Monday, July 26, 2010

Can Krugman Give Us Better Weather?

One of the criticisms I have had with Paul Krugman's columns has been his use of logical fallacies, like post hoc ergo propter hoc and the non sequitur. In his column today, he manages to use both of them, all the while slashing and burning anyone who might disagree with the Great Nobel Laureate.

Turning from advocating his mechanistic and circular Keynesian economic views (we eat breakfast so we can go to work and we go to work so we can eat breakfast), today he goes after those evil people who want to "cook" the earth. He begins by using yet another post hoc fallacy:
Never say that the gods lack a sense of humor. I bet they’re still chuckling on Olympus over the decision to make the first half of 2010 — the year in which all hope of action to limit climate change died — the hottest such stretch on record.

Of course, you can’t infer trends in global temperatures from one year’s experience. But ignoring that fact has long been one of the favorite tricks of climate-change deniers: they point to an unusually warm year in the past, and say “See, the planet has been cooling, not warming, since 1998!” Actually, 2005, not 1998, was the warmest year to date — but the point is that the record-breaking temperatures we’re currently experiencing have made a nonsense argument even more nonsensical; at this point it doesn’t work even on its own terms.

But will any of the deniers say “O.K., I guess I was wrong,” and support climate action? No. And the planet will continue to cook.
So, let us see. Krugman says that the temperatures for the first half of this year are the hottest on record (that is, the records begun in the late 1800s), yet that is not proof of global warming. However, in the next paragraph, he basically says this is proof of global warming.

But, this one gets better. He then claims that there really was nothing to all of those emails between the noisiest climate scientists, called "Climategate," and that everyone was exonerated:
You’ve probably heard about the accusations leveled against climate researchers — allegations of fabricated data, the supposedly damning e-mail messages of “Climategate,” and so on. What you may not have heard, because it has received much less publicity, is that every one of these supposed scandals was eventually unmasked as a fraud concocted by opponents of climate action, then bought into by many in the news media. You don’t believe such things can happen? Think Shirley Sherrod.
First, the "investigation" was carried out by the very people who have a vested interest in receiving the government and foundation grants to promote their own version of climate science. The institutions were East Anglia University in Great Britain and Penn State University, and both of them stood to lose millions of dollars in grants if it could have been demonstrated the scientists either committed fraud or abused the system.

Second, I doubt seriously that Paul Krugman would endorse an in-house investigation in which the "investigators" had a vested interest in the outcome, and then declared that their own scientists had acted properly, if it involved people with whom he disagreed. In fact, he then claims that anyone else who might have a contrary view has that view ONLY because of the funding source of his or her research. He writes:
Look at the scientists who question the consensus on climate change; look at the organizations pushing fake scandals; look at the think tanks claiming that any effort to limit emissions would cripple the economy. Again and again, you’ll find that they’re on the receiving end of a pipeline of funding that starts with big energy companies, like Exxon Mobil, which has spent tens of millions of dollars promoting climate-change denial, or Koch Industries, which has been sponsoring anti-environmental organizations for two decades.
First, I am not sure that all of the so-called skeptics fall into that category, but when Krugman is smearing someone he considers to be evil and dishonest (that is, anyone who might have the audacity to disagree with him), he will use evil and dishonest means. Second, Krugman is saying that if someone is privately funded by certain entities, then their work automatically is a lie; however, he then seems to be making the counter-claim that those funded by leftist governments speak only the truth and always practice the most honest and capable science.

So, an in-house "investigation" by people who have a financial stake in the outcome is an "honest" investigation. Oh, no, Paul Krugman never engages in "political science."

There is one more point: the people Krugman supports have made sure that science journals publish papers with which they (and Krugman) are in agreement, shutting out any other discourse. I remember nearly 20 years ago when the Environmental Protection Agency destroyed the career of a scientist who developed the now-accepted theory of how lakes become acidic. (Hint: "acid rain" was not the culprit, which, while true, nonetheless was not the politically-correct answer.)

One of the truisms of scientific research is that we always should be skeptical of the herd mentality. Time and again, we have seen situations in which things people "knew" to be true were not, from spontaneous generation to continental drift, where the established views were challenged successfully.

