Monday
Mar282011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Quote of the day
Mar 28, 2011 Climate: CRU Quotes Paul Krugman, stand-up comedian:
Back in 2009 climate skeptics got hold of more than a thousand e-mails between researchers at the Climate Research Unit at Britain’s University of East Anglia. Nothing in the correspondence suggested any kind of scientific impropriety...
Reader Comments (55)
Krugman fluffed his lines. No mention of, " llegally obtained", or "hacked", merely, " got hold of". Maybe the police investigation into the incident is not going well for the hockey team?
Spot the denier.
A post modern ironic comedian perhaps?
:)
Classic example of seeing what you want to see.
Question is why that is what stand-up comedians want to see.
Ha ha ha....!
It is a joke, right..??
Krugman was right. The emails didn't 'suggest' impropriety, they showed it directly.
Dictionary.com:
im·pro·pri·e·ty/ˌimprəˈprī-itē/
Noun: A failure to observe standards or show due honesty or modesty; improper language, behavior, or character.
To Krugman, Climategate demonstrates 'due honesty' and 'proper behaviour and character'.
That's a career-ending pronouncement if you ask me.
Oh dear
Huhne on top form
Worth ploughing through the turgid content to reach the last section.
SayNoToFearmongers said "That's a career-ending pronouncement if you ask me."
But it isn't. And that's what is so troubling.
Krugman, and many many apparently intelligent people seem to be genuinely unable to see what is wrong with hiding declines. And we all know that they can't be that stupid, so what on Earth is it that makes them see things in this way, when to us the message is so screamingly obvious that we tear our hair in desperation?
The warmists regular rant about being unable to get the message across, and the need for better communication, works both ways. Why are those of us on the other side equally unable to explain to Krugman/Beddington/Stewart/.../... that hiding declines makes the entire edifice crumble, but they really seem to think it simply makes the graph neater?
I have regular periods of real doubt, probably deriving from a long-abandoned Catholic upbringing, that make me wonder if somehow I'm not seeing the big picture, when it seems to blindingly obvious to me that the CAGW case is weak, so why can't everyone see that same thing? What do they see that I can't?
See no evil, Hear no evil, Speak no evil. Which one of those three monkeys is Krugman and who are the other two?
Back in 2009 climate skeptics got hold of more than a thousand e-mails . . .
Climate sceptics “got hold of” nothing.
Copies of e-mails and other documents relating to research activities at the CRU were posted on an anonymous web site. No-one knows whether they’d been obtained by fair means or foul.
Though Norfolk’s finest have been on the case ever since, it looks increasingly likely that the public at large will never know.
A couple of lead authors on climate-related blogs were notified that the documents were available. They did not at first believe the story and (rightly) postponed circulating them pending verification.
Steven Mosher and Thomas Mosher, authors of an account of the incident on which many of the CRU’s critics rely, note prominently on the second page of their book that neither of them challenges theories of “global warming”.
Nothing in the correspondence suggested any kind of scientific impropriety . . .
Oh, yes, it did. So strong were the suggestions of impropriety that the various authorities called three or more high-profile official “inquiries” in the UK and a couple of lesser ones in the US.
Though they were packed by vested interests and rapidly exonerated those involved, many on both sides of the scientific debate continue to argue that the documents show that improper conduct at the CRU was routine.
Krugman has been on record as saying that he doesn't read anything written by people with opposing political views to his own, since it's a waste of time anyway. Or something like that. So, no surprise.
What is so dirty about the politics - not that it is clean, in and of itself - that you can express your political ideas freely and want to be able to do so, but will not engage your political opponents fully, if they demand it of you?
This applies to both the William Cronons and the politicians - the Republicans.
Why is it wrong for Cronon to have a few emails from his political friends, if he has received such emails, in the first place? It is very unsportsmanlike and illiberal of the Wisconsin Republicans to seek to seize such emails, show that he has corresponded with politicians and union activists (if any), and thereby bring him down.
On the other hand, Cronon's response verges on the theatrical. Is it not obvious that if a historian of politics engages in studying present events, as though they were history, the persons who are the objects of study - the conservative Republicans in this case, would be irked even if it were by a least bit, enough to ask a few questions? Cronon's initial article freely offers opinion and provides links which have impact on present politics, and yet in his response, he retreats behind the protective wall of academic freedom and the privacy of student exam scores, decrying the 'chilling effect' of FOIA.
Shouldn't Cronon simply and boldly say, 'Yes, I spoke my mind and there is nothing wrong in what I said, and there is nothing wrong in me saying it' and meet his Republican party challengers? Cronon certainly touched off an important topic in politics in his first post. Why should he not hold the line? Indeed his initial post, the profusion of links notwithstanding, is nowhere critical or partisan in its overall tone.
Instead he paints his potential fallout as an evil side-effect of FOIA legislation.
In other words, why do academics point to the 'chilling effects of FOIA, when it they who freeze up? It surely seems that everyone trashes the FOIA when it comes to turning over their own emails or documents.
Academics decry the influence of money in politics, as Cronon does in his post, and they do so freely. But they are apparently completely blinded to the influence of expert opinion, peddled through back-channels and made to appear in journal editorials, newspaper articles, on the very same politics. Did not the Climategate emails reveal cosy relations between climate science academics and journalists?
If I am unhappy with how politicians are being bought, who then speak what the money tells them to, I am unhappy with how journalists and column writers are 'bought out' by academics, feeding them opinion and ideas over years in shaping agendas, as well.
Dear Professors, ... don't sacrifice liberty to save your own asses, my friends, fight for her.
(for those who want to what this above rant is about, please read this blog post by William Cronon, a professor of 'History, Geography and Environmental Studies' at the University of Wisconsin, which resulted in a FOI-type request by Republican political offices, and then Cronon's response here)
It would be difficult to accept that any other statement could have been written by Krugman. He is, after all, a known name in the black art of economics, a 'winner' of a Nobel prize and a legend in his own airtime. To be roundly and very unspecifically commentating on events peripheral to one's claimed speciality - for money presumably - is what the reader should expect.
It's his job.
@steveta-uk "I have regular periods of real doubt, probably deriving from a long-abandoned Catholic upbringing, that make me wonder if somehow I'm not seeing the big picture, when it seems to blindingly obvious to me that the CAGW case is weak, so why can't everyone see that same thing? What do they see that I can't?"
When I was younger, that was exactly how I felt about religion. I wondered how people could be so convinced there is a god, when from my perspective there was absolutely nothing to suggest there might be, other than human writings. Then I started to wonder if everyone was just pretending to believe because they all thought everyone else actually did believe. So it's Emperor's New Clothes syndrome: if you're surrounded by (apparent) true-believers, you don't want to be the one who stands out from the crowd.
And people see what they want to see. The real question we should be asking is "why do people want AGW to be true?". A lot of people seem to have a fundamental hatred of humanity en masse, and AGW gives them the excuse to point the finger: "see how wicked we are: we're destroying the planet". Maybe it's just a substitute for religion in a largely secular age. *Shrugs.*
Yes, Turning Tide,
If God had not died somewhere in the late 19th century - would we have environmentalism, scientism and climatism today? Probably not.
But Krugman went on to say (my highlighting):
I'm willing to bet that Krugman has not read any of the emails, let alone the even more telling HARRY.README.FILE. But then, to respond to him in similar context, I suppose the left wants to cover up a scandal.
Turning Tide - you speculated that nobody really believes in god.
You are wrong - someone who is close to me certainly does.
This person is very honest, straightforward and does not fake belief.
There are also many perople who actually believe in AGW.
I think that each of these belief systems fullfils deep needs in some people.
As you said believers in AGW "seem to have a fundamental hatred of humanity en masse, and AGW gives them the excuse to point the finger".
Other people want to find out how the world and people and society really work.
Often the answer is rather disconcerting.
To me, that is just an unfortunate, unintended consequence of the search for truth.
For others, it is to be shunned, to be turned away from and hidden from consciousness.
Shame really.
But that's life.
Shub
I agree with your comment.
AGW is a belief system that satisfies the need previously filled by religion.
The problem is that reality still raises its ugly head and disturbs the calming effect of the belief system.
That is why, true believers can turn very nasty on occasion.
Krugman's view of truth and morality tracks closely to Lenin's. The hockey team is pitching hard for Krugman's political side. Therefore they are, by definition, incapable of impropriety.
Now, who is the denier?
In Krugman’s opinion piece in the NYT he talks about “the ongoing smear campaign against climate science and climate scientists”, calling it “this fake scandal” and adding:
“...if you go through a large number of messages looking for lines that can be made to sound bad, you’re bound to find a few. In fact, it’s surprising how few such lines the critics managed to find in the “Climategate” trove: much of the smear has focused on just one e-mail, in which a researcher talks about using a “trick” to “hide the decline” in a particular series. In context, it’s clear that he’s talking about making an effective graphical presentation, not about suppressing evidence”.
As with Sir Paul Nurse, we have to ask: Are these Nobel Prize winners liars or fools, or do they think that their control of the media is such that they can spout any old rubbish and get away with it?
What a dynamite observation, Krugman's. A little Nobel certainly goes a long way today.
I posted a reply about 9:30 this morning. At first it was in moderation...there is now a note saying that "comments are no longer being accepted, please submit a letter to the editor for print consideration."
So Krugman let comments through as long as they were fulsome praise...but one that isn't...well we can't have that...the comment is below. It's hyperbolic but then so is the article.
""Back in 2009 climate skeptics got hold of more than a thousand e-mails between researchers at the Climate Research Unit at Britain’s University of East Anglia. Nothing in the correspondence suggested any kind of scientific impropriety; "
Either Mr Krugman did not read the emails or he did not understand the words. Try Climate, Etc or Climate Audit or Bishop Hill for the real story. A great deal of the technical stuff will be beyond your ken, but anyone who takes some time can only come to the conclusion that there was a great deal of impropriety, and climate science and, by extension, other science is damaged by their dishonesty. This needs to be corrected by more transparency (data and code to be released on publication) and more honest statements of uncertainty.
The rest of the column is slightly amusing given that it is liberals shouting down speakers, threatening them and other thuggery on display recently in Madison and on many college campuses throughout the year.
I also think that it is amusing that liberals here are denouncing FOIA requests.
Keep up your arrogance, your smug certainty that those who oppose your ideas are stupid - redolent in self -satistfied dying echo chambers like the New York Times. Is that your solution to the problems which face this country? No new ideas, just the same old rhetoric of past decades. How reactionary."
A person's past statements tend to define them; Krugman's glowing assessments of G Brown, former Prime Minister, and his accomplishments are jaw-droppingly silly. He is obviously a parishioner of the Church of the Immacculate Concensus and has the required blinkered vision when examining the behaviour of scientists, plus an alarming ignorance of scientific method.
Yep, 'standup comedian' pretty accurately defines Krugman. I am beginning to suspect Nobel prizes are acquired by rather strange people.
A person's past statements tend to define them; Krugman's glowing assessments of G Brown, former Prime Minister, and his accomplishments are jaw-droppingly silly. He is obviously a parishioner of the Church of the Immacculate Concensus and has the required blinkered vision when examining the behaviour of scientists, plus an alarming ignorance of scientific method.
Yep, 'standup comedian' pretty accurately defines Krugman. I am beginning to suspect Nobel prizes are acquired by rather strange people.
As a parttime blogger about climate et. al. it's interesting to note that those who criticize my writings rely implicitly on IPCC and consensus science. It's obvious that they haven't bothered to take the mental leap required to honestly and objectively consider the evidence for the CAGW hypothesis. Perhaps, that effort exceeds their capabilities?
Michael Crichton said it so well:-
The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda...We must daily decide whether the threats we face are real, whether the solutions we are offered will do any good, whether the problems we're told exist are in fact real problems, or non-problems...
As an example of this challenge, I want to talk today about environmentalism. And in order not to be misunderstood, I want it perfectly clear that I believe it is incumbent on us to conduct our lives in a way that takes into account all the consequences of our actions, including the consequences to other people, and the consequences to the environment....But I think we do not recognize our past failures, and face them squarely. And I think I know why.
I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was that certain human social structures always reappear. They can't be eliminated from society. One of those structures is religion. Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people---the best people, the most enlightened people---do not believe in any religion. But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious.
Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.
There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.
Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday---these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don't want to talk anybody out of them, as I don't want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don't want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can't talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith.
And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It's about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.
http://www.sullivan-county.com/immigration/e2.html
RIP.
Roy @ Mar 28, 2011 at 9:45 AM
"See no evil, Hear no evil, Speak no evil. Which one of those three monkeys is Krugman and who are the other two?"
I always thought it was "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no sense".
J4R,
It's interesting to see the view that I've adopted expressed so well by the guy who first alerted me to it. I've been pondering the process by which a religion becomes a state religion. One need only review the activities of "official religions" in the time of Constantine, and more recently here in the west to see that environmentalism has accumulated the "sees" and the "livings" at the beneficence of our various governments. Heretics, even.
And the greatest of all innovations was to not name it a religion officially. then all of our protections from state religions are inapplicable.
It is absolutely astonishing how few words need to be changed to make early history read like the chronicles of our current affliction.
