Supreme Irony
I know, I know, I’ve been blogging too much about Krugman lately, but this is too delicious to pass up, and I am pretty sure only I have the ability and desire to pinpoint such hilarity. Let’s get this over with as quickly as possible:
==> Ezra Klein has his inaugural post for his new site Vox, and it’s superficially a “hey-both-sides-are-terrible-let’s-all-be-more-tolerant” kind of thing. Klein cites some research showing that when it comes to political issues, more research actually leads to more polarization, because each side just parses the additional information to cherry-pick the arguments and facts that bolster the original position.
==> In order to illustrate the problem, Klein picks an example of a right-winger refusing to learn. (I’m sure this was the result of a coin toss, and not because Klein had a predisposition to bash right-wingers.) Here’s the narrative:
Imagine what would happen to, say, Sean Hannity if he decided tomorrow that climate change was the central threat facing the planet. Initially, his viewers would think he was joking. But soon, they’d begin calling in furiously. Some would organize boycotts of his program. Dozens, perhaps hundreds, of professional climate skeptics would begin angrily refuting Hannity’s new crusade. Many of Hannity’s friends in the conservative media world would back away from him, and some would seek advantage by denouncing him. Some of the politicians he respects would be furious at his betrayal of the cause. He would lose friendships, viewers, and money. He could ultimately lose his job. And along the way he would cause himself immense personal pain as he systematically alienated his closest political and professional allies. The world would have to update its understanding of who Sean Hannity is and what he believes, and so too would Sean Hannity. And changing your identity is a psychologically brutal process.
==> Now here’s the wonderful thing that almost makes me burst with joy. We don’t have to speculate about an alternative universe in which a previous hero to progressives does something heretical on climate change, and then receives pushback from former colleagues for it. No, we’ve got Paul Krugman doing it for us, for real, when he writes: “Ezra Klein’s new venture Vox is up, and so far, so OK — some fairly interesting pieces, and nothing like Nate Silver’s lamentable decision to make a professional concern troll his chief writer on climate.”
==> Now you might be saying, “Bob, you’re too clever, as usual. What’s so ironic or funny about this?” OK I’ll spell it out for you: If you click Krugman’s post, his purpose is to mildly chastise Ezra Klein for making it sound as if both sides are capable of this kind of tribalism that reinforces prejudices about ideological positions; according to Krugman, nope, his side is just fine, thank-you-very-much, it’s only those stupid (his term) right-wingers that actually in practice behave this way. Remember, Klein (as we have seen) used a hypothetical example of Sean Hannity going off the reservation about climate change and being punished for it. In commenting on this post, Krugman first starts off by punishing Nate Silver (and he has been doing it for a while now) for going off the reservation about climate change.
==> Last thing: It’s also supremely ironic that Krugman (as well as Klein) pick climate change as the epitome of an issue in which the “other side” refuses to learn from the incoming data. You could write a fairly extensive analogy between the debate over global temperature and CPI. (E.g.: “CPI is the highest it’s been since they started recording it!!”) It would be difficult to describe Krugman’s reactions to both topics in a consistent way.
Regarding CPI, it’s worth pointing out that the subscription fee for shadowstats has been $175.00 since at least 2006. So you have to question whether there is really a serious debate over the CPI.
The Shadowstats subscription price is not even in the CPI basket numbnuts.
We don’t predict hyperinflation or put any weight on shadow stats. Take the BS elsewhere.
Correct. OTOH there IS going to be high inflation, possibly offset by deflation, both caused by government/fed failure causing mal investment.
Also, that humans tend to target the indicator that gets measured and rewarded isn’t an Austrian thing, it is a common sense thing.
So of course measured conventions of inflation will always appear better than actual inflation (by for example stripping out housing or measuring cheap Chinese contributions). This has nothing to do with hyper inflation anyway unless the error gets so divergent as to cause the policy failures that lead to hyperinflation.
Taxes take to much out of economy for there ever to be hyper…
IMO Hyperinflation is a choice. It doesn’t just happen.
there IS going to be high inflation, possibly offset by deflation
Uh, what?
One would presume he is amortising the rising production costs over a lot more subscribers.
Tel you are assuming statist have 1 iota economic understanding…
John Maynard Keynes went a surprisingly long way without 1 iota of economic understanding, so be careful there.
Joe Wrote: “Regarding CPI, it’s worth pointing out that the subscription fee for shadowstats has been $175.00 since at least 2006. So you have to question whether there is really a serious debate over the CPI.”
Same product for similar price, that is how everything should be unless faced with serious scarcity.
Joe someday you will stop defending everything state, soon as you take off your diapers…
so, do you agree with the 548(?)’s writer on climate change?
Of course human activity affects the climate along with billions of other things the most significant of which is by far the energy source, the sun. Now how much climate is the sun and how much is everything else is up for debate, but I would guess, which is all climate science, I would say that the sun is the reason for 99% of climate change.
But even if humans had a significant part of climate change. I refuse to see how world wide socialism and the redistribution of wealth is going to help. In fact I would expect it to make it worse.
What did he say?
The more a person senses a form of partisan hackery, the more partisan they themselves are related to that form.