True, there always are vested interests in any point of view, and a vested interest in and of itself does not mean something is false. However, when we see Krugman claiming that leftist government funding of science does not create its own sets of conflicts of interest, I am going to object.

13 comments:

Max said...

You have to look at it this way: Only desperate people have no better argument than to point at the source of some funding instead of the arguments put forth.

I actually hate this argument and never make it against Mann et. al. (Penn State) who even got funding from WWF. And I also do not begrudge Mann that he got Millions of funding by some entities (mostly government of course). It actually has nothing to do with the science. And only people who have no better argument resort to these kind (almost ad hominem) of slander.

On top of all this, it is blatantly untrue. If you look at the funding, you see that actually the Mannians of the world are out-funding the sceptics at least 10:1 if not more. For every sceptic think tank getting a grant of thousand dollar, a climate scientist poster boy gets 100.000s.
If you'd compare McIntyre with Mann, you'd have 1000 dollars for McIntyre (paid for his flight to London - Guardian panel - by dedicated supporters at his home page) and at least 3 Million dollars for Mr. Mann (paid by unwilling tax subjects).

And then the other fantastic hypocritical double-speak argument. Not only have used pro global warmers all kind of strange and unrelated events to show "global warming", but they are the ones that say "look warm summer, hottest day of the year, ever!" and point at it all the time to show some climate change. Sceptics try to stay calm and always say: 1 year or even one day or one data point IS NEVER enough. Neither for warming nor for cooling as a global trend. But again, Mr. Krugman has no idea what science is, so he can't understand that with the guys he seems to attack, he attacks people who have no idea what they are talking about and are a long shot from an honest sceptic.

It just shows to me, that this guy has long lost his academic credentials and left the space of proper discussion and debate and become a political partisan speaker (and I don't really care whether the Democrats - Liberals are after all Liberatrians, except to American Leftists and Rightwingers - or the Conservatives win or don't win).

Anonymous said...

Even Ross Douthat, the conservative writer, said today: But the evidence that carbon emissions are altering the planet’s ecology is too convincing to ignore. Conservatives who dismiss climate change as a hoax are making a spectacle of their ignorance.

This is via Bill Maher: the hilliarious and brilliant comedian.
Even scarier is why people have stopped thinking global warming is real. One major reason pollsters say is we had a very cold, snowy winter. Which is like saying the sun might not be real because last night it got dark. And my car's not real because I can't find my keys.

That's the problem with our obsession with always seeing two sides of every issue equally -- especially when one side has a lot of money. It means we have to pretend there are always two truths, and the side that doesn't know anything has something to say. On this side of the debate: Every scientist in the world. On the other: Mr. Potato Head.

There is no debate here -- just scientists vs. non-scientists, and since the topic is science, the non-scientists don't get a vote. We shouldn't decide everything by polling the masses. Just because most people believe something doesn't make it true. This is the fallacy called argumentum ad numeram: the idea that something is true because great numbers believe it. As in: Eat shit, 20 trillion flies can't be wrong.

Or take this recent headline: "TV weathercasters divided on global warming." Who gives a shit? My TV weathercaster is a bimbo with big tits who used to be on a soap opera on Telemundo. Media, could you please stop pitting the ignorant vs. the educated and framing it as a "debate." The other day, I saw a professor from the Union of Concerned Scientists face off against a distinguished expert on Tea Partying, whose brilliant analysis, recently published in the New England Journal of Grasping at Straws, was that we shouldn't teach climate science in schools because kids find it scary. As they should. I hope they're peeing in their pants.

The last decade, year, and month are all the hottest on record. Then there's the killing of the oceans, floods, Category 5 hurricanes, heat waves, giant wild fires, and the vanishing water supply. You know, the little things. And yet deniers say, it's just a theory. As is gravity. For progress to happen, certain things have to become not an issue anymore, so we can go on to the next issue. Evolution was an issue until overwhelming consensus among scientists made it not an issue.

Anonymous said...

Ross Douthat, the conservative writer, said today: But the evidence that carbon emissions are altering the planet’s ecology is too convincing to ignore. Conservatives who dismiss climate change as a hoax are making a spectacle of their ignorance.

This is via Bill Maher: the hilliarious and brilliant comedian.
Even scarier is why people have stopped thinking global warming is real. One major reason pollsters say is we had a very cold, snowy winter. Which is like saying the sun might not be real because last night it got dark. And my car's not real because I can't find my keys.

