.

So the Climate can switch:

from the 100k year ice age cycles, which are deadly to people and civilization,

to: The previous more consistent warm periods 3 million years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png

Or: to some climate pattern we have never seen before.

One thing we can predict: The Climate will change. Probably soon because of the human significant alteration of the green house content of the atmosphere.

Maybe we should try to slow the change, since we are mostly happy with our current climate, and climate change tends to be very difficult and deadly.

On the other hand, The normal historical prediction without human intervention, would be for a deadly 100,000 year

Ice Age.

Perhaps our green house gas injections will push the climate into the previous consistent warm phase again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

The Uncertainty principle and Chaos theory exclude any possibility of prediction of Which Climate we will switch to.

Everybody off their high horses, PLEASE!

[RomeoMD25]

Back when I was a kid, critical reasoning was described as a fundamental skill. We were given statistics in the classroom on the truth of newspaper and television news reports, demonstrating absolutely that you cannot take the truth of what you read and hear for granted. If we really wanted to understand anything rather than being fooled, it was up to us to find the facts and think for ourselves.

Today’s schools present political propaganda films like Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, “skeptics” are described as evil beings out to destroy the earth, and students are routinely punished for questioning global warming orthodoxy – whichever version of it is currently in the hands of their teachers. Tens of billions of dollars have been spent on fake science, scientists and bureaucrats have been punished for questioning it, and media moguls have delighted in hyping it. It’s yet another in a continuously growing list of case studies in Big Lie politics.

[realpolitic]

As I like to say, "It is not "merely" atmospheric scientists that would have to be wrong for RomeoMD25's mad ravings to be right. It would require a rewriting of biology, geology, physics, oceanography, astronomy and statistics." And the deniers continue to live in a phony world of disinformation where they are the useful dupes of big Energy all because they do not like Al Gore or have some other juvenile belief in mass conspiracy theories of climate scientists around the world with different specializations.

[Parsimony]

Michael Crichton on Concensus Science:
"I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results.

The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus...There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."

(Address to the Commonwealth Club)
http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/sceptic-scientists.html

[realpolitic]

Poor Michael Crichton! He can not get past the word "consensus" to see what the consensus is based on, the literally hundreds of thousands of field observations from thousands of specialists working around the world in different fields. "It is not "merely" atmospheric scientists that would have to be wrong for Chrichton to be right. It would require a rewriting of biology, geology, physics, oceanography, astronomy and statistics."

Jurassic Park was a fun movie. I do not read too much science fiction. If Chrichton wants to generate publicity as a naysayer, that is fine. It shows the paucity of evidence that deniers have when they must bring forward science fiction writers to try to pretend that their fiction is real.

[Richard2]

Michael Crichton also wrote a novel which incorporated the global warming issue as background to its meandering plot. It is titled "State of Fear." As a story, it was perhaps not one of his best. However, the lively banter about global warming issues among the mix of characters is both thoughtful and educational. Due to its overall point of view, it probably will never be made into a movie.

[realpolitic]

Richard2, but this example shows how closely you guys adhere to the world of fiction and how you so readily you link the two worlds- real and fictional- seamlessly. If only the rest of us could dismiss reality so readily and occupy this Fox News world of false narratives we would accept all the disinformation that you deniers do as fact.

[RomeoMD25]

Now many of you may consider yourselves liberal, maybe not on all issues but at least on environmental ones.
So as liberals, you are supposed to be open minded.
Man-made carbon dioxide is only 0.117 percent of total carbon dioxide in the air and contributes only 0.0047 percent carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
The average person has been misled and is confused about what the current Global Warming debate is about, greenhouse gases. None of which has anything to do
with air pollution. People are confusing Smog, Carbon Monoxide (CO) and the pollutants in
car exhaust with the life supporting, essential trace gas in our atmosphere, Carbon Dioxide (CO2).

[RomeoMD25]

What's wrong with the Kyoto Protocol? To the uninitiated, nothing. It seems to be the solution to dirty air and global warming. But to many plant scientists, climate scientists, chemists, and others, the science of kyoto is all wrong. The Kyoto Protocol is particularly problematic because it is based on falsehoods, some of which are as follows: (1) that CARBON DIOXIDE gas, CO2, is a pollutant; (2) that anthropogenic (human generated) CO2 content of air is too high and out of control; (3) that the concentrations of CO2 found in air, LOW though these are, still manage to cause global climate change / global warming; (4) that human beings / governments can affect, that is reduce, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere of planet Earth, at sea level. Lies, all lies.