I am supremely partisan when it comes to peace versus violence. It’s why I am so sensitive to others advocating for violence. My violence detector is very sharp because I am so incredibly partisan the other way.
This Krugman bozo wants to believe that his own ability to parse out partisan hackery in the form of conservatism (in distinction to progressivism), has nothing to do with his own opposite side partisan hackery.
I mean, he also wrote a book called conscience of a liberal for goodness sake. Not conscience of a scientist. Not conscience of an economist. Not conscience of a moderate. No, a conscience of a liberal.
Sensitivity to violence does not make you partisan, rather civil. These barbarian animals have yet to evolve. Stinkin cavemen…
That’s what I had in mind. Although we usually use “partisan” to denote strong political party support, to be partisan without qualification includes being partisan towards a cause, like civility instead of violence.
ach, if only prediction markets were made legal. It would be *so* interesting to see what probability the market would assign to say the average IPCC 20 or 50 year prediction, let alone to the alarmists’ kinds of predictions, and how huge the divergence between the market price (i.e. the measure of the probability) and the rhetoric might be.
and in the unlikely case that the vast majority of media people, politicians, activists etc actually put their money where their mouths are, and place bets consistent with their rhetoric, people like Judith Curry or even amateurs like myself could be making millions and millions of dollars off them. (not because we would make a correct prediction but because they claim to be so certain and so should be willing to bet say $95 for a $100 payout if they are right while we should be able to buy a voucher for a $100 payout in the event that they are wrong for a mere $5 or so.)
I’m thinking that in reality all the money would go one way, and I’d be betting thousands to win a couple bucks.
Yeah, I’m thinking I’d do the exact reverse.
I’ve offered these kinds of bets to several peoplebut so far no takers. To be sure, I’m not necessarily a skeptic, I’m just way less certain of one or more of the elements of the mainstreamish hypothesis (‘the climate is heating up and primary cause of this is human activity in the form of co2 emissions and the negative effects of this heating will far outweigh the positive effects’ ) than most people whose opinions I read or hear are.
The peer pressure is strong on the left. They are just blinded to it because their preachers keep patting each other on the back for believing scientists more than the competition.
Unfortunately this works in the irrational voter market.
Koen,
A few years ago, James Annan tried to get a bunch of prominent climate change skeptics to bet on whether there would be more warming. They all refused.
On the other hand, Scott Armstrong tried to bet Al Gore on whether there would be warming from 2007-2017, and Gore declined as well.
One possible explanation is that people are less likely to bet the more prominent they are, as what they are really betting is not money so much as reputation. If a random guy on the internet loses a bet on climate change, that doesn’t really matter. But if someone who’s made his name on this issue loses a bet, that’s big news.
If you still want to bet, I would be interested in hearing your terms.
If a random guy on the internet loses a bet on climate change, that doesn’t really matter
I’m not so sure. Once a random guy on the internet lost a price inflation bet…
Bob,
I don’t consider you just a random guy on the internet.
You’re so sweet.
Josiah,
Thanks for that link! Very interesting stuff. I’m now also reading the comments to that article and some of the skeptics give what seem to me pretty good reasons for why they declined the bet (e.g. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/06/betting-on-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-2448 ), but that may just be my confirmation bias. will definitely look into this more. thanks again
oh, and i dig your point re reluctance to bet if you’re a famous person and would add that it’s not just one’s own reputation that would be at stake but also the credibility of the side one is on, so one may be reluctant to bet for fear not of losing money but of doing damage to the cause
Josiah,
you wrote: “If you still want to bet, I would be interested in hearing your terms.”
Below is a bet I offered to an alarmist friend of mine, but I’m open to counterproposals:
“I gather that your certainty about the conjunction that the climate will on average be warmer in the next 25 years than it was in the previous 25 years and that the primary cause for this is human activity in the form of CO2 emissions (and other such emissions) approaches 100%. Me, I’m essentially undecided. It’s 50/50 for me.
So I propose the following bet.
If the above-mentioned conjunction turns out to be true (and we can negotiate (beforehand!) on exactly how we would define and determine this (how we would define averages for example, or calling off the bet in the case of major volcanic eruptions for example)) I pay you the inflation-(and currency-(because:bitcoin))adjusted equivalent of $100.
Because of the strength of your belief, this is essentially free money to and for you, and you should be willing to risk many times that amount for the tiny tiny possibility that you turn out to be wrong. I’ll be generous and say you would only have to pay me the inflation-(and currency-)adjusted equivalent of $1,000 in case the conjunction turns out to be false.
Koen,
The part about temperatures being warmer over the next 25 years than the previous 25 seems simple enough. But how would you decide whether this was primarily due to human activity?
well, assume a second planet…
I kid.
Yeah, that’s one of the problems of prediction marets: reality is really really complex and it’s difficult or impossible to practically (and I’d say even theoretically) isolate causes. So We could settle for a proxy (simple temperature increase, excluding unusual events such as major volcanic eruptions) or use judges. But using judges is problematic here because with this issue one side of the bet claims that the experts are wrong.
Right. There are various ways to “fingerprint” whether warming was due to GHG, but if someone believed those methods were reliable then it would be pointless to bet, as the same methods indicate that past warming was due to GHG.