That's the problem with our obsession with always seeing two sides of every issue equally -- especially when one side has a lot of money. It means we have to pretend there are always two truths, and the side that doesn't know anything has something to say. On this side of the debate: Every scientist in the world. On the other: Mr. Potato Head.

There is no debate here -- just scientists vs. non-scientists, and since the topic is science, the non-scientists don't get a vote. We shouldn't decide everything by polling the masses. Just because most people believe something doesn't make it true. This is the fallacy called argumentum ad numeram: the idea that something is true because great numbers believe it. As in: Eat shit, 20 trillion flies can't be wrong.

The last decade, year, and month are all the hottest on record. Then there's the killing of the oceans, floods, Category 5 hurricanes, heat waves, giant wild fires, and the vanishing water supply. You know, the little things. And yet deniers say, it's just a theory. As is gravity. For progress to happen, certain things have to become not an issue anymore, so we can go on to the next issue. Evolution was an issue until overwhelming consensus among scientists made it not an issue.

William L. Anderson said...

Actually, many of the contrarians are scientists. However, in this politicized atmosphere, if one does not speak the party line, one does not get any government funding.

Today, government funding is the main source of research money in any climate studies. Furthermore, with a number of journals being intimidated, there is only one side being featured.

JP said...

I don't even know where to start with Anonymous's post. First of all, the fact that a "Conservative writer" believes in AGW means nothing. Why even bother bringing that up?

Next, the line "This is via Bill Maher, the hilarious and brilliant comedian." Well, thanks for that. I had almost dismissed your argument until you brought that rubber-faced doofus into it.

"Even scarier is why people have stopped thinking global warming is real." Even scarier than what? And is it that people have stopped thinking global warming is real, or that people have, for very good reason, began to doubt that humans are the main cause of climate change?

"That's the problem with our obsession with always seeing two sides of every issue equally -- especially when one side has a lot of money. " - Are you actually insinuating that it's the skeptic side of the argument that has the money? Or that the alarmist side doesn't? Incredible. Perhaps you should read Joanne Nova's study Climate Money which found that the US government has spent more than $79 billion of taxpayer's money since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including research and propaganda campaigns. Would you care to claim that the skeptic side has received even a fraction of that amount in the same time?

"There is no debate here -- just scientists vs. non-scientists, and since the topic is science, the non-scientists don't get a vote."

And there we have it. As dishonest and erroneous an argument as is possible to make. There is no debate? Well nice try Mr. "I Understand Science" but that's not how science works. It isn't settled by consensus. Nor is the debate one between scientists and non-scientists. It's between a number of scientists on the one hand and a number of scientists on the other. The alarmist side has it's non-scientist mouthpieces, as does the skeptic side. So in the terms of your argument here, it all comes down to number. Well, it would be good if the laws of physics and their associated effects could be decided by vote. But that's not how it works.

"We shouldn't decide everything by polling the masses" - who is suggesting such a thing?

"Just because most people believe something doesn't make it true." Right back at ya. You know the argument I'm making here, without me even having to say it.

"Or take this recent headline: "TV weathercasters divided on global warming." Who gives a shit? My TV weathercaster is a bimbo with big tits who used to be on a soap opera on Telemundo." _ Stay classy. Because after all you're an intellectual, aren't you? You know, one of those reasoned people who respect science and make adult arguments. "Bimbo with big tits" indeed. Well Sparky, sorry to expose your ignorance here but around half of TV weathercasters have degrees in meteorology. But don't let that stop you stereotyping a woman based on the color of her hair and the size of her chest.

JP said...

Continued...

"The last decade, year, and month are all the hottest on record. Then there's the killing of the oceans, floods, Category 5 hurricanes, heat waves, giant wild fires, and the vanishing water supply. You know, the little things. And yet deniers say, it's just a theory"

More dishonesty. Actually, what deniers are mostly disputing is that climate change occurs whether humans are involved or not, that there IS NO SUCH THING as a "normal" climate in the grand scheme of things and that even if we cease all emissions overnight and return to the miserable subsistence we once existed under, the effect on climate change would be minimal.

