Nobel Prize Winning Economist Weighs In On Climate Science

The same Nobel Prize winning economist who predicted the worldwide, permanent Trump recession and market crash – now says President Trump is destroying the climate.

Paul Krugman: The Economic Fallout

It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover?

Frankly, I find it hard to care much, even though this is my specialty. The disaster for America and the world has so many aspects that the economic ramifications are way down my list of things to fear.

Still, I guess people want an answer: If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never.

Having demonstrated spectacular incompetence in his Nobel Prize winning field, Krugman and the New York Times have moved on to blaming weather related deaths on President Trump.

Opinion | Donald and the Deadly Deniers – The New York Times

There is nothing the left hates more than competence and success, and nothing they love more than arrogant frauds who will say anything to keep their dream of global communism alive.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

50 Responses to Nobel Prize Winning Economist Weighs In On Climate Science

  1. sunsettommy says:

    He has been this way for a long time, amazed that he still has 100 readers for his columns.

    • Louis Hooffstetter says:

      I agree.
      Both Paul Krugman and Thomas Friedman have been crackpots for quite a while. I have no idea why anyone listens to either of them anymore.

      • R Shearer says:

        Yes. He said this in 1998. “The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in ‘Metcalfe’s law’—which states that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the square of the number of participants—becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other! By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s.”

        • Johansen says:

          The New York Times has earnings of 0.25 percent. Not 25%…. just 0.25%.
          $4mm earnings on revenues of $1.6B.
          They are largely controlled by an international narco-criminal who has signed the death warrants of god knows how many people.
          It’s not so much a NEWSpaper, as it is a criminal organization. So Mr. Krugman is evidently perfectly happy using all his supposed talents serving that kind of master

  2. Gator says:

    Krugman is projecting…

    We got 30 of the world’s best economists, three in each area. So we have three of world’s top economists write about climate change. What can we do? What will be the cost and what will be the benefit of that? Likewise in communicable diseases. Three of the world’s top experts saying, what can we do? What would be the price? What should we do about it, and what will be the outcome? And so on.

    Then we had some of the world’s top economists, eight of the world’s top economists, including three Nobel Laureates, meet in Copenhagen in May 2004. We called them the “dream team.” The Cambridge University prefects decided to call them the Real Madrid of economics. That works very well in Europe, but it doesn’t really work over here. And what they basically did was come out with a prioritized list. And then you ask, why economists? And of course, I’m very happy you asked that question — (Laughter) — because that’s a very good question. The point is, of course, if you want to know about malaria, you ask a malaria expert. If you want to know about climate, you ask a climatologist. But if you want to know which of the two you should deal with first, you can’t ask either of them, because that’s not what they do. That is what economists do. They prioritize. They make that in some ways disgusting task of saying, which one should we do first, and which one should we do afterwards?

    These were the bad projects. As you might see the bottom of the list was climate change. This offends a lot of people, and that’s probably one of the things where people will say I shouldn’t come back, either. And I’d like to talk about that, because that’s really curious. Why is it it came up? And I’ll actually also try to get back to this because it’s probably one of the things that we’ll disagree with on the list that you wrote down.

    The reason why they came up with saying that Kyoto — or doing something more than Kyoto — is a bad deal is simply because it’s very inefficient. It’s not saying that global warming is not happening. It’s not saying that it’s not a big problem. But it’s saying that what we can do about it is very little, at a very high cost. What they basically show us, the average of all macroeconomic models, is that Kyoto, if everyone agreed, would cost about 150 billion dollars a year. That’s a substantial amount of money. That’s two to three times the global development aid that we give the Third World every year. Yet it would do very little good. All models show it will postpone warming for about six years in 2100. So the guy in Bangladesh who gets a flood in 2100 can wait until 2106. Which is a little good, but not very much good. So the idea here really is to say, well, we’ve spent a lot of money doing a little good.

    And just to give you a sense of reference, the U.N. actually estimate that for half that amount, for about 75 billion dollars a year, we could solve all major basic problems in the world. We could give clean drinking water, sanitation, basic healthcare and education to every single human being on the planet. So we have to ask ourselves, do we want to spend twice the amount on doing very little good? Or half the amount on doing an amazing amount of good? And that is really why it becomes a bad project. It’s not to say that if we had all the money in the world, we wouldn’t want to do it. But it’s to say, when we don’t, it’s just simply not our first priority.

    http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities/transcript?language=en

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs

  3. Pathway says:

    Krugman is that crazy uncle you lock in the basement when the neighbors come calling.

    • Robertv says:

      Sadly for most people it’s Tony Heller who is that crazy ‘climate denier’ uncle you lock in the basement when the neighbors come calling.

      And all the money printing made government even bigger. Economically it is the worst thing they could have done.

      • Adam says:

        I guess, then, you don’t understand the scientific method. That, or you simply have contempt for it. Sad.