[realpolitic]

Yes, then all the science is wrong and you are right. But then I can not live in a fictional world as you!

[Parsimony]

This is sad, Dr. Krugman. You put yourself in the company of Joe McCarthy and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in accusing your countrymen who do not share your opinions of treasonous crimes and misdemeanors. And this while spouting the Lysenkoism that is global warming hysteria. I suggest you stick to critiquing economic policy where you apparently have some actual expertise.

[realpolitic]

The scientists agree about climate change and the human influence. It is only the far right who pretends there is a dispute among scientists. "It is not "merely" atmospheric scientists that would have to be wrong for deniers to be right. It would require a rewriting of biology, geology, physics, oceanography, astronomy and statistics."

You deniers like to pretend there is no consensus among scientists, when the consensus is completely accepted by climate scientists. Otherwise, you would not have to get all your information from right-wing denial sources.

[Parsimony]

"Deniers", as you prefer label those who disagree with your imaginary consensus, do not deny that there is climate change or that human activity has a negative influence, merely that the theory underlying the CO2 hypothesis is unproven and very likely wrong. Climate modeling as it is practiced by Hansen, Mann, Schmidt, et.al. turns the scientific method on it's head by continually changing ("adjusting") the data to prop up their theory; whereas real science adjusts theory to fit the data. Computer models do not produce data, they only manipulate it in an attempt to mathematically mimic real world observations. The only way that current general climate models can make the tiny percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere account for the ~one degree Celsius increase in temperature in the 20th century is by ascribing to it an unproven positive feedback effect in combination with water vapor while nearly all physical evidence suggests negative feedback. If there is treason present in the climate debate, it is on the part of radical environmental ideologues who are steering billions in precious resources toward correcting an imaginary problem instead of toward correcting the destructive land and water use policies that are the real threat to the natural environment. The "consensus" is the most massive case of erroneous groupthink since the justification for going to war with Iraq and is likely to have even worse unintended consequences. Ad hominum

[realpolitic]

You first say there is no consensus and then at the end of your long harangue say it is groupthink. Which is it? You suggest climate change is only suggested by models when it is the product of hundreds of thousands of field observations from scientists across the globe in many different fields. Again, it is not "merely" atmospheric scientists that would have to be wrong for deniers to be right. It would require a rewriting of biology, geology, physics, oceanography, astronomy and statistics." Who are you trying to kid? Yourself!

[Parsimony]

...continued - Ad hominem attacks on real scientists and labeling everyone who disagrees with the dominant paradigm as pawns of the energy industry do not prove the tenets of IPPC theory nor do they advance science or public policy.

[realpolitic]

Yes, but what does your statement have to do with anything?

[Richard2]

Dr. Krugman: "The fact is that the planet is changing faster than even the pessimists expected."

In other news, the University of Alabama Huntsville has released the UAH global temperature for June 2009. The recorded temperature, from satellite measurements, is more than .7 degrees C below the peak monthly temperature for the year 1998, the warmest year in recent decades.

The earth's average temperature increased approximately 1.0 degree C during the entire 20th Century. As of June, 2009, we are .7 degrees C below the peak monthly temperature from 1998.

Also,the sea level rise of the late 20th Century has now stalled. The sea level readings for the U.S. government tidal stations in San Francisco, and Monterey, California, clearly show that the sea level readings were higher around 1998, when the earth was warmer, than they are now, when the earth is cooler. This infers that the oceans have stopped warming, and may have cooled. The buoys used by Dr. Willis at JPL also indicated no ocean warming over the past four years.

Satellite temperature readings indicate a cooling, not a warming, of the earth. The Tide Station data indicates the oceans themselves have stopped warming, or perhaps cooled. Both of these sources of hard, objective data, indicate no recent global warming.

These objective measurements are in direct conflict with the statement of Dr. Krugman.

[realpolitic]

If you use the same base periods for the satellite temperature readings and earth stations, they show a similar warming trend. According to one author, "Watts Up With That has A look at temperature anomalies for all 4 global metrics. However, for the analysis, the temperature anomalies have different base periods. I quickly plotted the temperatures using the same base period. I also show the histogram of the temperature anomalies. I chose the base period to be the time from 1979 through January 2008. This makes things really easy because all I have to do is subtract out the mean of all the time series."