“Now you might be saying, “Bob, you’re too clever, as usual. What’s so ironic or funny about this?” OK I’ll spell it out for you: If you click Krugman’s post, his purpose is to mildly chastise Ezra Klein for making it sound as if both sides are capable of this kind of tribalism that reinforces prejudices about ideological positions; according to Krugman, nope, his side is just fine, thank-you-very-much, it’s only those stupid (his term) right-wingers that actually in practice behave this way. Remember, Klein (as we have seen) used a hypothetical example of Sean Hannity going off the reservation about climate change and being punished for it. In commenting on this post, Krugman first starts off by punishing Nate Silver (and he has been doing it for a while now) for going off the reservation about climate change.”
Krugman’s critique of Klein’s article is that tribalism on the right actually causes the right to hold positions that are thoroughly anti-scientific (stupid and/or evil), while such extremes are untypical for liberal tribalism. Moreover, Krugman thinks that people who doubt the supposedly overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change are an example of such an thoroughly anti-scientific attitude.
Now given these assumptions, Krugman’s angry criticism of Silver for seemingly turning away from the liberal side (by hiring Pielke) is not the same kind of behavior that Krugman thinks the right exhibits / would exhibit (how the right would react if e.g. Hannity would change his mind from climate skeptic to climate believer: Krugman responds angrily to an irrational / evil turn away from science, while the right would respond angrily to a sensible turn toward science.
So given Krugman’s assumtions, there is nothing funny or ironic or contradictory or telling / revealing in how Krugman responds here. So your critique of him (or your finding it funny or ironic) only works if one doesn’t agree with these assumptions. But if one doesn’t agree with the assumtions, then the quasi-contradiction or hypocrisy or funniness of Krugman doing exactly what he claims the right but not the left is doing disappears. (so no matter which you go, finding what Krugman writes here funny or ironic is unsustainable / quasi-incoherent) After all, he simply doesn’t consider what he is doing to be remotely the same as what the right is doing (that is why he criticizes Klein for what Krugman sees as Klein’s false equivalencying)
Krugman’s critique of Klein’s article is that tribalism on the right actually causes the right to hold positions that are thoroughly anti-scientific (stupid and/or evil) …
The 1970′s Global Cooling Compilation – looks much like today
http://[why]wat[wont]tsu[this]pwi[url]th[work]that.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation/
While a silent majority of the scientific community may have been more skeptical, you ironically find one of the most outspoken supporters of modern day Al Gore style global warming alarmism was promoting global cooling in the 1970s, the late Dr. Steven Schneider;
The accompanying YouTube is:
Schneider vs. Schneider
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsdWTBNyvX0
Description:
The Late Dr. Steven Schneider compared;
1978 Global Cooling Alarmism vs. 2008 Global Warming Alarmism
Krugman’s critique of Klein’s article is that tribalism on the right actually causes the right to hold positions that are thoroughly anti-scientific (stupid and/or evil) …
The 1970′s Global Cooling Compilation – looks much like today
http://_why_wat_wont_tsu_this_pwi_url_th_work_that.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation/
While a silent majority of the scientific community may have been more skeptical, you ironically find one of the most outspoken supporters of modern day Al Gore style global warming alarmism was promoting global cooling in the 1970s, the late Dr. Steven Schneider;
The accompanying YouTube is:
Schneider vs. Schneider
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsdWTBNyvX0
Description:
The Late Dr. Steven Schneider compared;
1978 Global Cooling Alarmism vs. 2008 Global Warming Alarmism
That filter is preventing awesome from coming through.
Yeah we get the part where Krugman thinks (or pretends to think) he is objective AND the headmaster partisan. I think that is what Bob is referring to as the funny part.
If Klein’s example us a veiled dig at Krugman than my opinion of Klein has risen 1000%.
No, I mean Bob’s language filter for the site is inadvertently preventing non-profane – and non-unawesome – expression.
Koen, you description vis a vis Klein’s piece hinges on whether Krugman’s asseseny of science is correct. Bob thinks it isn’t, only partly evidenced by Krugman following Klein’s description of punishing apostates like it was a playbook.
That is to say if you demonstrate a behavior associated with partisan bias it might be partisan bias.
Does Krugman ever say which science he agrees so we could evaluate whether he is right or wrong or is he just a champion for lump of science?
Your point also requires Krugman limiting his scope to science. That is obviously false.
Since I think the lefts use of science is a wedge issue (purely to win elections to get their way on other stuff, like healthcare redistribution, but never ironically to do anything meaningful for science or global warming, imagine that) it is false by definition, if I am right.
andrew’ wrote: “Koen, you description vis a vis Klein’s piece hinges on whether Krugman’s asseseny of science is correct. Bob thinks it isn’t, only partly evidenced by Krugman following Klein’s description of punishing apostates like it was a playbook.”
No, that’s not quite true. My description/analysis hinges on whether Krugman *thinks* the mainstreamish view on man-made climate change is overwhelmingly supported by the relevant scientists, not whether it in fact is so supported, let alone whether the mainstreamish ciew is actually correct.
