Wednesday, July 25, 2012

How far will Paul Krugman go to suppress speech that he does not like?

This is not a post about "climate science" or "global warming." I'm not a meteorologist nor am I a climate scientist -- and neither is Paul Krugman.

Instead, as I read Krugman's recent column on climate change and James Hansen, I realize that Krugman is sending signals about his view on people who dissent from viewpoints that he supports, and it tells me that Krugman down the road is going to support things that not long ago we did not think would be possible in this country. He writes:
Making things much worse, of course, is the role of players who don’t have the best will in the world. Climate change denial is a major industry, lavishly financed by Exxon, the Koch brothers and others with a financial stake in the continued burning of fossil fuels. And exploiting variability is one of the key tricks of that industry’s trade. Applications range from the Fox News perennial — “It’s cold outside! Al Gore was wrong!” — to the constant claims that we’re experiencing global cooling, not warming, because it’s not as hot right now as it was a few years back.
One can argue about the question as to whether or not a trace gas, carbon dioxide, which is less than 0.04 percent of the total atmosphere around earth, has such alleged huge effects upon climate. Also, one can argue whether or not human contribution to CO2 makes any kind of difference at all.I believe that these are legitimate questions, but I certainly am not prepared to answer them myself.

However, by bringing in James Hansen as his "hero" while also attacking ExxonMobile and the Kochs, there is something that I believe we need to point out: Hansen and his followers are not satisfied with shouting louder. No, they want anyone who dissents publicly from their viewpoint to be thrown into prison.

I think that we need to understand what is happening. Hansen publicly has called for people who disagree with him to be charged with crimes for which the penalty is death, the same charges that the leaders of the Nazi party faced at Nuremberg.

Furthermore, I believe something else is in order here: the amount of money spent in this debate. One one side, government money for any research or climate modeling goes ENTIRELY to those who want more government environmental controls. Western governments alone have given hundreds of billions of dollars to "climate scientists" to promote that human economic activity is causing the earth to warm to dangerous levels. That number I give is not in dispute. Speak to anyone on any university science faculty and that person will tell you that all of the government grant money goes to one side.

On the other side, the total amount that Exxon has given to scientists who dissent from the "orthodoxy" is about $20 million, which is less than what some individual climate change projects have received from the government. Likewise, I doubt seriously that the Kochs have given anywhere near that amount.

So, one side, we have an industry that not only receives huge amounts of government funding, but also seeks to silence anyone who disagrees. When James Hansen and others call for the maximum penalty against "dissenters," and when governments continue to fund people who are so imperialistic about their viewpoints that they want to imprison and kill "heretics," then I think we safely can say that the line has been crossed.

While Krugman so far has not called for the extreme measures favored by Hansen, his silence on the matter also is instructive. Furthermore, his missives against anyone who disagrees with him on Keynesianism are alarming when combined with his views on Hansen and others.

I'll go out on a limb here, but I believe that there will come a time in the near future when people like Krugman -- and maybe Krugman himself -- will call for anyone who dissents from Keynesian thinking to be put on trial and either imprisoned or killed. Keep in mind that government policies have been following the line that humans are causing disastrous global warming. The Obama administration openly wants even more restrictions.

The same goes for what we are seeing in Europe and Great Britain. In other words, governments are on Krugman's side.

Yet, that is not good enough for Krugman. The idea that ANY person out there might make a public statement that contradicts his viewpoint is too much. As I read this column, I realize that what he is demanding is the total silencing by force of anyone who disagrees.

People who disagree with the Krugmans and Hansens are not in prominent or influential positions in universities and government or the mainstream media. This does not mean they are wrong, but it does mean that for policy purposes, Hansen has won. But what Krugman and others demand is that no one be permitted even to speak dissent.

Don't kid yourselves about where this is going. There no longer is a constituency in the academic world for free speech, and governments throughout history have murdered people simply for disagreeing with the government line. I believe that Paul Krugman wants that future for us, too, and he will not stop with just "climate change" or even economics.

58 comments:

Mike M said...

In addition to the authoritarian position of the Hansens of the world, there is the intentional bastardization of the language.

Krugman says “Climate change denial is a major industry …”

First, the “global warming” label has been changed to “climate change.” Apparently it wasn’t working out the way they advocated.

Second, they have now co-opted the label climate change and morphed it into what was global warming with all its previous implications.

No rational person denies that climate changes. The planet is a cyclical biosphere. We have facts to support that position. To deny the fact the climate changes is to appear unintelligent and ridiculous, and rightly so.

However now that the global warming crowd has seized the phrase climate change without discriminating between alleged man-made causes and natural causes, they can more easily disparage critics. For people like Hansen, that’s not good enough. He wants them put on trial.

This same disingenuous use of language has crept into public discourse about economics, constitutional matters etc. It has destroyed the ability to engage in rational and thoughtful dialogue. Instead shouting political talking points are the order of the day

Dune said...

I suppose O do not disagree with the proposition that the way the government funds research could drive climate change findings in academia. However, I find the idea that there is some massive conspiracy by academic climate scientists to cover up the "truth" a bit far fetched.

Anderson's next proposition that Krugman is about to collude with world governments to execute all non-Keynesians completely paranoid and nuts. Get a hold of yourself man!

William L. Anderson said...

Where did I say that? All I am saying is that Krugman is feting someone who has called for the arrest on capital charges of people who disagree with him on climate change.

Dune is saying that James Hansen does not have to account for his words, but any criticism of Hansen for what he has said is illegitimate. And I also believe that given what Krugman has written, he will support state-sponsored suppression of speech on things like economic policy and climate change.

Again, Christianity is criticized because the church burned heretics in the Middle Ages. How is this different?

Bob Roddis said...

Of course, Keynesianism spurs sprawl by inducing people to invest in housing while "progressive" public schools induce people to flee to the outer suburbs on freeways built by the government.

As you can see, it's all the fault of the free market.

Edward said...

" believe that Paul Krugman wants that future for us, too, and he will not stop with just "climate change" or even economics."

Are you insane? Have you completely lost your mind. I might say I feel like shooting Tom Tancredo in the face for what he says about immigrants but that doesn't mean I really mean it!

Dune said...

"Again, Christianity is criticized because the church burned heretics in the Middle Ages. How is this different?"

Well for one...I haven't witnessed anyone being burned at the stakes yet. Have you?

Tel said...

Dune, are you saying that because you have not personally witnessed a massacre, therefore it never happened? That sounds a bit like what a denier would say.

If you are willing to accept documented history (witnessed by someone else) then try reading R. J. Rummel's "Powerkills" website where he covers the major killing events perpetrated by big government, and also many of the minor events. His final thesis is that the less freedom people have, the more likely their government will kill them.

By the way, which type of economics advocates more freedom to ordinary people? Austrian or Keynesian?

Which type of economics advocates more power to governments?

Name the largest employer of economists.

William L. Anderson said...

What I am saying is that James Hansen has called for people to face the same charges that the Nazis after WWII faced, and we know what happened to them.

Crimes Against Humanity is a capital charge, and by demanding that people who are guilty of speech that Hansen does not like be charged with capital crimes, Hansen is giving a clear picture of the kind of person that he is.

Krugman apparently has no problem at all with what Hansen is saying, and Krugman in many blog posts has expressed outrage that economists and others have even the temerity to believe that the Keynesian paradigm is wrong. I don't think it is a big leap to the next step.

As a college professor, I can say that colleges and universities in the USA are among the worst entities regarding free speech. I don't mean "racist" speech or the things that the PC crowd does not like, although I will say that they have actively tried to sweep a lot of normal speech into that funnel.

What I mean is that there clearly is a dominant paradigm on college campuses and if one disagrees publicly, that person is treated like a heretic.

Look what happened at Duke University. During the lacrosse crisis (brought on by the Hard Left and the administration at Duke), any professor who made a public statement against Nifong was viciously attacked by the other faculty members.

This past year, the president at Duke publicly attacked a professor who had written an unpublished paper that dealt with affirmative action and migration of students admitted under AA from the science, engineering and math majors to the majors like English and Women's Studies and similar majors. Having read the paper, it is not an attack on AA or black students, but rather lays out the numbers.

But even the facts were too much for the people at Duke and even now the prof is attacked.

I don't think it is a big leap from what is happening now to someone like Krugman demanding punishment for someone who disagrees with Keynesianism. He really seems to believe that the economy still is in depression because the Goldsteins of this country have kept the Obama administration from spending enough money.

In modern America, we have our way of "burning heretics." For that matter, look at the recent Chik-Fil-A situation. The chairman of the company makes a statement that clearly is within the bounds of his Christian beliefs, and look at the fallout.

Governments are now refusing his business to open in certain places and I am sure that the Obama administration will do even more to punish this company and its employees because the chairman has un-PC thoughts. What we are seeing are governments using coercion to punish someone because their thinking is "incorrect."

And, yes, I believe that Krugman and others like him believe that is OK. Until I see Krugman stand up for free speech for those who disagree with him, I will continue to put him in the PC category.

Anonymous said...

Crimes against humanity has not been a capital crime for a long time. You need to check up on international law since Nuremberg.

Another awful post from you. I do not even know where to begin - the suggestion that Krugman is inciting violence (or as you say secretly suggesting it), his supposed worship of Hansen as a "hero", his "attack" against Exxon or the Koch brothers, or your nosedive into conspiracy theory (could it be there is scientific consensus!?).

Or maybe just point out that you did nothing to address the substance of Krugman's column - the manipulation of statistical variability to make a political point.

Anonymous said...

"Krugman apparently has no problem at all with what Hansen is saying, and Krugman in many blog posts has expressed outrage that economists and others have even the temerity to believe that the Keynesian paradigm is wrong. I don't think it is a big leap to the next step"

HOW DO YOU KNOW!? He used Hansen's insights into climate change in his column, not his political agenda. Even if Mises was a child molester, I would not criticize you for citing him.

And where exactly do you draw the line between curtailing freedom of speech and valid argument and disagreement. You impute too much to Krugman, as if he single handily has shut down dissent. I mean you and many others are still posting. Hyperbole as usual.

Anonymous said...

"For that matter, look at the recent Chik-Fil-A situation. The chairman of the company makes a statement that clearly is within the bounds of his Christian beliefs, and look at the fallout."

So people don't have the right to respond?! Doesn't freedom cut both ways - you can say something controversial but we don't have to like it.

Anonymous said...

"I can say that colleges and universities in the USA are among the worst entities regarding free speech"

You mean as opposed to China or Khmer Rouge Cambodia? Or Stalinist USSR? Or North Korea? Or Sadaam's Iraq? Or Iran?

It sure as hell has not stopped you from having a job or posting. The fact that colleges are "biased" to the left largely reflects the fact that people of the left are attracted to those jobs, not the other way around.

And please move off of the Duke LaCrosse team example. If your standard is perfection, nothing will ever satisfy you. Try looking at the broader picture.

Anonymous said...

Let's also take up some right wing attacks on liberal speech - by far more censoring and oppressive than anything that has been hurled at the right from the left (and I actually abhor those political distinctions).

Daniel Horowitz published a book that was quite popular called "the 101 most dangerous academics in America." It was picked up by pretty much every right-wing nutcase out there to attack academics. Glenn Beck used his popular television show (that much more people watch than read Krugman's column) and accused Frances Fox Piven of advocating for a Marxist revolution.

Show me something equivalent on the left! Were you not there in the 1960s when left-leaning protesters were shot and teargassed over their opposition to Vietnam at several university campuses? Were you not there in 2002 when the same thing was done to those who protested the Iraq War. Were you not here last year when Occupy Wall street protesters were pepper sprayed and publicly demeaned as dirty hippies on every right-wing media outlet?

I think you have been in Frostburg too long.

Zachriel said...

William L. Anderson: Again, Christianity is criticized because the church burned heretics in the Middle Ages. How is this different?

Because the institution of the Church actually burned heretics through the machinations of the Inquisition meaning they were institutionally responsible. Hansen was speaking as an individual, and hasn't burned anyone.

In any case, you're making the genetic fallacy regarding Hansen: one can point to Hansen's scientific findings without agreeing with his politics. And you are using guilt by association with regards to Krugman.

Anonymous said...

O and the fact that a party that reflects about 50% of the population are climate skeptics just goes to prove that this so-called censorship you complain about is just not there.

Zachriel said...

William L. Anderson: One can argue about the question as to whether or not a trace gas, carbon dioxide, which is less than 0.04 percent of the total atmosphere around earth, has such alleged huge effects upon climate.

There is substantial evidence supporting anthropogenic climate change, particularly, warming due to artificial emissions of greenhouse gases.

Mike M: First, the “global warming” label has been changed to “climate change.”

No, they mean different things. Global warming refers to increases in the Earth's mean surface temperature. Climate change refers to changes in regional climates. Typically, people are discussing anthropogenic climate change, but climate change can and has occurred naturally.

Mike M said...

Zachriel,
I know they mean different things. You missed the point. The global warming group has morphed themselves into the phrase “climate change” intentionally and without the modifier of anthropogenic.

In addition you definition of climate change is incomplete. It refers not to just regional changes, but naturally occurring global cyclical changes.

Mike M said...

Anonymous,
“So people don't have the right to respond?! Doesn't freedom cut both ways - you can say something controversial but we don't have to like it.

People yes. Government no. The Chicago City Council and Mayor planning to block Chick-fil-A form opening another store because they disagree with the owner’s political or philosophy is inappropriate.

Anonymous, as I read more and more of your posts, I find your inability to critically think through and discriminate the differences in arguments truly appalling.

BTW why don’t you use some type of name if you’re going to continue to post here.

Anonymous said...

Global warming is a poor descriptor because all anyone needs to do is show that temps in the past have been higher and say there is not a problem. Climate change better describes the idea that changes in the climate relative to what we have now and what we base our human systems around are changing. There will therefore be impacts to our systems that could cause big problems, regardless of what has ever happened on the earth.

Anonymous said...

@ Mike M

Due to Anderson's frequent censorship of this site I prefer to stay anonymous.

And why don't governments have a right? There is always an election. Now why not address the several points I made (critically) about a) Crimes against humanity and capital punishment; b)guilt by association; c) the so called attack on right wing academic freedom?

William L. Anderson said...

Uh, I don't censor comments. I simply draw some boundaries as to what people can say, and those boundaries are a lot less stringent than what Paul Krugman has in his comment sections.

But, it is OK for Krugman to engage in extensive censorship (toward those commenter who disagree with him), but when someone calls me a racist, that is OK. Yeah, more inconsistency from the Krugman crowd.

Mike M said...

Anonymous:
Re: “Climate Change” That descriptor offers NOTHING. The climate has been and is always changing.

The anthropogenic global warming advocates have failed in their arguments so they have changed it to climate change. It’s vague enough to graft anything onto it. The elite leading this charge are about money and power. It’s only the sycophants and “Lenin’s Useful Idiots” that continue to cling to the fantasy there is substance. They are either still true believers or are so invested in the cause they can’t admit they could have been wrong or used.

Good thing Hansen is not in charge lest I be brought up on charges.

Anonymous said...

Yet more completely un-based statements.

Please show Krugman engaging in "extensive" censorship toward those who disagree with him. In fact, as a blogger for the larges newspaper in the United States he actually does not moderate all of his blog. The Times will reject anything with profanity in it.

Krugman's blog also receives hundreds of comments, some repeats from the same people. So he instated a "three inch rule" in July, and of course every right wing outlet cried censorship!

He also frequently posts on his blogs responses to criticisms. In fact here is on from yesterday (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/). You might not like his responses ,but he clearly is not engaged in any "extensive" censorship.

For someone who criticizes Krugman so much and dedicates a blog entirely to confronting him, you sure don't read a lot of what Krugman writes.

Dune said...

"Look what happened at Duke University. During the lacrosse crisis (brought on by the Hard Left and the administration at Duke), any professor who made a public statement against Nifong was viciously attacked by the other faculty members."

One thing I've noticed about Anderson is that he has a line standard stories which he returns to time and time again in order to emphasize his point. Reality doesn't matter as he can always validate his arguments with his stories...

The fact that he is citing a 5 year old case that no one even remembers is evidence enough that he is out in La La Land in terms of topics that have actual social significance.

Prediction...any time a climate change discussion is brought up, Anderson will respond with the fact with a James Hansen anecdote!

Mike M said...

Anonymous:
“And why don't governments have a right?”

The mere fact you asked that question is proof you have absolutely no understanding of the proper role of government under a constitutional republic and what its appropriate role is with private citizens.

“There is always an election.”

We’re not supposed to elect government official to pick winners and losers among private citizens in a bizarre form of gang warfare.

Your other points are a bit adolescent.

International law is a joke

Guilt by association? What was your point?

Attack on “right wing” academic freedom:
There should be no effort to silence any point of view regardless of its position on the political spectrum. What can’t you just take the higher intellectual position and advocate that? I’ve had some experience with academic administrations. If you don’t subscribe to the prevalent political position, you are ostracized. It’s wrong no matter whether its origin is right or left. Ironic isn’t it given that universities are supposed to be the bastion of free thinking.

Anonymous said...

Very true. There is the Lacrosse story. The time he heard Krugman say 90% tax rates were insane. Samuelson saying that the Soviet Union was proof state planning works.

Part of it I am sure is the underlying utopianism of Austrian thought (and dare I say current right wing rhetoric). If a counter opinion cannot achieve perfection it is invalid. So the NYT fudges the reporting on the Duke Lacrosse team the entire enterprise of NYT reporting is called invalid. In fact it is not even the reporting, but the opinion columns that he uses to denigrate the entire newspaper.

The other part of it is he does not allow anyone to change their mind or opinion, especially given new facts. You must be ideologically pure. Samuelson of course came down from those comments later.

It is unfortunate, because as economic realities validate Krugman I find Anderson's blog retreating more and more into this nonsense and obvious politicking. How about a post on why inflation has not sky rocketed? Just last year people on here completely rejected the notion that commodity prices were high because of seasonal volatility. Or how about a real alternative explanation for why the US can still borrow at such low costs. Or an explanation for why the size of a European welfare state does not correspond at all with depth of its economic crisis (except Greece). Or a real solution to our economic ailments.

Mike M said...

Dune said:
“The fact that he is citing a 5 year old case that no one even remembers …”

I see. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to the length of time that is appropriate for an item on point to have useful relevance. One year? One month? One week? I mean if we make it a short enough time frame, think of all the time we could save in the educational space not having to study history.

Anonymous said...

@Mike M - I agree that there should be an open environment for thought. My point was that Anderson repeatedly exaggerates the reality to suit his narrative. The truth is there has always been much more censorship of leftist ideas than right wing ideas. You might not like Obama, but calling him a Socialist is a clear tactic that people use to censor speech.

My point about international law was again to emphasize the ridiculousness of Anderson's post who asserted that Krguman should disassociate himself from Hansen because he had called for climate change deniers to be charged with a capital punishment, just like in Nuremberg. In fact, he repeated it twice, and twice he was wrong and exaggerating.

How can you defend Anderson and keep your own integrity?

Mike M said...

Anonymous:
“It is unfortunate, because as economic realities validate Krugman …”

Now I understand why you post under Anonymous. It’s because your name on the planet you’re from doesn’t translate into anything decipherable.

To paraphrase a quote: The frustrating thing about the Austrian economic point of view is to watch things go on longer than would make sense. But you are compensated by the depth of the correction as a result.

William L. Anderson said...

Dune has a short attention span.

Zachriel said...

Mike M: The global warming group has morphed themselves into the phrase “climate change” intentionally

They haven't morphed. Both terms are used when appropriate.

Mike M: The anthropogenic global warming advocates have failed in their arguments so they have changed it to climate change.

Again, that is false. The terms mean different things. Global warming is a primary factor in climate change.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/

Mike M: It’s only the sycophants and “Lenin’s Useful Idiots” that continue to cling to the fantasy there is substance.

Think you mean virtually the entire international scientific community.
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

Mike M said...

Zac

You're a funny guy.

"Global warming is a primary factor in climate change. "

Really? The EPA is the depository of truth on this matter?

Tell me Zac, was global warming the primary factor in that climate event called the ice age? But since that happened more than five years ago I'm sure Dune would deem it irrelevant.

Was anthropogenic activity responsible for the earth warming when the ice age ended? Wait ... Not possible. Humans weren't grilling outdoors and driving SUVs then.

In the 70s I was told the scientists all agree we were heading into another ice age.

"virtually the entire international scientific community"

Ahhh yes. The matter must be settled because the "right" people agree. As I recall, it was settled and virtually the entire scientic community agreed the earth was flat once.

There seems to be no end to human hubris on matters of science when wrapped in a political argument. Have we really evolved that much since the flat earth society?

Zachriel said...

Mike M: The EPA is the depository of truth on this matter?

Your claim was that "The global warming group has morphed themselves into the phrase 'climate change' intentionally". They certainly qualify as an example of how those terms are used.

Mike M: was global warming the primary factor in that climate event called the ice age?

There's been many ice ages, and that would be called global cooling, which are believed to be due to orbital variations along with various feedback mechanisms such as albedo.

Mike M: In the 70s I was told the scientists all agree we were heading into another ice age.

Then you were misinformed. There was never a consensus about global cooling. There are two artificial countervailing influences; aerosols cool the climate, greenhouse gases warm the climate. The question was raised whether aerosols due to industrial pollution would cause global cooling. It became quickly apparent that greenhouse warming would be the prevalent influence.

Mike M: The matter must be settled because the "right" people agree.

Scientists, particularly climatologists, are a valid appeal to authority. The proper argument against a valid appeal to authority is to the evidence.

This NOAA chart might help clarify matters. It shows data from a variety of sources, including satellite, balloon and ground-based instrumentation. In particular, note that the lower troposphere is warming, as is the surface. Meanwhile, the stratosphere is cooling, the *signature* of greenhouse warming.
http://www.zachriel.com/images/ar4-fig-3-17.gif

Mike M said...

Zac,

You didn't answer the core question.

How did the earth shift form ANY ice age to a counter environment without anthropogenic activity involved?

If it was because it was a natural cycle of the planet/sun etc, then you have to allow that any present "climate change" is nothing more than a natural cycle. This is also the most plausible answer as there is no direct casual evidence to the contrary. Only lazy correlations.

"believed to be due to orbital variations"

That's it? The best and brightest can only give us "believed". But they are really certain and conclusive now are they?

Just admit that we as human beings have no concrete understanding yet of this matter and there are political operatives grafting themselves on to the "cause" for money and power opportunities. Give a scientist a hug and tell them it's ok they don't have a conclusive answer for everything.

Robbie said...

Mr. Anderson, you really missed an opportunity to take Krugman on for what he is really advocating-- namely onerous climate regulation which in the long run will only make high food prices worse. I was actually looking forward to your mentioning how converting corn into ethanol has contributed to the high price of corn. I recommend that you take a look at the writings of Bjorn Lomborg, who while acknowledging that climate change is real advocates free market principles as a better way of dealing with it than government regulation.

Zachriel said...

Mike M: How did the earth shift form ANY ice age to a counter environment without anthropogenic activity involved?

We did answer your question.

Zachriel: orbital variations along with various feedback mechanisms such as albedo.

Mike M: If it was because it was a natural cycle of the planet/sun etc, ...

"Natural cycle" is too vague to constitute a valid scientific hypothesis. If you mean changes in solar irradiance, that does not explain the current temperature trend.

Mike M: ... then you have to allow that any present "climate change" is nothing more than a natural cycle.

The evidence indicates otherwise.

Mike M: This is also the most plausible answer as there is no direct casual evidence to the contrary.

Modern climate science is based on causative models, in particular, greenhouse warming. Note that the lower troposphere is warming, as is the surface. Meanwhile, the stratosphere is cooling, the *signature* of greenhouse warming.
http://www.zachriel.com/images/ar4-fig-3-17.gif

Mike M: The best and brightest can only give us "believed".

All scientific findings are considered tentative, no matter how certain or well supported. That's just the way it works.

Zachriel said...

Robbie: I recommend that you take a look at the writings of Bjorn Lomborg, who while acknowledging that climate change is real advocates free market principles as a better way of dealing with it than government regulation.

That might work with food production as markets react to climate change, though markets can't address the global problem due to the 'tragedy of the commons'.

Mike M said...

Zac "All scientific findings are considered tentative, no matter how certain or well supported. That's just the way it works."

Excellent. Let's reorder the economic system and use it as a reason to subordinate the individual to the collective based on that confident foundation.

You have offered nothing to dismiss a natural event other than a vague reference to "evidence" that is admited to be tenitive.

Mike M said...

BTW Zac

Pretty charts. 50 years of data against a plant 4.5 Billion years old.

Zachriel said...

Mike M: You have offered nothing to dismiss a natural event other than a vague reference to "evidence" that is admited to be tenitive.

Um, it wasn't vague evidence, but specific. The lower atmosphere and surface are warming, while the stratosphere is cooling, a *signature* of greenhouse warming.

You reply is to wave your hands.

Mike M said...

Zac, I said vague reference.

Your evidence is by your own admission tenitive.

You reply is to ignore your own contradictions and failure to admit it's absurd to reorder the economic world on such evidence.

But please provide some more 50 or 100 year charts against a 4.5 billion year old planet. They are pretty.

Pulverized Concepts said...

The lower atmosphere and surface are warming, while the stratosphere is cooling, a *signature* of greenhouse warming.

How can you, or anyone else, possibly know this? At this point, the June and July temperatures in Anchorage, AK are the lowest ever recorded. Perhaps in some other part of the world, temperatures are the highest ever known. So what?

Evidently, humans are to modify the activities of civilization in order to insure the survival of the species itself and the earth, in some sort of steady state. This must be done "for the children", or maybe the great, great grandchildren. At the same time, however, Krugman and other statist Keynesians are willing to saddle these descendants with financial obligations that can never be repaid for the sake of the current generation. The morality of putting a claim on the wealth of the unborn to satisfy the mythology of the present is a subject that's not sufficiently debated.

Zachriel said...

Mike M: Your evidence is by your own admission tenitive.

All science is tentative, eppur si muove.

Mike M: But please provide some more 50 or 100 year charts against a 4.5 billion year old planet.

Yes, and the Earth used to be a ball of molten rock. Please respond to the point, or admit you don't have an argument. The lower atmosphere and surface are warming, while the stratosphere is cooling, a *signature* of greenhouse warming.
http://www.zachriel.com/images/ar4-fig-3-17.gif

Zachriel: The lower atmosphere and surface are warming, while the stratosphere is cooling, a *signature* of greenhouse warming.

Pulverized Concepts: How can you, or anyone else, possibly know this?

Thermometers.

Mike M said...

Zac, you’re an echo chamber talking in circles.

“All science is tentative”
No kidding. You refuse to address the point that because of that fact you don’t reorder economic society based on it. You ignored again that aspect of the discussion raised by Pulverized. You don’t address because you can’t, or your defense of it will stretch the limits of rationality.