Furthermore, even if you take the worst-case scenario for humans given by climate alarmists, the number at risk pales in comparison to the number of people who die every year from poverty. What's more, there is the argument that those most at risk from inevitable climate change are the poor, who will find it harder to adapt or move from at-risk locations. Given the inevitability of climate change and the fact that nothing humans do can stop a process which has been happening since the dawn of the earth, it makes sense to devote our intelligence and resources to adapting to it. And adapting to it is going to require lots and lots of wealth. What creates wealth? Capitalism. Wealth is the best cure for poverty and climate change. Yet despite claiming a "love of humanity" as their motive, I've yet to hear one single "warmist" propose more capitalism as a solution.

Let's face it, global warming represents a new platform in the left's ever shrinking arsenal of weapons to instigate social and economic change. The left is grossly overrepresented in academia and academic institutions are bastions of leftist thinking, extremely narrow minded environments and extremely hostile to anything remotely right wing, libertarian or just anything which challenges the ideological orthodoxy. Could it be a coincidence that under such conditions, and given such influences in the flow of research funds and the publication of papers, that a warmist consensus prevails? The idea that science is a cold, calculated discipline devoid of any ideological agenda is naive in the extreme. The argument that "it must be true because a majority of scientists believe it" is perhaps the shallowest argument in this whole affair.

Anonymous said...

Much of cancer research is funded by the government as well. Should we assume cancer is just as much a hoax as global warming? Or is it a liberal conspiracy to keep money flowing to the all powerful Ivy league, which is so despised by Prof. Anderson?

William L. Anderson said...

Uh, I think the previous comment clearly falls into the non sequitur category. Now, we can question whether or not the government's research money is wisely spent, but that is a different point.

Anonymous said...

Clearly temps have risen though. Palin and others deny climate change. According to the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the 20th century.[2][A] Most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century was caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, which results from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.[3] Global dimming, a result of increasing concentrations of atmospheric aerosols that block sunlight from reaching the surface, has partially countered the effects of greenhouse gas induced warming.
Climate model projections summarized in the latest IPCC report indicate that the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the 21st century. Also, i need to here from Professor Anderson. Were Krugman's theories that won him THE NOBEL PRIZE discombobulated as you stated earlier? Either back it up or say you were wrong. Clearly, the New Trade Theory and New Economic geography are important .

Bob Roddis said...

Krugman is a Keynesian. In May, 2001, Krugman demanded that the government induce more sprawl:

“During phases of weak growth there are always those who say that lower interest rates will not help. They overlook the fact that low interest rates act through several channels. For instance, more housing is built, which expands the building sector. You must ask the opposite question: why in the world shouldn’t you lower interest rates?”

Obviously, Krugman's money dilution policies are a big cause of sprawl, and thus a major cause of the dreaded GLOBAL WARMING.

Bob Roddis said...

It seems to me that the following Krugman quote from October 30, 2006 taken together with the quote above from 2001 indicate that Krugman is admitting that the Fed caused the housing bubble but should have WARNED about it instead of doing something about it. BTW, that's what a MALINVESTMENT IS, the Fed inducing investment in unsustainable lines of production. Absent the funny money, there would have been no malinvestment. It's really not that complicated.

"Paul Krugman: As Paul McCulley of PIMCO remarked when the tech boom crashed, Greenspan needed to create a housing bubble to replace the technology bubble. So within limits he may have done the right thing. But by late 2004 he should have seen the danger signs and warned against what was happening; such a warning could have taken the place of rising interest rates. He didn’t, and he left a terrible mess for Ben Bernanke."

Anonymous said...

You may disagree with his premises, but neither of these arguments are cases of logical fallacies. As you point out, he does not infer from warm temperatures that global warming is occuring, even if he did this would not be post hoc propter hoc, but an inductive generalization, or a inductive confirmation of an hypothesis.

Second the argument about climategate is not a non sequitur. Your criticism of his argument is that the standard for exoneration is too weak (cronies evaluating the misdeeds of cronies). You do not claim that it is irrelevant, only that it is not the right standard.

If you're going to claim that the logic is fallacious, you need to start by understanding the fallacies and making certain that your criticisms of the argument are in fact of the logic and not just a disagreement with the premises or the conclusion.

Anonymous said...

Just let me add that Anon 8:03 is not the previous anon.