See, if Krugman thinks the mainstreamish view on man-made climate change is overwhelmingly supported by the relevant scientists and hence that people skeptical about the mainstream view are radically irrational and/or evil, then his getting angry with Silver is categorically different behavior from the extreme anti-scientific tribalism on the right. Moreoverm Krugman thinks Klein is setting up a false equivalency between tribalism on the left and the right. And so in Krugman’s view his own behavior is not an instance of the kind of behavoior Klein writes about. And so there is nothing hyocritical, contradictory, ironic about Krugman’s getting angry with Silver AND at the same time mocking the right for how they would get angry at Hannity of he turned away from climate skepticism.
If on the other hand one assumes that Krugman is wrong about one or more of these assumptions, for example about the idea that the mainstrteamish view is overwhelmingly supported by scientists or even that the view is correct, then Krugman’s behavior */would* be similar to how he regards how the right would react if Hannity turned away from climate skepticism. But this would not make Krugman’s response ironic or contradictory or hypocriktical or anything like that. It would just make it typical and wrong-headed.
Koen, IIRC, Pielke is a former climate change lib who is now doing a kind of Bjorn Lomborg/Julian Simon apostasy. Pielke agrees that the recorded temperature record shows warming and that the base physics of increased CO2 predict increased temperature as atmospheric CO2 increases, but mostly, he picks on statements from the warming activists that are scientifically wrong or unsupported.
As a result, mostl of the lefty blogs, including Krugman, have gone ballistic. If you read them, they are mostly (1) unsupported assertions that Pielke is a bad person (e.g. Krugman), (2) cites to some other blog disagreeing with Pielke without assessing what the scientific evidence is on the question, or (3) a concession that Pielke is usually right on his facts, but criticizing him for concentrating on where climate activists are wrong instead of where he agrees with them. (#3 is pretty rare.)
I think Pielke’s first article for 538 was interesting – did Krugman address Pielke’s premises?
No, he did not. It was ad hominem all the way.
J Mann, to be sure, I'[m not taking sides against Pielke and I think that if the people criticizing Pielke used the same standard of criticism / analysis when reviewing the work on their own side, they’d be in for some nasty surprises. (so they use double standards)
Pielke Jr. is part of the consensus. He’s a consensus scientist. Five seconds on his blog would confirm this for you, or Krugman.
Klein’s piece is flawed in numerous ways. If anyone is interested I can make my points.
Klein can find not a single example for balancing his piece.
Not…one.
What WOULD you like, Paul??
The American left was nothing but tolerant and understanding when Whitaker Chambers decided that maybe Communism wasn’t so great after all.
I don’t get it Bob. Research shows that there is a 99% probability that humans are a factor in climate change. The fact is that the left stands on the scientifically correct side of this debate…period. Sure you can cite some outliers here and there to make an contrarian argument, but they are…outliers. Liberal chastising of Nate Silver is based on his erroneous science that…conservative chastising is based on tribe mentality.
Dan:
(1) Does Roger Pielke deny that “humans are a factor in climate change”?
(2) The specific example Ezra Klein used was Sean Hannity thinking that climate change is “the central threat facing the planet.” Really, that’s established with 99% probability? Climate change is a bigger threat than, say, nuclear war, disease, malnutrition, dirty drinking water…?
Krugman has actually used the phrase “saving the planet” when referring to his preferred policies on climate change. Really, the planet itself is in jeopardy?
The bait-and-switch in this debate is hilarious. Alarmists throw out the most over-the-top rhetoric imaginable, then when challenged retreat to, “Humans are a factor in climate change,” which just about nobody denies, certainly not Lindzen, Pielke, John Christy, Roy Spencer, etc.
I happen to seriously believe that the “central threat facing the planet” consists of “progressive” political policies to the extent that those policies violate the NAP.
OK fine….Pielke is questioning whether global warming leads to increased weather related disaster costs…is that better?
Funny…a quick Google Scholar search brings up a paper of Piekle contradicting his own claims….titled ‘Human Factors Explain the Increased Losses from Weather and Climate Extremes’
An excerpt from the abstract states: “United States losses resulting from weather extremes have grown steadily with time.”
So…Nate Silver not only got someone who doesn’t accurately represent the views of the scientific community…he got someone who contradicts his own research.
My original point still stands.
Your original point has no bearing on the point Bob is making.
Hey, people are going to think I had a stroke or something if you keep commenting under the same name as me.
Ha ha for a second I was confused because these comments didn’t seem to be typical of “Dan.” I was getting ready to purge you from the tribe.
I think his diabolical plan was to cause that very thing to happen. He’s out to get me.
Thanks for declaring your separate existence and helping me preserve the remainder of my sanity….
Funny…a quick Google Scholar search brings up a paper of Piekle contradicting his own claims….titled ‘Human Factors Explain the Increased Losses from Weather and Climate Extremes’
There’s no contradiction. Pielke’s paper argues that the increased damage from weather events is due to human factors (such as population growth), rather than to an increase in the frequency or intensity of weather events.
Pielke’s piece at FiveThirtyEight made exactly the same argument.
Dan, do you agree with Josiah’s claim?