The level of scientific impropriety depends on the context. At a Sex Pistols concert, it was not improper to turn up in torn clothing, scream profanities and spit at the band. It would be highly improper to cough aloud or have a mobile phone ring during the duet “Sono andati?” (the last scene of Puccini’s La Boheme) at a major opera house. Problem is that Professors Krugman and Mann operate under much lower standards that the great empirical scientists like Richard Doll.
http://manicbeancounter.wordpress.com/2010/05/15/big-tobacco-and-climate-change-deniers/
Paul Krugman and Prince Charles are in agreement, great minds...
Nothing like seeing alternate realities through the eyes of the befuddled.
"Surely You're Joking, Mr. Krugman!"
Patagon
Not a comparison I am comfortable with.
The William Cronon blog post issue (to which Krugman has responded) is apparently in the stage of a big 'small thing' now. For a sense of the scale, take a look at this post to see how many newspapers have written editorials and/or opinion pieces trashing FOI.
This one from Slate is good though:
It is ironic and saddening to see that academics, of all people, would turn their knives on FOI at the faintest of provocation or indication that the law may not always move in ways that favor their secret methods.
"But the right wants a scandal, and won’t take no for an answer."
This is the most cheap, naive and hollow anti-AGW-sceptic tactic - to try and claim scepticism is politically driven. (and I am not right wing)
The whole story would be extremely funny if it were not so disturbing. The "liberals" (who no longer fit any credible definition of the word) were aggressive promoters of FOIAs when they were out of power, as their conspiracy theories told them that "they" were concealing evil deeds from the courageous noble rebels. Now when they find themselves in positions of power and authority, FOIAs are a great inconvenience.
Reminds me of my schooldays in the 1960s, when the prefects used to dish out lunch and kept the best bits for themselves, while us urchins were left with scraps. How we howled and agitated for a cafeteria system, until finally, the year before we were due to be prefects, we got our way. Then the penny dropped, and we were not at all amused.
"....If God had not died somewhere in the late 19th century - would we have environmentalism, scientism and climatism today? Probably not." --Shub
You may be right. It's interesting to see that the Vatican signed on to pimp global warming, however.
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2010/12/wikileaks-green-pope-co-opted-to-global.html
@J4R thx 4 gr8 Crichton quote
What astonishes me about this whole issue is that Steve McIntyre is the guy that really catches them out when it comes to the MWP.....so in the real world he is the first prosecution witness to be called.
We are still waitng........
@ ZT
Paul Krugman and Prince Charles are in agreement, great minds...
This is a very important point. The rejoinder to those who assert that "a consensus of psyentists believes in CAGW" is not, IMHO, to argue that they don't. A better retort is to list some of the other examples of support for the AGW "consensus", including:
- Bono (almost certainly)
- Osama bin Laden
- Enron
- the Mafia
- VAT fraudsters
- Phishing hackers
- Chinese state crooks deliberately creating HFC23 so they can abate it and claim the allowances
- etc
You can to some extent judge an idea by the company it keeps, which in the case of CAGW includes many of the world's most abject, unrepentant scum.
good call, justice4rinka....remember Jeremy, I say
Krugman is not naive, not stupid, not blind, not deluded. But he is a committed hard left agitator, working for a hard left newspaper. You fellows wouldn't know this because you don't understand Marxist dialectic. I have much now how in that field and recognize one when I read one.
Notice that since he writes for the New York Times none of his opinion pages concerns serious economic analysis. I have read many of his books and used to read his web site regularly. After the election of Bush Junior he wrote at one point that many of his friends broke down in tears of despair.
Until then politics hardly entered into his writing. In fact I am sure his Nobel was give to him by the lefty Swedes more for his unrelenting bile against Bush then his economic work. Though he is a clever economist there are many just as clever and even more so.
However most commenters on this blog are politically "naive ou but". In this age, political naivete is a guarantee that the left and the Islamists will destroy you.
George Steiner
I believe, we do understand Marxist dialectic.
I have wasted significant time arguing with people who were Marxist in my school/college days.
@ BBD at 4:37
My apologies, they belong to completely different universes.
I've read very little of Krugman, but it seemed sensible at the time, that's why I couldn't believe this was serious. The comparison, however, is utterly inappropriate.
Krugman is part of a long history of the NYT that backs liars, killers, covers up genocide, destroys innocent people, fabricates stories and is on the wrong side of nearly every issue.
Dilbert, as always, provides an accurate insight into how Kwugman got his job:
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2008-09-24/
Mr. Shub, who is we?
George Steiner
Re
This sounds condescending to me too. Especially since I do 'understand' Marxist dialectic, as you put it. That would make me part of the 'we' Shub may have had in mind earlier.
I do not necessarily disagree with your characterisation of Krugman, but things will go better here if you make a modest effort at civility.
Thanks in advance,
Dominic