"The four global temperature anomaly metrics look a lot more similar when they are plotted using the same base period."

http://www.ask.com/bar?q=uah+temperature+anomalies&page=2&qsrc=19&ab=5&u=http%3A%2F%2Fatmoz.org%2Fblog%2F2008%2F02%2F27%2F4-global-temperature-anomalies-say-the-same-thing%2F

"Sea level rise fueled by global warming threatens the barrier islands and coastal wetlands of the Middle Atlantic States, a federal report warned on Friday. "

"The report, issued by the EPA, the United States Geological Survey and other agencies, is one of a series examining the potential effects of a rising sea level on the nation’s coasts."

"The rise in sea level is accelerating because warmer water occupies more space and because of runoff from melting inland glaciers and ice sheets."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/17/science/earth/17sea.html?_r=2&ref=science

http://www.sciencetime.org/blog/?p=125

[realpolitic]

Pending.

[Richard2]

Yes, water expands as it warms. Therefore, if there is Global Warming, the oceans' waters should expand a little, and the sea level should rise. This is what typically happened during the second half of the 20th Century.

However, if you look at the sea level data from the tidal station at San Francisco, for example, you notice that the peak sea level measurements were from around 1998, and that the more recent measurements have been lower.

One likely explanation is simply that the oceans were warmer in 1998 than they are now, so the sea level measurements have declined slightly. This would be consistent with the UAH temperature data from satellites, which shows a slight decline in global temperature since 1998.

[Richard2]

I'm a big, big fan of Paul Krugman, as an economist. He was one of the independent voices who was quick to critique the conventional wisdom of our government's stumbling attempts to deal with the current financial crisis. He also is a clear, entertaining writer. However, sometime even a monkey falls from the tree. Paul Krugman has fallen from his tree over global warming.

In place of his powers of reason, he has used the word "treason" to attack voices who disagree with some "conventional wisdom" about global warming. As the attorneys say, if you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. If you don't have the facts on your side, attack your opponent.

As he is a bright man and a gifted writer, I invite him to read the views of another bright, gifted writer. Please just do an internet search for: Michael Crichton and global warming.

Mr. Crichton has used man's sense of reason to raise serious doubts about global warming. His logic is the kind that an economist would appreciate. I would enjoy Paul Krugman using his editorial column to do a review of Michael Crichton's effect critique of global warming theory. Bring it on.

[realpolitic]

So you say Paul Krugman has "fallen from a tree" over warming and then recommend a writer of fiction like Crichton who wrote Jurassic Park. You guys on the right get crazier by the day.

You say you have the facts on your side except that every warming study that comes out speaks about the established consensus among scientists that man-made greenhouse gases, especially co2, cause warming. If the facts are on your side you had better alert the climate scientists. They are not aware of it.

According to Global Climate Change in U.S. study by U.S. Global Change Research Program, "Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural practices, and other activities."

http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf

[Richard2]

Yes, observations over the second half of the 20th Century show warming. However, the cause for this warming is not clear. If is was human-induced, then the first decade of the 21st Century should have displayed accelerated warming, accelerated sea level increases, etc. However, the reality is that June, 2009 was .7 degrees C cooler than the warmest month of 1998. The reality is that most tidal stations show either a deceleration in sea level rise, or an absolute decline in sea level. At the minimum, the sea level rise is declerating, which again is an indication that human induced warming is not occurring. The temperature measurements and tide gauge measurements are in direct conflict with computer climate models. Given the choice between objective measurements, and secret code, climate models, the realistic choice is the objective measurements of the real world.

[Parsimony]

Michael Crichton was a Harvard-trained medical scientist who once did bench research. He left the laboratory to become one of the most successful science fiction writers of all time. It is no coincidence that he was one of the first to recognize the "consensus on the science" of global warming theory as put forward by the IPCC for what it is - science fiction.

[realpolitic]

Richard, try to read beyond the first science...

"The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural practices, and other activities."

No, scientists never have said that there should be accelerated warming or sea level rise in the first decade of this century. That assumption is your own straw man argument you keep returning too. in, fact Dr. Willis who studies sea levels said...

"It is a well-established fact that human activities are heating up the planet and that global temperatures will continue to rise for decades to come. Climate change skeptics often highlight certain scientific results as a means of confusing this issue, and that appears to be the case with Mr. Gunter’s description of our recent results based on data from Argo buoys."

[realpolitic]

Dr. Willis continued...

"Indeed, Argo data show no warming in the upper ocean over the past four years, but this does not contradict the climate models. In fact, many climate models simulate four to five year periods with no warming in the upper ocean from time to time. The same is true for the warming trend observed by NASA satellites; it too is in good agreement with climate model simulations. But more important than agreement with computer models is the fact that four years with no warming in the upper ocean does not erase the 50 years of warming we’ve seen since ocean temperature measurements became widespread…. "

"It is important to remember that climate science is not a public debate carried out on the opinion pages of newspapers. What we know about global warming comes from thousands of scientists pouring over countless data sets, conducting experiments to figure out how the climate works and scrutinizing every aspect of each other’s work."


http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/ocean-cooling-and-global-warming/?apage=3

[realpolitic]

Pending.

[RomeoMD25]

The one thing I can think of that is more ill-advised than ignoring history, is ignoring the present; with Al Gore and his greenhouse models you get both. Gore’s predictions have been wildly incorrect; but the present climate, temperature, and weather, which show that Earth and oceans are cooling, is ignored in favor of the non-predictive computer model!

Ask your congressperson why Al Gore’s computer models have never worked. Ask for the real data validating the models. There isn’t any.

[realpolitic]

You mean it is all a hoax! What other topics have you learned about on Fox news?

[Parsimony]

Oops: yourself

[blimie]

The cap and trade bill is a tax rip off for Americans. It will not fix the environment, it will increase taxes for every American. Our gas and utilities will skyrocket while the biggest polluters will get tax benefits.

[pragmaticdallasite]

Yeah, they'll skyrocket by about 10$ a month

[NL207]

Obama during the campaign even admitted Cap-And-Trade would cause utility bills to 'skyrocket'. By that he meant double. How many people do you know who have a $10 per month electric bill? Mine's 10 times that. Double that is $100 per month more.

$10 per month is just plain nonsense. if you believe it, then you are just plain dumb.

[realpolitic]

"The CBO estimated that the net impact to households from the bill in 2020 would range between a benefit of $40 per year and a cost of $340 per year, with an average cost of $165 per year -- significantly less than the figures Fox News reported or allowed their guests to claim."

http://www.mediamatters.com/research/200906230028

[Parsimony]

You mean you actually watch Fox News? That only encourages them. Better to spend your time reading up on how you got swindled. The information's there. You just have to read it.

[RomeoMD25]

It is estimated that this act will cost every taxpayer $2,000-$3000 more in taxes each and every year after implementation. This increased tax is supposed to give us incentive to find a way to decrease our CO2 emissions by 50 percent between 2000 and 2030. Try turning off your lights and TV for six months.

Scientific measurements show that CO2 is about 0.038%, or 380 parts per million — not even 1 percent of our atmosphere by volume. Real climate scientists, not Al Gore, have calculated that currently only 2.75 percent of this 0.038 percent atmospheric CO2 is from human sources.

Let’s see now. We must reduce our consumption of CO2 by 50 percent because we are contributing 0.00104 percent of the atmospheric CO2. Can anyone tell me just how much warming will be reduced with a 0.00104% percent reduction in our atmospheric CO2 contribution?

And just what reductions are planned in China, Russia, India and Africa? This is why regulating CO2 in the U.S. is so ridiculous.

[Tex1969]

So, the Maui News is your credible source for CO2 levels.??

I'll play when you can provide a real scientific source for Maui news reference to "scientific measurements show that" etc.. other than some memo from a business organization -the office of business and management threatening the EPA, which actually does employ scientist.

[NL207]

So where is Romeo referencing the Maui News in his post? Krugman's Times piece doesn't reference it either.

Maybe you need to see a podiatrist to have your teeth cleaned?

[Exusian]

Ah, the dilution argument.

Facts Romeo didn't bother to include:

Atmospheric CO2 has increased by over one third since the start of the industrial revolution, from ~280 ppm to ~386 ppm (+ ~38%), half of that since 1950 alone, or + ~19%.

Almost all of that increase is from human activity. In fact, CO2 from human activity is responsible for ~200% of the observed and measured increase in atmospheric CO2. That's correct, 200%. That's because half of what we emit each year is absorbed by natural carbon sinks, especially the ocean, while the rest remains in the atmosphere, some of for centuries.

That 2.75 percent figure that Romeo cites is only one year's contribution. Now why do you think he didn't mention the figures ~19% since 1950, or ~38% since 1750?

continued...