Don’t you think it’s kind of weird that you believe Nate Silver–the guy who was a hero for his rigorous data-crunching back when he was predicting a landslide Obama re-election–is now such a fool that he lets a guy run a piece on his new site that can be contradicted according to that guy’s own published research by 5 minutes of googling?
Is any of this giving you pause? Is the irony starting to hit you, that maybe “your side” doesn’t have a total monopoly on truth, and maybe you’ve been doing exactly what Ezra Klein’s post warned about?
yes re the bait and switch.
there are several components of what I take is typically (but falsely) portrayed as the consensus view (so what is portrayed as the consensus view is the conjunction of the claims below):
– the climate is heating up
– the primary cause of this is human activity in form of increases in CO2 emissions
– the negative effects of this heating will far outweigh potential positive consequences according to some more or less unncontroversial ccalculus/comparisons/weighing
– the way to address the problem effectively is to reduce CO2 emissions
– the warming climate is one of the biggest problems, possibly the very biggest problem faced by humanity
If you are skeptical about any one of these claims you risk being branded as a denier.
But then in some of the research that purports to show that there is a scientific consensus most of the scientists who are actually skeptical about one or more of these claims find themselves placed in the category of scientists who believe in the consensus because they subscribe to some very very general and hard to argue with view on climate change (I forget the article that showed this). And then that view, that 97% of relevant scientists agree on some very very general view re climate change is presented in the media as the claim that 97% of relevant scientists agree with all of the five specific components above, and as the basis for calling people who are skeptical about one or more of these claims ‘deniers’.
And so the skeptical scientists are very cleverly being used against themselves.
Nate Silver is not denying that humans are a factor in climate change. Nor is anyone on his site. Nor does Murphy. Nor does anyone else I’ve seen on Free Advice.
The question in play here is: “Is Climate Change so dangerous that we have to dramatically curtail economic growth and start massive income redistribution programs in order to respond to it?” The answer to that may very well be no, and has just as much to do with economic analysis as it does with climate science.
But the Krugmans of the world refuse to have that discussion. Anyone who doubts whatever the UN recommends is immediately condemned as “anti-science” and people like you jump to the ridiculous conclusion that not favoring a massive new tax is the same thing as denying that temperatures are rising.
The debate isn’t over whether humans are a factor.
The debate is over how much and what the response should be (if any).
You sure don’t get it.
I was wondering about this too. I mean, is the majority view here really that climate change is some kind of left wing fake or something? You can still be very libertarian and accept the scientific consensus, right?
The consensus is contrived.
Do a search for “The 1970′s Global Cooling Compilation – looks much like today”. (For some reason, Bob’s site won’t let the URL go through.)
It’s not about saving the planet, but about global redistribution of wealth.
There’s this, too:
U.N. Official Admits: We Redistribute World’s Wealth by Climate Policy
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2010/11/18/u-n-official-admits-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-by-climate-policy/
Here’s Howard Dean:
Howard Dean to European Socialists: Let’s Work Together for ‘Global New Deal’
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7a5_1283537600
What we need is a long term global vision tackling global imbalances. Free market globalization, alone, cannot achieve Social Justice. What the world needs is a global New Deal.
Global Warming / Climate Change / Global Cooling is absolutely a left wing fake.
But can anyone point to a liberal equivalent of conservative denial of climate change
Hmmm. How about the total failure of Krugman and 99.9999999% of “liberals” (not including the very curious DK) to demonstrate any (1) intellectual curiosity concerning or (2) familiarity with:
a) the NAP (calling Walter Block!);
b) violent intervention vs. non-intervention in either economic or historical analysis;
c) voluntary vs involuntary transactions;
d) prices as the essential source of economic information;
e) distorted prices as a source of distorted information; and
f) funny money emissions as a scheme to snatch away purchasing power from the unsuspecting public?
Does anyone actually believe that Krugman has any understanding of (much less a detailed understanding, whether or not he agrees with it) or real curiosity about the Austrian view that it is Keynesian policies themselves that are the central economic problem facing the human race today?
Wouldn’t their response be that we are restraining them from going full Keynesian, i.e. Super Saiyan.
🙂
Of course, that is ALWAYS their fallback position. My point is that they refuse to allow their small minds to consider the alternative analysis while, at the same time, proclaiming that the alternative analysis has been routed by Keynes. Krugman and the Keynesians have made no attempt whatsoever to even think about this analysis (much less engage and refute it):
The Great Depression thus did not represent the failure of capitalism or some inherent suicidal tendency of the free market to plunge into cyclical depression—absent the constant ministrations of the state through monetary, fiscal, tax and regulatory interventions. Instead, the Great Depression was a unique historical occurrence—the delayed consequence of the monumental folly of the Great War, abetted by the financial deformations spawned by modern central banking.
But ironically, the “failure of capitalism” explanation of the Great Depression is exactly what enabled the Warfare State to thrive and dominate the rest of the 20th century because it gave birth to what have become its twin handmaidens—-Keynesian economics and monetary central planning. Together, these two doctrines eroded and eventually destroyed the great policy barrier—-that is, the old-time religion of balanced budgets— that had kept America a relatively peaceful Republic until 1914.
http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/2014/03/14/keynesian-myths-monetary-central-planning-and-the-triumph-of-the-warfare-state-part-4/
I guess that is what I try to tell people. You don’t have to agree with me, just at least have considered it in coming to your conclusion.
As someone involved in academia I’d also add that, while Bob is positioning the treatment of Pielke as some sort of liberal ideological ostracism…he knows full well that these sorts of debates are commonplace in academia. This is especially true when the author or presenter is questioning established findings with a bunch of crappy assumptions or incomplete data…ideological motivations aside.
There is too much deceit in the global warming aspect of climate science, especially from those purporting to argue the AGW thesis is true, for me, and I would venture to say you as well, to be so certain as you are.
Dan wrote:
As someone involved in academia I’d also add that, while Bob is positioning the treatment of Pielke as some sort of liberal ideological ostracism…he knows full well that these sorts of debates are commonplace in academia.
You are being hilarious here and you don’t seem to realize it. Just to be clear, your actual position is: “It’s fine for an academic like Paul Krugman to publicly criticize Nate Silver for letting someone who was (according to Wikipedia) ‘Director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado Boulder from 2001 to 2007. Pielke was a visiting scholar at Oxford University’s James Martin Institute for Science and Civilization’ be his go-to guy on climate writing. But if Sean Hannity were to say something ridiculous like climate change is the number-one threat facing the planet, and then were criticized by people for it, this would represent the institutional rigidity of the conservative movement.”
I don’t think that’s actually what you want to say, right? So if you care to clarify, go ahead, but that’s what you’ve actually been arguing here in the comments, whether you realize it or not.
Do certain right-wingers say over the top stuff about “this is all a hoax invented by Al Gore”? Sure they do. Are they the actual “skeptic” scientists? No. Is Nate Silver giving these people a platform? I highly doubt it.
And, I can find mirror-image rhetoric not just from people commenting on left-wing sites, but no I can get it straight from the horse’s mouth from Krugman, Joe Romm, etc.
“he knows full well that these sorts of debates are commonplace in academia. This is especially true when the author or presenter is questioning established findings with a bunch of crappy assumptions or incomplete data…ideological motivations aside.”
And that is when they are being jerks. That’s why we added tenure to offset that human nature tendency.
I need to also point out that the “crappy assumptions” and “incomplete data” are part of the “no true Scotsman” thing.
Everything a self-interested scientist disagrees with will yield those upon very close critique.
To Krugman, the fact that climate models are speculative and have been wrong for a few years doesn’t rise to the level of “crappy assumptions” but I’d bet money that some climate scientist who had provided a model 10 years ago that subsequently matched what happened would have!
Bob…I love the way you debate…
Your strategy consists of 1) building up Pielke’s credibility through the use of some fancy titles 2) Again conflating scientific consensus with partisan ideology.
There are two problems with this argument. First, Pielke is not an eminent climate change scholar, regardless of your best efforts to make him seem otherwise. You want titles? I want research credentials. Pielke has a PhD in political science(!) and he is nowhere to be found on lists of top cited climate scholars. So from my perspective, if he wants to go against the established view, it is perfectly rational that he should encounter criticism from those who have contributed considerably more than he.
Second, Paul Krugman’s criticism is ostensibly based on his reading of the scientific consensus on climate change, which does agree with liberal concerns. To my knowledge, the right has rejected this consensus wholesale for most of the previous decade.
Therefore, deviating from the left’s position involves rejecting scientific consensus, deviating from the right involves rejecting ideology. So really you are talking apples and oranges.
So no, criticizing a poser climate scientist for making a BS argument not supported by empirical evidence does not equate to what would happen to Sean Hannity if he deviated from his conservative talking points.
Bob…I love the way you debate…
Thank you. But your approach is excellent as well: Define Krugman’s stances as scientific, and those who oppose him as anti-science. Then–voila! Krugman and his side are right, and his opponents are morons.
There is no possible way to combat this. You are allowed, for example, to make up stuff about Pielke’s position, and shake it off. Krugman is allowed to say his views are “saving the planet.” No problem, we all know what he means.
Bob, don’t you believe there are at least some cases in which you should put less credibility in a scientist if their views contradict the overwhelming majority of scientists in the field? For instance, don’t you think we should put less stock in the view of a scientist who rejects the well-accepted theory that smoking causes cancer?
If we put ten rapists in a room with one woman. Should we ignore her objections in the favor of the consensus?
No no no, we only appeal to the consensus to give our own convictions an appearance of having more truth value.
Keshav wants us to listen to the consensus when the consensus agrees. It is why he proposed the silly criteria that Bob should listen to the consensus for SOME things…not saying what, but we all know it is “What I, Keshav, believe.”
You’re saying that to an Austrian economist?
Also, this may shock you, but new scientific truths that are discovered are almost always antagonistic towards the general consensus and status quo. That is the nature of human beings being separate and distinct entitites from the rest of the population. Scientific knowledge does not spread evenly.
Stop insinuating the absurd notion that ideas that contradict the general consensus is false or likely wrong merely because it is not in line with the general consensus. It is so absurd in fact, that logicians went out of their way to explain why it is an argumentative fallacy called ad populum.
