Krugman supports the global warming religion? Wow, what a surprise. He's been wrong about every economic prediction for the last ten+ years....and it's not because he's stupid.
Hey dumbasses of the world have u heard of solar cycles? I don't think you know the sun has solar flares and the las thing you better look at dumbasses if you can even understand 8th grade science that higher levels of co2 mkae the earth cooler it is a heavier gas than nitrogen and oxygen if the levels of co2 were that high in co2 you would die.
Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) deniers and tv "news" programs do not have the mental capacity to comprehend that the proper forum for "debate" about climate is in peer-reviewed climate journals and at serious climate conferences such as those of the American Geophysical Union. Not these childish high school debates. That is because AGW deniers and reporters and tv producers never did a day of work in their lives.
Scientists who sustain global warming did took the cycles into consideration; it's the difference between what would have been a normal cycle and what we see that is annoying to them. Of course, the data is gathered through ice mostly, but it's the best estimation we can have of what happened.
It may be questioned, but if you want to appeal to some sort of plotting, you need a mobile and a method -- which the person on air here didn't provide, but only claimed.
You also need an empirical basis and an appropriate scientific model that is both justifiable and contends that it is a normal situation -- which I have yet to hear about at all.
However, if you may think of people lying, I'd look on what may sustain it. I do see people having high incentives to deny it, but not to support it; and I understand social psychology to the extent that you need only few dissenting individuals to deny, but almost total cohesion to support it.
It's way likelier people deny it for bad reasons, than for people to support it and you can see it if you understand anything at all of what I just wrote.
On the other hand, it's not enough to just send accusations; it's a scientific question and it requires as such a scientific analysis. But to just assume upfront it's a mistake is necessarily more dangerous than not, so maybe we should in doubt give it some attention and just care at least a bit about it.
This is EVEN FUNNIER in hind sight. Paul Krugman THE MOST ACCURATE TALKING HEAD V's George Will one of the worst:
Are talking heads are blowing hot air - google it
Only a bigoted insane conservative could be SO stupid as to STILL believe global warming is false - they are lunatics that DESPISE HUMANS and REALITY - VERY VERY sick little puppies indeed...
I wouldn't go that far. I think most of them actually want the betterment of humanity as much as you do -- the issue is the reference. A far right end speaker is, basically, using an idealist analysis based on assumptions, which originally are meant to simplify the analysis, but then are ignored when applying the models and frameworks... the issue is that it may happen data will contradict it and that's what happens here. They're just being too found of their ideas.
My economy teacher pissed off a big theorist in economics when he studied because he basically made him look like a deluded idiot in front of everyone. The guy was indeed a good doctor and was brilliant, but he lacked the intellectual criticism to have some hesitation about the models he used. He basically can do math and explain what the letters imply, but he cannot explain reality properly with it.
@KrugmanTheKing Youa are being VERY naive. There is NOT 2 sides which people can debate over there are is only SCIENCE on one side and nasty, bigoted billionaires, corporations and the slimy right wing politicians on the other. Look its great you have so much faith in humanity, and MOST people are good and decent but there are some real nasty people as well - ON THE RIGHT SIDE of the spectrum! Go google 'the Authoritarians' or find out about corporate psychopaths...
I'm not naive at all and I am actually pretty convinced the only people who have incentives to not recognize current models are precisely people who promote neoliberalism in society. It simply is that we cannot out of this be accusative and we cannot either assume our models to be perfectly accurate; it's debatable to some extent, but it's very likely that scientists are right on that take and the doubting side is purposely dividing the issue for private interests.
@KrugmanTheKing Look we've been nice for 50 effin YEARS and close to NOTHING has been done to remedy the situation there is NO science on the deniers side NO SCIENCE - billions will die in 60-100 years it aint a fucking game... STOP BEING SO INNOCENT!
Besides, it's not having faith in humanity: the reason why conservatives are so eager to promote their neoliberal model as the economic truth is that they actually bother about what happens to humanity. I'm sustaining they are being perfectly convinced of what they assert -- I still think they're wrong for many reasons, but I don't think they're willingly harmful. If I was being less politically correct, I'd say far right end people are dogmatic and deluded.
