Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Krugman: Cap-and-Trade Opponents Are a Bunch of Beck-Listening Denialist Liars! Also, Drastically Altering the Way Americans Produce and Consume Energy Won't Cost Much
Allow me to re-edit the lede of Paul Krugman's latest columny, an attempt to pre-emptively marginalize those who disagree with another sweeping federal proposal:
So, have you enjoyed the debate over health care reform? Have you been impressed by the civility of the discussion and the intellectual honesty of reform
opponentssupporters?If so, you'll love the next big debate: the fight over climate change.
Early on in the health care debate, you'll recall,
Krugman posited that opponents were primarily motivated by the same
"racial
anxiety" that underpins the "'birther' movement," and thus
should be treated with even more disdain than California
Republicans. As always, removing people from the argument is
easier than arguing with them.
Hence, opponents of Waxman-Markley either "still claim that there's no such thing as global warming, or at least that the evidence isn't yet conclusive," or "that doing anything to limit global warming would destroy the economy." Also, they probably like Glenn Beck, "who seems to be challenging Rush Limbaugh for the role of de facto leader of the G.O.P." (Someone apparently forgot to tell Krugman that Beck prefers Barack Obama to John McCain.) Therefore, "It's important...to understand that claims of immense economic damage from climate legislation are as bogus, in their own way, as climate-change denial." And finally, "the campaign against saving the planet rests mainly on lies."
It's telling that, as in the health care debate, Krugmanesque supporters of cap-and-trade–which, it's worth mentioning, has never worked–are eager to place the burden of proof for a massive policy overhaul on the shoulders of a broadcast shock-jock. If he was interested in engaging the best arguments against Waxman-Markley, he might start with the archive of Reason Science Correspondent Ron Bailey, who (unhelpfully!) can't be categorized under any of Krugman's caricatures.
Start with Bailey's "Cap-and-Trade Delusions: Proponents need to stop pretending cap-and-trade will cost nothing and create tons of jobs," proceed to "Energy Price Deceit: Congress tries to hide its cap-and-trade energy price increases," then for a main course tuck into Bailey's classic June 2009 cover package on alternative energy, which delves into (among many other things) the various past, current, and future prices of all the cleaner-energy technologies that Krugman et al are relying on without ever demonstrably studying.
|9.25.09 @ 11:41AM|#
The idea that something would cost nothing, yet create tons of jobs at the same time, is fascinating. I'm guessing Krugman didn't win his Nobel Prize in mathematics.
|9.25.09 @ 11:43AM|#
Drastically Altering the Way Americans Produce and Consume
Energy Won't Cost Much
Cue Chad and his retarded "Wind Power only costs me $5 a month"
bullshit.
"All right! With $25 worth of food stamps, this $30 bag of
groceries only cost $5! My groceries only cost $5 dollars!"
Krugman is a shill and little else. Do we know that this Krugman
actually did the research to get the Nobel Prize? Sure it wasn't
some other Paul Krugman and cuckoo for cocoa puffs here didn't just
impersonate him?
Also, is he on the toilet in that picture?
Xeones|9.25.09 @ 11:44AM|#
I laffed at the alt text. Simple pleasures...
Yeah, shut the fuck up, Paul Krugman.
WWJGD|9.25.09 @ 11:46AM|#
Also, is he on the toilet in that picture?
As consistently as he spews out shit, I think everywhere is his
toilet.
creech|9.25.09 @ 11:46AM|#
Snarkily, so where's Bailey's Nobel prize? Are there no Nobel prize winners in science or economics who can weigh in against cap and trade? This is another issue in which the great majority of people will have little interest in the details, just the MSM's 30 sec. sound bites. If we can plausibly counter that cap and trade will put NASCAR out of business, then we might prevail.
|9.25.09 @ 11:47AM|#
I once heard an economist on these boards say that the
trade-theory work PK won his Nobel for really was solid and
interesting.
The only thing is that now he gets trotted out as a Nobel-prize
Winner to pontificate about things he either knows nothing about or
intentionally misrepresents.
He's like a tweedy, liberal Michelle Malkin.
|9.25.09 @ 11:52AM|#
It's important...to understand that claims of immense
economic damage from climate legislation are as bogus, in their own
way, as climate-change denial." And finally, "the campaign against
saving the planet rests mainly on lies."
It would take an army of sherpas to unpack the assumptions in this
bullshit.
Can't he just rim himself to death already?
ll blow j |9.25.09 @ 11:52AM|#
Imagine if there were no reliable records of global surface
temperature. Raucous policy debates such as cap-and-trade would
have no scientific basis, Al Gore would at this point be little
more than a historical footnote, and President Obama would not be
spending this U.N. session talking up a (likely unattainable)
international climate deal in Copenhagen in December.
Steel yourself for the new reality, because the data needed to
verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.