Your example of smoking doesn’t serve the purpose of showing a case where a person is wrong by virtue of going against the general consensus. That is a case where going against what has a very solid scientific foundation makes one likely wrong. The consensus is a separate question.
“Your example of smoking doesn’t serve the purpose of showing a case where a person is wrong by virtue of going against the general consensus. That is a case where going against what has a very solid scientific foundation makes one likely wrong. The consensus is a separate question.”
But the average layperson hasn’t examined the underlying research, so by default what should they assume about who is more credible a source on the link between smoking and cancer?
What about in say, 1930, when the general consensus was that smoking was a perfectly acceptable part of a healthy lifestyle, that might even have some physical benefits!
If some dude came along and said, “Hey, I don’t think this is right. I’ve done a lot of research and smoking is pretty unhealthy.”
Should the “average layperson” ignore this man, because obviously if he had any merits, the consensus would be on his side? Should he attempt to shout this man down exclaiming that the science is settled, and declare this man to be anti-science?
What about in say, 1930, when the general consensus was that smoking was a perfectly acceptable part of a healthy lifestyle, that might even have some physical benefits!
If some dude came along and said, “Hey, I don’t think this is right. I’ve done a lot of research and smoking is pretty unhealthy.”
Should the “average layperson” ignore this man, because obviously if he had any merits, the consensus would be on his side?
Yes, actually.
“But the average layperson hasn’t examined the underlying research, so by default what should they assume about who is more credible a source on the link between smoking and cancer?”
They should not believe the consensus on the basis that it is simply the consensus.
They should instead come to a conclusion of what’s true based on their own reason.
Keshav wrote:
For instance, don’t you think we should put less stock in the view of a scientist who rejects the well-accepted theory that smoking causes cancer?
Sure. And what would we think of people who repeatedly used hypothetical examples like this, to refer to a scientist who accepted the well-accepted theory that smoking causes cancer, but merely disagreed that (say) a hike in the cigarette tax would pass a cost/benefit test? That if people who were in favor of such a tax kept implying that this scientist disagreed with the consensus that smoking causes cancer?
I would start being really skeptical of these people, wouldn’t you?
… don’t you believe there are at least some cases in which you should put less credibility in a scientist if their views contradict the overwhelming majority of scientists in the field?
This will leave you reeling:
The Lying Liars Who Lie About Psychiatry
http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rappoport/rappoport26.1.html
He blew the whistle on himself and his colleagues. And for 2 years, almost no one noticed.
His name is Dr. Allen Frances, and he made VERY interesting statements to Gary Greenberg, author of a Wired article: “Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness.” (Dec.27, 2010).
Major media never picked up on the interview in any serious way. It never became a scandal.
Dr. Allen Frances is the man who, in 1994, headed up the project to write the latest edition of the psychiatric bible, the DSM-IV. This tome defines and labels and describes every official mental disorder. The DSM-IV eventually listed 297 of them.
…
Long after the DSM-IV had been put into print, Dr. Frances talked to Wired’s Greenberg and said the following:
Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness
http://www.wired.com/2010/12/ff_dsmv/all/
… “there is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bullshit. I mean, you just can’t define it.” Then an odd, reflective look crosses his face, as if he’s taking in the strangeness of this scene: Allen Frances, lead editor of the fourth edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (universally known as the DSM-IV), the guy who wrote the book on mental illness, confessing that “these concepts are virtually impossible to define precisely with bright lines at the boundaries.”
…
“We made mistakes that had terrible consequences,” he says. Diagnoses of autism, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, and bipolar disorder skyrocketed, and Frances thinks his manual inadvertently facilitated these epidemics—and, in the bargain, fostered an increasing tendency to chalk up life’s difficulties to mental illness and then treat them with psychiatric drugs.
“Bob, don’t you believe there are at least some cases in which you should put less credibility in a scientist if their views contradict the overwhelming majority of scientists in the field? ”
In what capacity?
If you are interested in science, you read his science.
Keshav,
You introduce a very illustrative thought experiment.
“For instance, don’t you think we should put less stock in the view of a scientist who rejects the well-accepted theory that smoking causes cancer?”
First off, the answer is “no,” science and believing scientists are not the same thing.
Second, we see almost the exact same problem illustrated by the recent study showing second-hand smoke is far less harmful than the previous “consensus.”
The question that keeps getting thrown up was whether passive smoking causes cancer and the answer is (to the limits of our measurement) no it does not.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100251229/passive-smoking-another-of-the-nanny-states-big-lies/
I would be tempted to say you don’t have to combat it. The Global Warming community have already sucked pretty close to all the credibility out of the scientific establishment than can be sucked. Over time it kind of sorts itself out, people are not dumb.
Sadly, there’s a chance that the same people might forget that science is a method, not a certificate… but I have faith in the basic principle of what happens, is what happens.
Pielke is not an eminent climate change scholar, regardless of your best efforts to make him seem otherwise. You want titles? I want research credentials. Pielke has a PhD in political science(!) and he is nowhere to be found on lists of top cited climate scholars.
Climate change involves not just matters of atmospheric physics, but also issues of economics, politics, etc., and it’s perfectly natural that people writing and working in those areas would be economists and political scientists, rather than climate scientists.
