New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, a former advisor to cap-and-trade pusher Enron, claims Republicans are anti-science because they don’t believe in the manmade global warming hypothesis.
But isn’t it anti-science to expect scientists to support a hypothesis merely because some (or even many or most) do? When I was in college and graduate school, my professors proved laws, theorems etc. from first principles — not by simply asserting that a consensus of belief exists.
Also offensive is the notion that unless you are a paid climate researcher, your views on extant climate science (like those who signed the Petition Project) don’t count. But you don’t need to be Steven Spielberg to be a movie critic.
That is the same Paul Krugman that said that a good war would help the economy. He is about as good an economist as he is a scientist.
Playing the “partisanship” card and the “anti-science” card in the same hand is weak – they are from completely different suits.
I am more concerned about the self-declared ‘scientists’ whose actions betray a flagrant disregard for the scientific method and peer-review protocols.
The partisan bickering is as old as democracy, and they are both on the same page; Heinlein identified them as “those who want people to be controlled.”
Nice post. This is quite true that the man made is responsible for the global warming.
What else do you expect from the Daily Worker, oh I mean the NYT.
I’m an engineer in Aviation. Was wondering how comfortable Mr Krugman would be flying on an aircraft that was deemed airworthy through a concensus of those who profit from that assessment instead of professionals who use established scientific principles to ensure the safety of the aircraft.
Paul Krugman isn’t qualified to comment on any Science, He simply isn’t a Scientist, even if he calls himself a Socialist Economist. Such a combination is a contradiction in terms, as real as Jumbo Shrimp.
I am a practicing scientist, and have been for more than 50 years. I find it offensive to be told that I cannot be a Republican if I so choose. And I was teaching about a warming Earth before Krugman was born. But I am enough of a scientist to be able to differentiate between hard data and computer model projections. Krugman is not a scientist, so is not in a position to make either scientific judgements, nor to judge scientists. Dealing with “Environmentalists” is more vexing than dealing with “Creations Scientists”.