        • spike55 says:

          Ok Adam, please present empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.

          Show us this scientific method y’all know so much about.

          When real scientific method is applied to the AGW scam.. the scam has no clothes.

        • Gator says:

          The only group that holds the Scientific Method in contempt is the Chirch of Climanumerology. Skeptics honor the method, which is exactly why we are skeptics.

      • tonyheller says:

        I have never been called anything like that. Leftists who know me seem to like me, and those haven’t met me seem to be scared of me.

  4. arn says:

    Trump failed to destroy economy and he is gonna fail to destroy climate-
    born Loser.

    (though i have some serious problem to understand why Trump is blamed for things CO2 has been blamed for the last 3 decades :)
    And which climate is he going to destroy?
    The already destroyed climate with everchanging goalposts.
    The climate that Obama saved?
    The real climate that can not be destroyed that always changed and always will.
    The threatening climate of the 70ies that was about to bring us a new ice age and that is identical to the climate we have now which is supposed to bring global warming.
    And why should we try to preserve the ice age climate of the 70ies.

    Destroy the climate once and forever-
    as soon as we reach this point(we already reached several times) there is nothing more we can do about it.

  5. John F. Hultquist says:

    Krugman, as I recall, got an award for plagiarizing what the practitioners of “economic geography” had been writing for about 150 years. ( See: American Geographical Society )
    I haven’t paid any attention since I investigated his award about 5 years ago; when I first heard his name.

    • Sharpshooter says:

      His Nobel was for International trade.
      His spouting on other aspects of economics is akin to a hokey (stick) commentator trying to do a broadcast of golf tournament.

  6. And this gem:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/18/climate/moose-ticks.html

    Moose ticks caused by climate change. No evidence cited

  7. Taphonomic says:

    Please, let’s be precise. Krugman won the The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. This is NOT a Nobel prize. Krugman is as much a Nobel prize winner as Michael Mann is.

    • Phil. says:

      Please, let’s be precise. Krugman won the The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. This is NOT a Nobel prize.

      However, it is administered and referred to along with the Nobel Prizes by the Nobel Foundation. Also laureates are announced along with the Nobel Prize laureates, and receive the award at the same ceremony. That’s why in the public mind it is associated with the Nobel Prizes.
      If you watch the Nobel Prize ceremony you’ll see the prize winner for economics sat in the same row of seats as the other laureates and referred to by the commentator as the Laureate in Economics,
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Sy3Vp7DNpE

      • spike55 says:

        SO WHAT.

        Whoever “decided” on the prize must have been swayed by Kruggy’s mindless yapping

        ie leftist dumb idiots… like most of these so-called prizes.

        Not on merit, but on ideology

        He has been proven WRONG in basically every prediction he has ever made.

        You must be his love child, to actually defend his INEPTITUDE and IGNORANCE….

      • Taphonomic says:

        And yet it is not a Nobel. You can associate a turd with a rose but that won’t make a flower.

        • RAH says:

          Unless we’re talking science the Nobel is a turd also IMO. Only in the realm of the hard sciences do I believe the Nobel prize is worthy of note. The rest is pure leftist political and has been for a quite a while.

        • Taphonomic, your nitpicking is ridiculous:

          The economics prize was not part of Alfred Nobel’s donation, it was funded by someone else in the 1960s.

          So what?

          The prize is administered by the same Nobel organization,
          and they call it a “Nobel prize”, and the winner gets a huge amount of money too — something like $900,000, the last time I looked.

          That’s as close to
          a “real” Nobel prize
          as you could get.

          If they gave me $900,000,
          I wouldn’t care if they
          called it the
          Englebert Lipshitz Prize.

    • GummansGubbe says:

      The banksters are pretty desperate in their attempts to include it into the Nobel prizes. Articles with wording like this helps those attempts.

      And the irony in extreme is that if they had gotten their will after Alfred Nobel’s death, there would never have been any Nobel prizes. The Swedish king even visited Alfred Nobel at his home in Karlskoga in order to stop the project.

      If in Sweden it is worth making a detour there.

      • Johansen says:

        hmmm… did not know that GummansGubbe.
        The story of Nobel is quite interesting, though; as is the development of nitrate-based explosives in the 1800’s. All you need is a little cotton and nitric acid and you can make all kinds of interesting explosives (and plastics) and keep students interested in chemistry

  8. Robertv says:

    Maybe it is much wiser to listen to people who know a little bit of climate.

    2018 Annual GWPF Lecture – Prof Richard Lindzen – Global Warming For The Two Cultures

  9. Squidly says:

    Tony, the worst of it is, there is actually no such thing as a Nobel Prize in Economics. It is called the “The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences”

    But, ever since Krugman was awarded this prize, they have declared him as a “Nobel Laureate” .. and a “Winner of The Nobel Prize in Economics” … which is technically false. While the Riksbank Prize was created in the memory of Alfred Nobel, it is not a “Nobel Prize”.