Or so it seems. Apparently, they were either lost or purged from
some discarded computer. Only a very few people know what really
happened, and they aren't talking much. And what little they are
saying makes no sense.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTBiMTRlMDQxNzEyMmRhZjU3ZmYzODI5MGY4ZWI5OWM
|9.25.09 @ 11:53AM|#
He got his way when the Fed created the housing bubble, isn't that enough for one lifetime?
|9.25.09 @ 11:54AM|#
From a non-Pat-Buchanon source if so desired:
http://open.salon.com//blog/gordon_wagner/2009/08/14/global_warming_oops_we_lost_the_data
Fist of Etiquette|9.25.09 @ 11:57AM|#
You're all just mad because Krugman was probably paid by some
big corporation to write that column.
DON'T TRY TO MARGINALIZE PAUL KRUGMAN, YOU ENRON-HATING,
NADER-FOLLOWING ANTISEMITES!
ll blow j |9.25.09 @ 11:58AM|#
@ Johnny Longtorso
Thanks. This is massively big. Also, I liked this from the comment
section:
"Data, what data? We don't need no stinking data".
|9.25.09 @ 12:01PM|#
Seriously, read what happened to the original data cited to
support the AGW hypothesis. The only conclusion that you can draw
is that the scientists who had custody of the data are:
(1) Shockingly incompetent, and/or
(2) Shockingly mendacious.
You would think that refusing to share the raw data underlying your
research would be the Original Sin of science. But they did.
You would think that with the vast increase in data storage
capabilities since the original data set was created, that there
would be no way that it would be eliminated due to a lack of data
storage capacity. But they did.
You would think that your eight-year-old niece would know to keep a
copy of any original data that she is fooling around with
"adjusting." But they didn't.
And this is the lynchpin of the science underlying the cornerstone
IPCC report on AGW.
|9.25.09 @ 12:01PM|#
It is huge. I can't believe the asshole who had the data telling the guy "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?"
Adc|9.25.09 @ 12:03PM|#
Why is it every time I see Krugman's picture I think of
this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILM_7gq9gmU
"Sweeping sort of hat..and.uh..with the chaps."
|9.25.09 @ 12:03PM|#
It is number 2 RC. This is just a guess, but something tells me that since computing power has increased about 100 fold since the original work was done, that scientists ability to analyze the raw data has increased as well. They knew that new and better forms of analysis might lead to some inconvientent truths so they purged the data.
Alex Jones|9.25.09 @ 12:04PM|#
Seriously, read what happened to the original data cited to support the AGW hypothesis. The only conclusion that you can draw is that the scientists who had custody of the data are:
Illuminati.
KyleG|9.25.09 @ 12:05PM|#
From JL's article above:
"Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25
or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data
available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong
with it."
All in the spirit of science!
|9.25.09 @ 12:07PM|#
"I once heard an economist on these boards say that the
trade-theory work PK won his Nobel for really was solid and
interesting.
The only thing is that now he gets trotted out as a Nobel-prize
Winner to pontificate about things he either knows nothing about or
intentionally misrepresents."
This is my feeling exactly, being an economist myself. His trade
work is very good actually, but hes a trade economist - he has no
greater expertise in other areas of the field than any other
economist. It is incredibly frustrating to me that he is held up as
an expert in economics in general. What people fail to realize is
that economics, like any other field, has many different sub areas.
I work in financial markets and monetary policy. So I don't know
anything more about say anti-trust analysis than any other person
whos got an econ degree. Saying Krugman is an expert on cap and
trade is like saying a cardiologist is an expert on brain surgery
because they are both fields of medicine.
|9.25.09 @ 12:13PM|#
We need an organization that certifies people as unreliable. That way, I can just go check on any given public figure and see whether I should listen to a damned thing he says. Naturally, the organization would have to make transparent its evidence and methodology for declaring someone unreliable, but I have no doubt that Krugman would be easily impeached by his own illuculent pronouncements.
|9.25.09 @ 12:13PM|#
It is huge. I can't believe the asshole who had the data telling the guy "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?"
The scientific method, peer review, replicability and all that
stuff is sooooo passé.
|9.25.09 @ 12:14PM|#
Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We
have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the
data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something
wrong with it.
Did someone actually say this? (I don't have time to RTFA right
now.) This is an automatic invalidation of any conclusions a
"scientist" has reached. Not sharing data is akin to saying "I have
footage of Bigfoot, but you can't see it--which means he
exists!"
Cthulhu Jones|9.25.09 @ 12:17PM|#
...Krugmanesque supporters of cap-and-trade-which, it's
worth mentioning, has never worked...
I'm guessing many of these Krugmanesque supporters have never
worked either.
jhn|9.25.09 @ 12:18PM|#
Why do libertarians not seem to believe in externalities?
