

Krugman on the Climate Change Conspiracy - onlyafly
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29krugman.html?em

======
jswinghammer
I'll never understand why those who argue that there's such a serious problem
with climate change also seem to not want to debate the topic much. If this is
just a matter of science then shouldn't the facts speak loudly enough that
those who argue to the contrary wouldn't have much to say at all? And why all
the pressure to force through this issue through Congress without proper time
for review? Weren't Democrats mad about it when Bush did that for the Patriot
Act? I think they were correct in this objection but now they don't seem to
mind as much.

I don't know if Krugman is right or wrong about climate change but one thing
is pretty clear to me: If you're arguing about science using words like
treason and betrayal is out of line.

I'd be interested to know if someone who believes that global warming is
something that requires our immediate attention can explain why arguing
against it so dangerous.

~~~
Retric
_seem to not want to debate the topic much_

Let's say you are a pilot in an airplane at 30,000 feet and the fuel gage
reads 20 minutes from empty. For how long are you willing to debate with your
copilot that we need to declare an emergency and land right now? What if the
gage is just broken and you think you have 20 minutes of fuel left?

At some point people that feel there is a problem will want to act. And the
global worming debate is 20+ years old.

PS: "IPCC First Assessment Report 1990" The panel was established in 1988. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific
intergovernmental body[1][2] tasked to evaluate the risk of climate change
caused by human activity.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_First_Assessment_Report>

~~~
nazgulnarsil
right, but immediate death isn't on the line. a decrease in our standard of
living over the next 50 years is on the line. since spending billions of
dollars decreases our standard of living as well there is a valid debate:
which course decreases our standard of living less?

~~~
Retric
You can also slow boil a lobster without causing them to react.

The trick is to react soon enough that the change is minor without over
reacting and that's hard. I would propose a ~1% carbon fuel tax which funds
wind farms which are then sold on the open market. You end up with a huge
change at a small cost.

Option 2, create an semi independent government agency like the post office
which takes 1 billion and builds wind / solar / hydro power plants. Use the
"profit" of electricity sold to build more power plants and let exponential
growth take off. This depends on the expected rate of return and could be
accelerated with some debt financing.

In 20 years we may find it was pointless but we will have built infrastructure
which is useful. Compared to a 2,980 billion dollar annual federal budget you
can get a lot done with a change that's hard for most people to notice.

~~~
nazgulnarsil
how do we know what infrastructure will be useful in 20 years? we have a
solution now, nuclear, we're just too stupid to actually use it.

~~~
Retric
_what infrastructure will be useful in 20 years_

I expect we will still have wind in 20 years and using infrastructure to turn
wind into electricity seems obvious. The other real advantages to wind farms
is you get energy sooner and it is simpler to scale exponentially. AKA
1billion wind farm = 50 mil profit and next year you have 1.05 billion wind
farm which makes a 5.25 million profit so you now have a 1.125 billion wind
farm next year... You can do similar things with debt financing, but that's
higher risk.

Not to mention a smaller Not In My Back Yard problem. I consider oil mostly a
done deal, we are going to burn most of the cheep oil because it's just so
useful. But there is far more coal luckily it's far simpler to replace coal
power plants than oil in cars / boats. We are also close to the tipping point
where the free market is going to switch to wind on it's own, because it's
cheaper.

~~~
nazgulnarsil
if "green" energy was profitable why would you need to subsidize it? people
would do it voluntarily.

~~~
Retric
The profit from "green" energy needs to exceed the interest on the loan it
takes to build it. Today the loans are still slightly more costly than the
profit. It's like 5.9% profit vs 6% cost of a loan. The math get's complex as
you need to take into account inflation, the rate of depreciation of your
assets, and taxes.

This magnifies the amount of wind farm you can build today. If you had a
billion and wanted to donate it to "clean energy" then you could get a loan
for 5 billion in wind farms and use your billion to make up the difference. By
the time the loan was paid off you would still have some money, but far less
than if you had invested it well.

If on the other hand you a billion dollars and built a wind farm without
borrowing money then you can keep expanding indefinitely. You would still have
less profit but there would be little risk.

PS: With subsidy it is profitable today which is why we are building so many
wind farms, but that's just the government handing out money.

------
pjkundert
> Climate change poses a clear and present danger to our way of life. How can
> anyone justify failing to act?

Virtually complete predictive failure over the better part of the last decade.
How can anyone justify acting?

~~~
SamAtt
For the most part I agree with you. But I'm a big believer in "better safe
than sorry" and in that spirit I'd like to see some sensible change. The
problem with an extreme position like "the world is going to end" is it makes
those who don't agree with you instinctively jump to the opposite extreme.

The truth is the United States had been steadily making progress on reducing
our impact on the planet all the way through the Clinton administration. It
was only when the Global Warming nuts popped up that the Conservative side
felt the need to throw on the brakes.