@KrugmanTheKing Neoliberalism is BOLLOCKS - AND THEY KNOW IT. ALL the evidence is against them - they aint stupid (as you are claiming) they are NASTY AND DESPICABLE! And you SERIOUSLY need to read some dissident literature - sheez...
I think you're being emotional whereas you should be trying to solve the issue analytically... I actually have empirically valid reasons to think they're deluded, but not purposely harmful.
Of course it's not a game, but it doesn't suffice to say it's a complete racket; you have to explain why it's a racket and how it fails to provide support to itself. And, secondly, if you really want to make sure they don't listen, you'd behave like you're doing presently...
You seriously think you're going to do any good to the debate by insulting them and using trash talk? It's likelier to make it worst... There may be reasons to think however that the public support for far right end policies will fall sooner or later, but meanwhile, they're still citizen exercising their freedom of speech: answer them, criticize them, refute them... do all of that, but don't just come up with emotions and insults.
I'm certain you're really unaware of what goes through the head of people when they make decisions to speak as you do and, if you bother about yourself as much as others, you'd probably like to know what you're showing me so far consists of limited intellectual abilities... It never occurred to you that people always present to themselves their behaviors and ideas in a way that is justifiable to them and would otherwise change their mind if it wasn't the case?
Formally, it's called cognitive equilibrium, but if you want the simple version of the theory, it basically says you cannot hold two conflicting points in your head and you will remedy the situation to attain coherence. In the case of applying a framework, you can modify or abandon the framework, justify it or reject empirical inputs...
They cannot really be knowingly harmful: they want as much as you do to maximize utility.
The reasons why you can't see this is, to some extent, a form of intellectual egocentrism: you have a hard time conceiving the reciprocal in someone else because you are intellectually self-centered. Like a kid who doesn't understand you can still see them, even if they don't see you, you can't seem to understand other people can use a different framework which will appear justifiable to them.
It doesn't mean they're right; it means they can disagree and not be evil.
@KrugmanTheKing MORON - dangerously so... Look kid keep you idiocy out of things you don't understand, your patronising stupidity says WAY more about you than it does about me. READ SOME FUCKING BOOKS ON THE SUBJECT then pop back eh?
Let's see... I study social sciences... am I competent enough to criticize your ideas? Yes, I am. And all you've done so far is bashing. If my reply are so stupid, then refute them; meanwhile, you're still being emotional and you still lack the appropriate approach to retain objectivity and present a valid criticism.
"The earth is warming and the only answer is for government to tax private citizens trillions of dollars." LMAO. What a bunch of thieves! And those that support this massive wealth redistribution are the most gullible fools on the planet. Wake up morons. It's all about money and power. Create a catastrophe and then rob and subjugate the people!
Krugman may suck at economics, but at least he understands that climate change is real and we are actually accelerating our CO2 emissions rather than slowing them down.
No buddy below me. You're a moron. Krugman's a genius compared to you. He just makes too much sense for George Will and Cokie Roberts unfortunately. lol
@libertyforever76 Try getting a phd from MIT then maybe you can talk. The long-term trend shows a steady warming occuring. Yes there are some years that are cool, but overall the trend continues to go up. Try looking at NASA's website unless you think they are in on the conspiracy too.
Media Matters is funded by the Obama Administration! Propaganda. Krugman is a tool.
orange11emilie 2 hours ago
Krugman supports the global warming religion? Wow, what a surprise. He's been wrong about every economic prediction for the last ten+ years....and it's not because he's stupid.
ComicPenius 3 weeks ago 2
Hey dumbasses of the world have u heard of solar cycles? I don't think you know the sun has solar flares and the las thing you better look at dumbasses if you can even understand 8th grade science that higher levels of co2 mkae the earth cooler it is a heavier gas than nitrogen and oxygen if the levels of co2 were that high in co2 you would die.
STORMLORD70 2 months ago 2
Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) deniers and tv "news" programs do not have the mental capacity to comprehend that the proper forum for "debate" about climate is in peer-reviewed climate journals and at serious climate conferences such as those of the American Geophysical Union. Not these childish high school debates. That is because AGW deniers and reporters and tv producers never did a day of work in their lives.
mphello 2 months ago
The earth ALWAYS goes through changes, you dumbass, pussy liberals!
