Economics Nobel prize-winner Krugman now opinionates on EVERYTHING under the sun from the pages of the NY Times. In his 28 June Op-Ed Betraying the Planet he says of the no-votes on the recent House climate change bill: “And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet.”
As a climate change “skeptic” myself I say Krugman could be accused of inciting to riot or shouting FIRE in a crowded theater. He cites a recent study: “Thus researchers at M.I.T., who were previously predicting a temperature rise of a little more than 4 degrees by the end of this century, are now predicting a rise of more than 9 degrees.” I Bing’d\Googled and found the study announcement here: Climate change odds much worse than thought.
As the announcement notes:
”Prinn stresses that the computer models are built to match the known conditions, processes and past history of the relevant human and natural systems, and the researchers are therefore dependent on the accuracy of this current knowledge. Beyond this, "we do the research, and let the results fall where they may," he says. Since there are so many uncertainties, especially with regard to what human beings will choose to do and how large the climate response will be, "we don’t pretend we can do it accurately. Instead, we do these 400 runs and look at the spread of the odds."
"…the spread of the odds” based on computer models. I feel SOOOO much better. Computer modeling in previous climate change predictions have been proven to be inaccurate. Are we to believe they are better now? As a former computer programmer my peers and I always said computers do exactly what you tell them to. The problem is they are programmed by humans, who are known to make mistakes.
Climatologist Roy W. Spencer refutes the MIT study here: The MIT Global Warming Gamble. He notes:
“Of course, as readers of this web site will know, the MIT results are totally dependent upon the climate sensitivity that was assumed in the climate model runs that formed the basis for their calculations. And climate modelers can get just about any level of warming they want by simply making a small change in the processes controlling climate sensitivity – especially cloud feedbacks — in those models.
So, since the sensitivity of the climate system is uncertain, these researchers followed the IPCC’s lead of using ‘statistical probability’ as a way of treating that uncertainty.
But as I have mentioned before, the use of statistical probabilities in this context is inappropriate. There is a certain climate sensitivity that exists in the real climate system, and it is true that we do not know exactly what that sensitivity is. But this does not mean that our uncertainty over its sensitivity can be translated into some sort of statistical probability.
The use of statistical probabilities by the IPCC and the MIT group does two misleading things: (1) it implies scientific precision where none exists, and (2) it implies the climate system’s response to any change is a “roll of the dice”.”
Hysteria-monger Krugman, he of the Al Gore\Nancy Pelosi school of “global warming is a settled science, don’t question it”, would better serve his fellow men and women by going back to reading Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek (neither of whom with which he probably agrees) and learning more about his own economic field of endeavor.
We cannot bankrupt this country or reset our standards back to the Stone Age based on inconclusive science we do not KNOW enough about, nor should we attempt “geo-engineering” in any form when even scientists on the climate change alarmist side say we CAN’T DO anything about it. No, we don’t have to “try” “something”.
Take a breath, remain calm, breathe… breathe… breathe… Ommmm… (Drift into peaceful meditative state. Mentally direct soothing energy toward Paul Krugman. Mentally direct the management of the NY Times to fire him. Ommmmm.)