Now we have two irrational extreme's competing against each other.

~~~
TrevorJ
I think the likelihood that one of our 'solutions' creates a greater problem
than we had in the first place needs to be factored into the risk/reward
analysis.

------
hvs
Krugman should take his own words to heart when it comes to economics.

    
    
      But if you watched the debate on Friday, you didn’t see 
      people who’ve thought hard about a crucial issue, and are 
      trying to do the right thing. What you saw, instead, were 
      people who show no sign of being interested in the truth. 
      They don’t like the political and policy implications of 
      climate change, so they’ve decided not to believe in it — 
      and they’ll grab any argument, no matter how disreputable, 
      that feeds their denial.
    

This exactly describes the way he treats any free-market argument.

~~~
gabrielroth
If that's true, you should have no problem posting an example rather than just
asserting.

------
rmason
Krugman can't be taken seriously. To call opponents "deniers" is to
immediately concede a rational discussion.

I heard the hysterical arguments in college back in the early seventies about
global cooling. This group is no more legimate, but much savvier politically.

------
TriinT
Krugman is a _dismal scientist_ (a.k.a. economist), not a _real_ scientist.
His pedantry and demagogy are too much to bear. He can't even predict the
effects of economic policy and now he's trying to predict the weather? What
next?

Contrary to popular belief, the ice caps are not shriking all the time. Sure,
they were shrinking really fast some years ago, and everyone went hysterical
because of the rising sea levels and drowning polar bears. But when the ice
caps started growing again, no one said a thing. If that isn't cherry-picking,
I don't know what is.

~~~
quoderat
Your data is wrong. Did you even bother to check?

[http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic_thinice.htm...](http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic_thinice.html)

"Until recently, the majority of Arctic sea ice survived at least one summer
and often several. But things have changed dramatically, according to a team
of University of Colorado, Boulder, scientists led by Charles Fowler. Thin
seasonal ice -- ice that melts and re-freezes every year -- makes up about 70
percent of the Arctic sea ice in wintertime, up from 40 to 50 percent in the
1980s and 1990s. Thicker ice, which survives two or more years, now comprises
just 10 percent of wintertime ice cover, down from 30 to 40 percent.

According to researchers from the National Snow and Ice Data Center in
Boulder, Colo., the maximum sea ice extent for 2008-09, reached on Feb. 28,
was 5.85 million square miles. That is 278,000 square miles less than the
average extent for 1979 to 2000."

And yep, parts (but only parts) of the Antarctic ice cap are growing -- but
guess why? Warmer air creating more snowfall.

You people are hopeless. Data, facts, evidence -- none of it sways you. It's
like some religion.

~~~
TriinT
Funny, but the data I had told a rather different story. Gonna look for the
URLs to back it up and I will be right back.

 _"None of it sways you"_ -> please spare me of your attacks. They don't add
anything to the discussion and they only weaken your point.

~~~
mlinsey
Why are your attacks on Krugman more constructive than the GP's attacks on
you? Because Krugman isn't posting here?

~~~
TriinT
Because Krugman is intellectually dishonest and because he's a public figure.
His opinions shape the thoughts of the population. Nobody reads my opinions.
Thank goodness I am no public figure.

If you're going to address the public, you should be honest. Krugman is an
economist. He constantly sells half-baked, hand-waving arguments as absolute
truths. And this is not because he's a "liberal". The same happens with all
the "conservative" economists who also write dishonest articles.

Economics is hard. Very hard. An "expert" who tells the public he does not
know will be frowned upon. But that's the point: experts don't know
everything, and should not claim to know more than they do.

Greenspan himself wrote that when he ran the Fed sometimes they were
completely "lost" and made decisions based more on gut-feeling than solid
economic theory. Greenspan is pretty much retired now, so he can afford to be
frank. Krugman still has a career, so he can't afford that.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
_An "expert" who tells the public he does not know will be frowned upon. But
that's the point: experts don't know everything, and should not claim to know
more than they do._

This is the tension in science. You take all of that schooling, and for what?
To admit you're as stumped as everybody else?

I mean seriously, when is the last time you saw a science show where they
basically said "Beats me"? Instead it's all upbeat and glossed over.

The way we sell science and actual state of science are two completely
different things.

~~~
TriinT
Science shows are entertainment, mostly. Their goal is to promote Science, and
I think they do their job well.

I have had the priviledge of working with some truly top-notch scientists. A
common trait among them is how honest they were on the limitations of their
knowledge. They were not afraid to say they were wrong, or that they didn't
know.

This was in their academic environment. I don't know if they would be that
honest when addressing the public. The average person would probably not be
able to understand how's it possible that an illustrious professor has spent
his entire career studying elementary particles and is still baffled by them.
That is due to the fact that the average person does not know what deep
knowledge is, and does not need to know.