I guess I should sue the coal industry for polluting my air without
paying me for the privilege.
|9.25.09 @ 12:25PM|#
Why do libertarians not seem to believe in
externalities?
Not thinking cellphones cause brain damage is not the same thing as
thinking cell phones don't exist.
Joe M|9.25.09 @ 12:29PM|#
Google news has a science story about
162 new species discovered in the Mekong. Early in the
article:
Researchers working for WWF warned that the effects of climate change, including an upsurge in droughts and floods, threaten the diverse habitat that supports these species
But of course.
|9.25.09 @ 12:29PM|#
I guess I should sue the coal industry for polluting my air
without paying me for the privilege.
Please do.
Zeb|9.25.09 @ 12:30PM|#
"Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is
to try and find something wrong with it?"
Because that's how you do science. That's the whole fucking
point!
|9.25.09 @ 12:31PM|#
Don't bother to act surprised when the costs of reducing pollution show up on your bill.
Steven|9.25.09 @ 12:32PM|#
There is no such thing as the global warmings. It is all a liberal plot to keep us from fighting for our freedom in Iraq from the Iraqi terorists who did up the 9-11. The temparature only went up about a half of the degree in the last century which proves that there is no such thing as the global warmings. The oil supply is infinate.
Tman|9.25.09 @ 12:34PM|#
Krugmanesque supporters of cap-and-trade-which it's worth
mentioning, has never worked-
Someone needs to explain to Sir Krugman that between all the
Kyoto-style cap-and-trade policies out there around the world, not
a single one of them has been successful in putting the tiniest
dent in CO2 reduction.
But hey, surely the US Government will know how to fix what has
failed everyone else, right?
@|9.25.09 @ 12:35PM|#
opponents of Waxman-Markley either "still claim that there's
no such thing as global warming..."
It's Markey, as in Edward Markey, the loathsome
viro who has been on the wrong side of the "green" movement for
decades.
Paul|9.25.09 @ 12:42PM|#
If so, you'll love the next big debate: the fight over climate change.
Is this guy trying to be retarded? That was the LAST big
debate before healthcare reform overhaul. Climate
change is so 1990's.
The Hawkman|9.25.09 @ 12:46PM|#
Upon blind faith they place reliance.
What we need more of is science.
Paul|9.25.09 @ 12:49PM|#
If only the Democrats could capture the whitehouse, the senate and congress...
Citizen Nothing|9.25.09 @ 12:56PM|#
If this were about the environment and not control (and gifting certain favored players) we'd be looking at a revenue-neutral carbon tax, not cap-and-trade.
|9.25.09 @ 1:05PM|#
"Did someone actually say this? (I don't have time to RTFA right
now.) This is an automatic invalidation of any conclusions a
"scientist" has reached. Not sharing data is akin to saying "I have
footage of Bigfoot, but you can't see it--which means he
exists!"
Yes they did Epi. That someone was none other than Phil Jones. He
was the co-author of the world's first comprehensive history of
climate. And the man whose work, based on data he wouldn't reveal
and has now destroyed, is the basis of the entire Anthropromorphic
Global Warming hypothosis.
ll blow j|9.25.09 @ 1:18PM|#
"And the man whose work, based on data he wouldn't reveal and
has now destroyed, is the basis of the entire Anthropromorphic
Global Warming hypothosis."
Bless his heart.
Kevin|9.25.09 @ 1:19PM|#
I think that faint smile on Krugman's face is a result of him reading what appears to be his own column.
Rich|9.25.09 @ 1:20PM|#
I'm guessing Krugman didn't win his Nobel Prize in
mathematics.
Well, there is no Nobel Prize in mathematics (but the Fields Medal
goes as it), so you are correct.
I heard Krugman's prize is in Home Economics.
|9.25.09 @ 1:27PM|#
"I heard Krugman's prize is in Home Economics."
That is a good one. I will have to remember that.
Jordan|9.25.09 @ 1:31PM|#
I guess the
Treasury Department is also a bunch of Beck-Listening
Denialists:
Global Warming Cap-and-Trade Costs Could Hit $300 Billion Annually, Cost Up to Several GDP Points, US Treasury Admits
ll blow j|9.25.09 @ 1:35PM|#
"Also, is he on the toilet in that picture?"
Yes. Evey morning he invites a group of neighbors over to listen to
him read the paper aloud while he takes a dump. That's why he's got
that dirty little smile.
Ska|9.25.09 @ 1:36PM|#
I think that faint smile on Krugman's face is a result of
him reading what appears to be his own column.
I could've sworn it was from a handicapped child giving him a rim
job, but your explanation is far more plausible.
|9.25.09 @ 1:52PM|#
BTW, we're about to find out that carbon emissions dropped for the first time in a long time worldwide during 2009. Hmm, what happened in 2009?
|9.25.09 @ 1:56PM|#
Seward, I believe Barack Obama, He Who Lowers the Oceans, was
sworn in as President.