[Exusian]

...continued

Notice the other figure Romeo cites: 0.00104%.

That's what percentage of the entire atmosphere 2.75% of atmospheric CO2 is.
Romeo can't even keep the percentages of his talking point straight.

Of course Romeo doesn't tell you that all greenhouse gases combined, including water vapour, constitute less than 0.5% of the atmosphere. Yet that less than 0.5% manages to make Earth's average surface temperature ~33C/59F warmer than it would be if that 0.5% was not in the atmosphere. Which means the other 99.5% of the atmosphere isn't even involved in the greenhouse effect, at least not until those greenhouse gas molecules convert the infrared energy that they absorb into kinetic energy by colliding with those other 99.5% of molecules that are transparent to infrared energy.

In other words, the dilution argument is entirely specious and a complete diversion--an intentional slight of hand.

This is how the denial disinformation game is played.

[realpolitic]

Funny how they quote the same misinformation over and over.

[BrettnCalgary]

Why aren't you in my fav's?

[Exusian]

Dunno, you have to talk to the guy that has to add me.

[NL207]

How much of that 33 degrees is attributable to water vapor?

[Exusian]

~20% of it, NL, but without that 20% we'd get much less than the other 80% that water vapour is responsible for. Think about it, you just might be able to understand the point.

Now a question for you: which greenhouse gases are increasing by human activity directly adding them to the atmosphere?

[realpolitic]

Romeo, your ravings about the science is way off, as is your raving about the economic costs, neither of which you cite any authority for. "The CBO estimated the climate bill would cost an average household $175 a year, the EPA $80 to $110 a year."

http://www.ask.com/bar?q=exxon+climate+change&page=1&qsrc=0&ab=4&u=http%3A%2F%2F

[NL207]

"John M. Reilly, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor, said that a cap-and-trade bill could generate $366 billion a year in revenue "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/22/AR2009062202836.html

So, if the avaerage household consists of 2.3 people and there are 310M people give or take, meaning there are about 135 million households in the US. If each of these pays about $175 per year, that's only $23.5B in revenue.

Where do you suppose the other $342.5B per year is coming from exactly? I'll tell you where: from increased cost of goods and services which the taxed commodities are used to produce. The tax will be passed on to consumers as a cost of doing business. You are a consumer, aren't you?

This is $175 per household claim is such a brazen lie even YOU ought to recognize it.

[research]

Paul, this was a mistake.

It's unnecessarily provocative and counter productive.

I'm surprised your for this bill, it's about a new bankster derivatives market. It does nothing for rooftop solar, the most viable 3 cent per KWH (see my profile).

60% of the money goes to Clean Coal which even if possible, will cost at least 14 cents per KWH.

I

[pragmaticdallasite]

Did you read the article? He's talking about those who voted no on the basis of not believing we have to do something on greenhouse gases.

I agree with you that the bill is weak, but those Repubs who continue to obstruct climate and energy legislation no matter what deserve the label of treasonous.

[research]

I understand. He simply should never have used to the word treason.

The bill is not worth signing. It's really bad.

It's not a climate bill, it's a bankers derivatives carbon trading credit default swap bill. 80% of the bill is banker investor jargon.

[Lorianne]

Kucinich said of the bill:
"It won't address the problem. In fact, it might make the problem worse.

[pragmaticdallasite]

Because of the coal provision or the nature of cap-n-trade? I'm usually listening when he speaks, I hate this bill. Hopefully this isn't the last climate bill for another 25 years, this one is weak.

[rattler99]

if anyone should be charged with treason, it's that fraud klugman - perpetrating this scam on the american public deserves a public lynching

[Exusian]

Hmmm, calls for public lynching seem to be all the vogue within ignorant right wingnut circles these days.

[Policon]

Does anybody know when global cooling is going to make a comeback? It was so much better being told that CO2 was going to freeze the Earth rather than melt it.

[rattler99]

yeah, we need to go back to the '70s to get that going again - same computer models and personnel from NASA doing the warming thing too, by the way

[BrettnCalgary]

Another lie, so easy to refute:

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/they-predicted-cooling-in-1970s.php

[protagonia]

1. Are you a Christian.

2. Do you await the Rapture?

[Exusian]

Same old rattler still making s**t up and flinging it against the wall to see what sticks.

[research]

It's not a climate bill!

It's a banker Carbon Derivatives Trading bill!

Read it! It's 80% banker talk.