MrBolas33 3 months ago
@MrBolas33 Conservatives always don't know what is going on, they think the earth is flat and that evolution is a conspiracy theory
JcKantelope 3 months ago
@MrBolas33
Scientists who sustain global warming did took the cycles into consideration; it's the difference between what would have been a normal cycle and what we see that is annoying to them. Of course, the data is gathered through ice mostly, but it's the best estimation we can have of what happened.
It may be questioned, but if you want to appeal to some sort of plotting, you need a mobile and a method -- which the person on air here didn't provide, but only claimed.
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
@MrBolas33
You also need an empirical basis and an appropriate scientific model that is both justifiable and contends that it is a normal situation -- which I have yet to hear about at all.
However, if you may think of people lying, I'd look on what may sustain it. I do see people having high incentives to deny it, but not to support it; and I understand social psychology to the extent that you need only few dissenting individuals to deny, but almost total cohesion to support it.
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
@MrBolas33
It's way likelier people deny it for bad reasons, than for people to support it and you can see it if you understand anything at all of what I just wrote.
On the other hand, it's not enough to just send accusations; it's a scientific question and it requires as such a scientific analysis. But to just assume upfront it's a mistake is necessarily more dangerous than not, so maybe we should in doubt give it some attention and just care at least a bit about it.
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
@KrugmanTheKing And what text book did you plagerize that from?
MrBolas33 2 months ago
@MrBolas33
None. But you don't need a textbook to be critical... if you understand the principle behind the framework, you can apply it anyway.
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
George Will..GENIUS!
bizwiz21 4 months ago
This is EVEN FUNNIER in hind sight. Paul Krugman THE MOST ACCURATE TALKING HEAD V's George Will one of the worst:
Are talking heads are blowing hot air - google it
Only a bigoted insane conservative could be SO stupid as to STILL believe global warming is false - they are lunatics that DESPISE HUMANS and REALITY - VERY VERY sick little puppies indeed...
StunnedByStupidity 4 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity
I wouldn't go that far. I think most of them actually want the betterment of humanity as much as you do -- the issue is the reference. A far right end speaker is, basically, using an idealist analysis based on assumptions, which originally are meant to simplify the analysis, but then are ignored when applying the models and frameworks... the issue is that it may happen data will contradict it and that's what happens here. They're just being too found of their ideas.
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity
My economy teacher pissed off a big theorist in economics when he studied because he basically made him look like a deluded idiot in front of everyone. The guy was indeed a good doctor and was brilliant, but he lacked the intellectual criticism to have some hesitation about the models he used. He basically can do math and explain what the letters imply, but he cannot explain reality properly with it.
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
@KrugmanTheKing Youa are being VERY naive. There is NOT 2 sides which people can debate over there are is only SCIENCE on one side and nasty, bigoted billionaires, corporations and the slimy right wing politicians on the other. Look its great you have so much faith in humanity, and MOST people are good and decent but there are some real nasty people as well - ON THE RIGHT SIDE of the spectrum! Go google 'the Authoritarians' or find out about corporate psychopaths...
StunnedByStupidity 2 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity
I'm not naive at all and I am actually pretty convinced the only people who have incentives to not recognize current models are precisely people who promote neoliberalism in society. It simply is that we cannot out of this be accusative and we cannot either assume our models to be perfectly accurate; it's debatable to some extent, but it's very likely that scientists are right on that take and the doubting side is purposely dividing the issue for private interests.
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
@KrugmanTheKing Look we've been nice for 50 effin YEARS and close to NOTHING has been done to remedy the situation there is NO science on the deniers side NO SCIENCE - billions will die in 60-100 years it aint a fucking game... STOP BEING SO INNOCENT!
StunnedByStupidity 2 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity
Besides, it's not having faith in humanity: the reason why conservatives are so eager to promote their neoliberal model as the economic truth is that they actually bother about what happens to humanity. I'm sustaining they are being perfectly convinced of what they assert -- I still think they're wrong for many reasons, but I don't think they're willingly harmful. If I was being less politically correct, I'd say far right end people are dogmatic and deluded.
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
@KrugmanTheKing Neoliberalism is BOLLOCKS - AND THEY KNOW IT. ALL the evidence is against them - they aint stupid (as you are claiming) they are NASTY AND DESPICABLE! And you SERIOUSLY need to read some dissident literature - sheez...
StunnedByStupidity 2 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity
I think you're being emotional whereas you should be trying to solve the issue analytically... I actually have empirically valid reasons to think they're deluded, but not purposely harmful.
Of course it's not a game, but it doesn't suffice to say it's a complete racket; you have to explain why it's a racket and how it fails to provide support to itself. And, secondly, if you really want to make sure they don't listen, you'd behave like you're doing presently...
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity
You seriously think you're going to do any good to the debate by insulting them and using trash talk? It's likelier to make it worst... There may be reasons to think however that the public support for far right end policies will fall sooner or later, but meanwhile, they're still citizen exercising their freedom of speech: answer them, criticize them, refute them... do all of that, but don't just come up with emotions and insults.
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity
I'm certain you're really unaware of what goes through the head of people when they make decisions to speak as you do and, if you bother about yourself as much as others, you'd probably like to know what you're showing me so far consists of limited intellectual abilities... It never occurred to you that people always present to themselves their behaviors and ideas in a way that is justifiable to them and would otherwise change their mind if it wasn't the case?
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity
Formally, it's called cognitive equilibrium, but if you want the simple version of the theory, it basically says you cannot hold two conflicting points in your head and you will remedy the situation to attain coherence. In the case of applying a framework, you can modify or abandon the framework, justify it or reject empirical inputs...
They cannot really be knowingly harmful: they want as much as you do to maximize utility.
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity
The reasons why you can't see this is, to some extent, a form of intellectual egocentrism: you have a hard time conceiving the reciprocal in someone else because you are intellectually self-centered. Like a kid who doesn't understand you can still see them, even if they don't see you, you can't seem to understand other people can use a different framework which will appear justifiable to them.
It doesn't mean they're right; it means they can disagree and not be evil.
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
@KrugmanTheKing MORON - dangerously so... Look kid keep you idiocy out of things you don't understand, your patronising stupidity says WAY more about you than it does about me. READ SOME FUCKING BOOKS ON THE SUBJECT then pop back eh?
StunnedByStupidity 2 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity
Let's see... I study social sciences... am I competent enough to criticize your ideas? Yes, I am. And all you've done so far is bashing. If my reply are so stupid, then refute them; meanwhile, you're still being emotional and you still lack the appropriate approach to retain objectivity and present a valid criticism.
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity
I never said global warming was false by the way; I said your criticism wasn't properly structured.
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
@KrugmanTheKing GO AWAY you ignorant gullible moron...
StunnedByStupidity 2 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity
In what am I gullible? It's not me who's using logical fallacies and insults...
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
@KrugmanTheKing OH BUT IT IS...
StunnedByStupidity 2 months ago
"The earth is warming and the only answer is for government to tax private citizens trillions of dollars." LMAO. What a bunch of thieves! And those that support this massive wealth redistribution are the most gullible fools on the planet. Wake up morons. It's all about money and power. Create a catastrophe and then rob and subjugate the people!
fvecc 4 months ago
Krugman may suck at economics, but at least he understands that climate change is real and we are actually accelerating our CO2 emissions rather than slowing them down.
christo930 4 months ago
"someone hacked into their emails" A.K.A Newscorp
skedaddleMLS 6 months ago
No buddy below me. You're a moron. Krugman's a genius compared to you. He just makes too much sense for George Will and Cokie Roberts unfortunately. lol
ridewave444 6 months ago
Krugman is a joke.
libertyforever76 9 months ago
@libertyforever76 Try getting a phd from MIT then maybe you can talk. The long-term trend shows a steady warming occuring. Yes there are some years that are cool, but overall the trend continues to go up. Try looking at NASA's website unless you think they are in on the conspiracy too.
makeithappen42zx 4 months ago
7 out 7 were whitewashes which neither adequately examined the emails nor the "science" Krugman is out of line here.
Turitea 9 months ago
This is a very old video - perhaps they should have waited for the enquiries to report - 7 of 7 exonerated the scientists
drkstrong 11 months ago