If carbon emissions really did drop during his first year in
office, I expect we'll have to give him credit for Saving the
Planet after all.
|9.25.09 @ 1:59PM|#
OK, I am officially creeped the fuck out by that picture.
Is that an official picture of Klugman? Because I'm guessing that
the same look Gauguin had when a half-naked island boy walked
past.
|9.25.09 @ 2:16PM|#
You would think that with the vast increase in data storage
capabilities since the original data set was created, that there
would be no way that it would be eliminated due to a lack of data
storage capacity. But they did.
Not only that, but when they tweak the data (as can happen
sometimes for entirely legitimate reasons) they don't bother to
explain why and how.
|9.25.09 @ 2:25PM|#
I'm guessing Krugman didn't win his Nobel Prize in
mathematics.
Well, there is no Nobel Prize in mathematics
Actually, there's no such thing as a Nobel Prize in Economics
either.
"The official name is the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic
Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. It is not one of the five Nobel
Prizes established by the will of Alfred Nobel in 1895. It was
instituted by Sweden's central bank in 1968 and first awarded in
1969." Source: Wikipedia
Enjoy Every Burger|9.25.09 @ 3:07PM|#
"Here I sit broken-hearted;
Paid my dime and only farted."
"At my broken desk I sit;
Had to fart and out came shit."
jtuf|9.25.09 @ 3:27PM|#
I've stopped presenting counter arguments to global warming believers. Now I just keep asking questions that get more and more detailed. When I reach the edge of their knowledge, I sit back and watch them cry, "Heretic! Blashermer! How dare you deny!"
Paul|9.25.09 @ 4:00PM|#
Citizen Nothing, if your aunt had a deep voice and
balls...
We'd call her Dr. Girlfriend.
|9.25.09 @ 4:35PM|#
"Yes, I know some of you are climate skeptics. But if the chance of mainstream science being right is only 20% (and assuredly it is much higher than that), we still have, in expected value terms, a massive tort. We don't let people play involuntary Russian roulette on others with a probability of 17% (one bullet, six chambers), so we do need to worry about man-made global warming." -T.Cowen
|9.25.09 @ 5:13PM|#
"Mainstream science" being right about what? That's the problem.
Is there a twenty percent chance that global warming will have a
catastrophic effect on the world? If so, are anthropogenic factors
the key or just some small part of a bigger trend? Can we do
anything about any of it? Etc.
I can pull numbers out of my ass, just like an economist. I think
an asteroid is coming for us in ten years. Better stop everything
and build a giant trampoline between it and the Earth.
|9.25.09 @ 6:04PM|#
I'm guessing Krugman didn't win his Nobel Prize in
mathematics.
Krugman didn't win a Nobel prize, he won a Swedish Bankers' Prize
that they try to pass off as a Nobel prize.
Not that there's any prestige left in the genuine Nobel prizes
anymore, since they've given them to the likes of Arafat and
Kissinger.
-jcr
Jim Treacher|9.25.09 @ 6:24PM|#
The temparature only went up about a half of the degree in the last century
Prove it.
|9.25.09 @ 6:32PM|#
Shouldn't there be a Nobel Prize for Explosives?
I think the prize for chemistry would cover that.
-jcr
hmm|9.25.09 @ 9:38PM|#
I get the NYT free. I used to read his Op-eds. I discovered I started drooling and saying back and forth while muttering "Whopner at 5." Since then I have abstained from reading Krugman articles. I need all the IQ points I can muster and his writings are not conducive to that goal.
|9.26.09 @ 9:42AM|#
"cap-and-trade-which, it's worth mentioning, has never
worked"
What? The consensus on the SO2 tradeable permit market is that it
is a clear success.
Michael Ejercito|9.26.09 @ 1:09PM|#
Has Paul Krugman ever heard about the
obvious quick fix ?
Are there no Nobel prize winners in science or economics who can weigh in against cap and trade?
Cap-and-trade will reduce global warming just like abstinence-only
sex education will reduce teen pregnancy.
"Yes, I know some of you are climate skeptics. But if the chance of mainstream science being right is only 20% (and assuredly it is much higher than that), we still have, in expected value terms, a massive tort. We don't let people play involuntary Russian roulette on others with a probability of 17% (one bullet, six chambers), so we do need to worry about man-made global warming." -T.Cowen
So let us institute the
obvious quick fix .
|9.26.09 @ 8:38PM|#
"As always, removing people from the argument is easier than
arguing with them."
Well said. And when you think about it, that's the only way
Liberals ever win difficult arguments.
Have you ever heard a Liberal, just once...engage Limbaugh or Beck
on the merits? No, all they can do is lash out, attack and
marginalize.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245