“Yes, and the Earth used to be a ball of molten rock”

So it naturally evolves and changes. You continually offer 50 year charts. Address the relevance of them to a planet 4.5 billion years old. In that context it means NOTHING. You allege it’s a signature of greenhouse warming. Maybe, maybe not. To what extent? How might greenhouse warming occur at part of natural cycles? Did such an environment occur in other periods of history? Etc. Why does one have to spoon feed this critical thinking to you.

And the “climate change” crowd wonders why they are scorned by the critical thinking sector.

Zachriel said...

Mike M: So it naturally evolves and changes.

Yes, it does.

Mike M: Address the relevance of them to a planet 4.5 billion years old.

Because anthropogenic climate change will cause severe disruption of human civilization, and the resulting human suffering.

Mike M: You allege it’s a signature of greenhouse warming. Maybe, maybe not. To what extent?

We observe the effects of greenhouse warming. We can calculate the effects of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, and can determine climate sensitivity due to increased evaporation from a number of independent empirical measures, with current estimates of 2-5°C with 3°C the most likely value, but a higher uncertainty on the upper limit.

Mike M: How might greenhouse warming occur at part of natural cycles?

"Natural cycles" is too ambiguous to constitute a valid scientific hypothesis. Greenhouse warming is due to the atmosphere. There is certainly an interplay of the atmosphere with the rest of the planet, especially the oceans. We can directly study the atmosphere to determine its composition.

Pulverized Concepts said...

"Natural cycles" is too ambiguous to constitute a valid scientific hypothesis.

That might come as a surprise to the manufacturers of sanitary napkins.

Mike M said...

Zac a materful job at evading the core issue

Zachriel said...

Mike M: a materful job at evading the core issue

Whether or not anthropogenic climate change is supported by the scientific evidence would seemingly be important to how people respond.

Mike M said...

Zac,
I’ll try to make this simple since you are struggling with it.
The material flaws in the thesis of anthropogenic climate change aside.
Give that all science is tentative as you readily admit, you don’t reorder the economic system and use it as a reason to subordinate the individual to the collective based on a theory in its infantile stage.
Period.

Bala said...

Zac,

And talking of thermometers, how did you lay your hands on the data of temperatures before the thermometer was invented? This global warming/climate change thingy is very, very interesting.

Zachriel said...

Mike M: Give that all science is tentative as you readily admit, you don’t reorder the economic system and use it as a reason to subordinate the individual to the collective based on a theory in its infantile stage.

All science is tentative, eppur si muove.

We didn't advocate for any particular policy.

Bala: And talking of thermometers, how did you lay your hands on the data of temperatures before the thermometer was invented?

There are a number of valid proxies, but the data we cited only included surface, radiosonde, and satellite radiance.

Note that the lower troposphere is warming, as is the surface. Meanwhile, the stratosphere is cooling, the *signature* of greenhouse warming.
http://www.zachriel.com/images/ar4-fig-3-17.gif

Bala said...

"There are a number of valid proxies"

Which proxy was used to demonstrate the hockey stick curve and how was it validated?

Zachriel said...

Bala: Which proxy was used to demonstrate the hockey stick curve and how was it validated?

We didn't cite the hockey stick or proxies. We cited surface temperature, radiosonde and satellite radiance.

(A number of studies have used multiple proxies to confirm the basic findings of Mann et al., including coral layer, tree ring and glacial proxy records. Validation comes from using multiple proxies.)

Bala said...

"We didn't cite the hockey stick"

Why? I thought it was the lynchpin of the climate change fanatics? Has it become too inconvenient after ClimateGate?

Zachriel said...

Bala: Why?

Because the data we did show is fairly easy to understand and supports the claim of greenhouse warming. Would you care to address the evidence?

(As we pointed out, Mann et al.'s conclusions have been repeatedly upheld by independent studies. Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, National Academies of Science, 2006.)

Bala said...

Yeah, Zac!!! I guess Climategate never happened.

Zachriel said...

Bala: I guess Climategate never happened.

Guess you have decided not to respond to the evidence.

Bala said...

Zac,

Guess you have decided not to respond to the prior discrediting of the entire "science".