A recent IPCC report on climate change and extreme weather cited Pielke’s work 43 times.
“To my knowledge, the right has rejected this consensus wholesale for most of the previous decade.”
You have already been informed of your error and yet continue to use this incorrect statement.
“Therefore, deviating from the left’s position involves rejecting scientific consensus, deviating from the right involves rejecting ideology. So really you are talking apples and oranges.”
Again, we agree with the fact that humans contribute to climate change. We do not agree about how much our activities contribute. Your refusal to acknowledge this fact is very telling of you, and your credentials.
“Again, we agree with the fact that humans contribute to climate change. We do not agree about how much our activities contribute. Your refusal to acknowledge this fact is very telling of you, and your credentials.”
This is a pretty slippery argument…I mean really what’s the difference between “Humans don’t contribute to climate change” versus “Humans contribute to .0001% of climate change….but hey at least I’m acknowledging climate change!”
Nice straw man, clown.
Dan wrote:
This is a pretty slippery argument…I mean really what’s the difference between “Humans don’t contribute to climate change” versus “Humans contribute to .0001% of climate change….but hey at least I’m acknowledging climate change!”
Dan, just for kicks, you should try an experiment where you only attack positions that are actually held by your opponents.
For example, I can provide you the link to where Krugman literally said his policies constitute “saving the planet” and that’s why he doesn’t care about inefficiencies from reducing trade. I could* also give you plenty of examples of Joe Romm saying completely off the wall stuff that the latest IPCC report would not endorse.
Thus far you haven’t bothered to show us exactly what Pielke has said that is so wrong. You made up a position and attributed it to him, but Josiah corrected you.
And now you are making up another position and attributing it to “my side.”
This is rather odd behavior from the guy who has science on his side.
* NOTE: I “could” do so with Romm, but I won’t actually do it, because I haven’t read him in a while and I don’t think you are really here for openminded debate. The Krugman one I can get you in 30 seconds.
Dan,
So I guess you reject all the claims of the non-climate economists and social scientists who believe the government should act politically, due to “social cost of carbon”
Krugman has a degree in economics, not climate science.
So obviously he should shut his ignorant mouth and not comment on things that are so clearly beyond his understanding.
Krugman has a degree in economics, not climate science.
So obviously he should shut his ignorant mouth and not comment on things that are so clearly beyond his understanding.
Well, in fairness, Dan isn’t saying that Krugman is more qualified than Pielke to assert things about climate science. Rather, Dan is claiming that Krugman is merely repeating what the truly qualified scientists are saying, and that they differ from what Pielke is saying.
“truly qualified scientists” argue with each other all the time. It’s almost like they are married. It’s called “science.” Sometimes they even do it for ad hominem or just to make themselves feel superior- but not because they are pursuing truth in those cases, but because science, like everything, has principle-agenct problems.
For example, in the “things actually heard in “science”” file:
“I don’t understand why you are interested in neurons”
“The first rule is to leave them wanting more” (as if “science” is theater…which it is)
“I know those are the results, but nobody will buy it”
“Yes, he did all the work, but he’s not here anymore, so we don’t need to cite him.”
So, yeah, I can understand how sometimes just doing science makes you seem like you are anti-science…to people who don’t understand science.
I thought this was funny comment illustrating the mindset.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/mar/25/fivethirtyeight-misrepresents-climate-change-research
“Looking for counter-intuitive results in the data doesn’t work well in areas like climate science, where the experts have already done a better and more thorough job of analyzing the data.”
So, climate is beyond reproach, not because it is politicized, but because climate science is uniquely thorough…because…?
There is a lot of “no true Scotsman” when it comes to whether you qualify as an actual climate scientist.
The Klein essay tells you why, when a problem presents you with a counterintuitive answer, you dig deeper.
Then you find out things about Pielke or some other climate scientist that make you doubt him.
But, it’s probably a form of confirmation bias, because you didn’t dig into the researchers that told you what you wanted to hear.
Did you believe “the consensus” that housing was a great investment and thus government should get involved to double-down on housing?
The question is not whether you “believe the consensus” it is how the consensus came to be the consensus.
Q: “what’s the difference between “Humans don’t contribute to climate change” versus “Humans contribute to .0001% of climate change”
A: .0001%
Can we be sure Dan 1 isn’t just cleverly using the guise of Dan 2 to illustrate Krugman’s and other progressives’ lack of irony on this subject?
Your claim has only 0.0001% probability of being true.
test comment
my previous 2 comments aren’t showing up
Ha, so it looks like comments with links to Arnold Kling’s blog get eaten. I’ve put the link I wanted to post in the Website field now, so you can click my name to visit the link.
WordPress sucks.
If you post multiple links in a comment then it has to be approved before it shows up.
In this case, just a single link.
You said something factual.
I’m not the Dan that was talking a bunch of nonsense. I’m the anarchist “Dan” that has been commenting here for 4 or 5 years.
Sorry.
I’m kind of surprised nobody has posted this yet (some swearing):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22bo6CKJcJM
to be clear, I’m not making an argument with this. It’s just funny.