    Just another fun little factoid that illustrates how the left likes to alter and mold language to fit their narratives. They are masters at reinventing language. That is why people refer to them as “Liberals” when they are about the furthest thing away from “Liberalism” … they are in fact Facists .. which is why they cozy up to the “ANTIFA” groups, which are fascist and falsely labeled themselves. ANTIFA is a product of the Weimar Republic, they were Communists that fought the NAZI’s for power in Germany. They are the very definition of “fascism”. … and just another example of the left reinventing language. Down is Up, Bad is Good, War is Peace, etc… etc…

    • Sharpshooter says:

      +1000

    • Squigley
      you’re a
      DING DING DING
      bat.

      The Nobel organization
      awarded the prize.

      They commonly call it the
      “The Nobel Memorial Prize
      in Economic Sciences”.

      And the winner gets
      about $900,000.

      So the common name:
      “Nobel Prize in Economics”,
      is close enough to being accurate.

      Except for nitpickers like you.

      Why don’t you criticize
      some of the many
      wrong predictions
      of the prize winners instead?

      • Johansen says:

        $900,000 minus Federal and State income taxes equals $450,000, about the price of an 800 square foot home

        • Phil. says:

          At current exchange rates it’s worth about $1million, in Princeton, where Krugman was a professor at the time of the award, after tax that would get you rather better than a 800 sq ft home.
          Also the US is the only country that taxes Nobel prizes.

  10. gregole says:

    Let’s not lose sight of the fact that even though Krugman is pretty much wrong about everything right now; he was also wrong about everything in years past.

    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/krugmans-bad-predictions

  11. John Farnham says:

    ” President Trump is destroying the climate.” Another sentence with zero meaning. Perhaps it should be nominated as DoubleSpeak.

    • Former95B says:

      Did anyone else equate the protestors at and after the Kavanaugh hearings/swearing in with the Two Minute Hate in Orwell’s “Nineteen eighty-four”?

  12. Psalmon says:

    Ocasio Cortez makes the argument that the US battle Global Warming the same way it did Nazi Germany.

    https://twitter.com/LionelMedia/status/1053552021515788289

    Societies that expend all their resources against imaginary problems end up destroyed with only remnants of their obsessions left behind to warn future generations…

    • Psalmon says:

      What O-C’s future “100% renewable energy” looks like…

      • Psalmon says:

        Anyone notice the similarity 500 years later?

      • gregole says:

        Excellent photographic examples; and I’ve been saying this for some time – that these wind turbines are the equivalent of Easter Island Moas.

        Wind turbines are a religious icon, a symbolic embodiment of a public fetish over purity and spiritual (i.e. imagined) regeneration.

        You do realize they contribute nothing to consumable public energy since all public energy is conveyed via electrical grids. Wind turbines contribute precisely nothing but noise to the grid. A (preferably) gas plant has to be at the ready 24/7/365 to kick in the minute the winds stop. Many technical discussions are available (search, don’t G%%gle “duck curve”) on line.

        • Gator says:

          You too can now wear the symbol of your faith on a delicate chain, for all the world to see. Talk about your virtue signaling! Praise Maria and Gaia!

          • gregole says:

            Gator,
            Excuse me while I ….
            Oh I feel better now.

            And imagine the distant future, if mankind has one, when archeologists dig up this little icon. They’ll say, “The windmills were a sort of religious icon, a primitive fetish foisted on the ignorant masses by a priestly class of elites.”

        • Johansen says:

          Gregole….. good point, there’s a lot going on with a 3 phase AC power grid. Every wind turbine is out of phase with every other wind turbine, and with the grid as a whole, and the wind-supply doesn’t track with the peak loads on a grid, either. PV panels produce DC power, not AC. Of course all these things can be overcome thru the use of inverters and correcting the phase from 100’s of turbines in each and every wind farm, but this represents a lot of added complexity.
          Without huge tax credits (not tax deductions…. tax CREDITS…) you probably wouldn’t see even one turbine being erected

        • Johansen says:

          That’s why you need utility-sized batteries, or flow-batteries, or some other method of storage. These are expensive and don’t last forever. But… they’re being installed all over the place. I’m all for free enterprise

    • Weylan McAnally says:

      The really cool thing about the Easter Island Moas? Large hidden bodies are attached to those heads. The builders of these massive monolithic sculptures definitely had an obsession with that particular form.

      • Johansen says:

        Weylan, the one on the left doesn’t quite meet the smell test. Is it real? I would prefer a large, flat foundation; not a ‘column’. But I don’t know…

    • Ocasio-Cortez is
      a laughing hyena dingbat
      — it’s hard to believe
      she won any election.

      Trump says some dumb / wrong things,
      almost every day, in fact,
      but Ocasio-Cortez makes him
      seem like a genius.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *