29 June 2009

This is What Victory Looks Like?

In his column today, Paul Krugman goes nuts over the Waxman-Markey vote and equates voting against Waxman-Markey with being a "climate denier" and with committing "treason." In a spectacular display of intellectual incoherence, Krugman at once conflates views on science with views on politics (and vice versa) and fails to consider the possibility that there are many perfectly sound reasons to think that Waxman-Markey is a stinker of a bill.

Makes me think that I'd hate to see his reaction if the bill had lost.


  1. Roger, you can't have it both ways. If you think the bill is a "stinker" and a "travesty", because it's not effective enough, then you can't be criticizing Krugman for railing against those who voted against it based on faulty scientific or economic analysis. THAT's incoherent.

  2. I'm glad you saw this and pointed it out. I read it this morning and was shocked. Many of the comments are appalling as well. Several call for going after the no voters in several years and arresting them for treason against the planet.

    I guess no one has looked at the bill itself and reazlized how watered down it is due to the last minute wheeling and dealing of allowences.

    Apparently, being skeptical of models looking well into the future, is now considered treason. Even when the models thus far (though it is still early) have not kept up with observable data.

  3. I wasn't enchanted to be thought treasonous. I've been trying to come up to speed on this subject for months - maybe 200 hours of reading. I've learned the acronyms, and the "terms of art."

    These issues are neither simple nor obvious. I wonder how much time Paul K has devoted to this?

  4. This is the same kind of thing as we have seen previously- if you do not like this bill you are a denier and therefore against science.

    Rational people all know there are a variety of ways, and policy instruments, to combat climate change. This is handy for people who want the bill.. if you don't want it, you are bad.

    But it is all very silly. A good op-ed should be more than namecalling; there should be reason and as we say in administrative appeals "a link between facts found and conclusions drawn." When did civic dialogue become blood sport?

  5. geezz what a mess.

    But, as he has no Peer-Reviewed papers in any of the Approved Climate Science Journals, he's not a Certified Climatologist and thus what he has written is nothing more than meaningless words. They can be ignored, or, better yet, he can be openly ridiculed and his intelligence questioned.

    Yet another Meaningless Major Pronouncement by a non-Climatologist that will be openly accepted and applauded by those who otherwise are extremely quick to point out that all words written by non-Climatologists are to be ignored. Plus, they equally rapidly affix a label to the author.

    Krugman is a labeler, as shown in his rant. It seems that those who label are mostly the same people who denigrate those who are non-Climatologist. As of course it must be. The very act of invoking the non-Climatologist meme is an act of labeling.

  6. I wonder how Dr. Krugman feels about the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage restrictions in the final version of Waxman-Markey passed by the house. The final version, with the amendments collated in, is available here:


    By my count there are prevailing wage restriction in 5 places:
    page 103
    page 267
    Page 293
    page 548
    page 1024

    Davis-Bacon applies to projects as low as $2000. From what I read, Davis-Bacon can increase construction costs from 5% to 34%. They are also applying it to projects where the only Federal involvement is loan guarantees, like the Title XVII Loan Guarantee Program created by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 for nuclear power plant construction. How much is loan guarantee worth? Is it enough to accept Davis-Bacon for a project?

  7. Gotta love those pesky economists eh?