The only thing that would be even better than his death would be the death of bullshit 'weren't they wonderful?' eulogies such as this. (Not that I doubt that Fox 'News' is sincere in believing this bullshit.)
Before I even clicked on the comments link showing 9 comments, I KNEW AdamT would be in here celebrating. You know what, Adam? People like you should have been aborted.
If there were no bullshit eulogies I doubt I would have commented. Why should I be 'respectful' to Krauthammer? he was a liar and a warmonger. the world is a better place without him. What has he ever done to deserve respect?
1.It's not just Fox 'News' that is giving him this fawning coverage, and nor is it just to him, it seems almost any public figure, no matter how terrible or incompetent is lauded with 'weren't they wonderful?' eulogies.
2.Nixon was such an odd person. He was clearly a thug but his only personal interest seemed to be a genuine welfare for the United States.
One of the defenses of Krauthammer was that he was just as duped as most Americans in terms of the lies that sold the Iraq War. However, I read a couple days ago that he was not just a columnist at the time, but was also an adviser to the Bush Administration which I gather was undisclosed to his news employers. So, presumably he was both an inside and outside seller of the lies. That's just about as unethical as a person can be.
Until I read the comments here, I don't think I had ever heard anyone say or write a negative word about Charles Krauthammer. Well other than President Trump of course. Interesting company you guys keep.
I am deeply saddened by his loss. There is no political writer I have admired more. His writings and commentary came first and foremost from a place of reason, with the added ingredients of humor and grace. FYI, Krauthammer never worked for Nixon. The former vice-president and presidential nominee he worked for was Walter Mondale. Charles said he moved to the right in his beliefs because he was a scientist and was swayed by evidence that conservative ideas worked better than liberal ideas. You don't have to agree with him about that. But were he still alive you could disagree with him using facts and arguments, not name calling.
If all you can do is launch ad hominem attacks, you are in effect saying, "I can't disagree using reasoned arguments, so I will call you names instead." Now I do recall Charles referring to Trump as a rodeo clown, though I think that was more accurate analogy than ad hominem attack. But if you feel you need to attack Charles after death because he once said unkind things about Donald Trump, so be it...
In regards to the negative comments about Krauthammer and his supposed use of facts and arguments...
I find the comments here to be interesting, because, as a couple of the posters there wrote, their responses to a person's death are normally restrained or sad. Not really so this time, not so far anyway.
Whether these are ad hom attacks on Krauthammer or not, you could argue with them, but I don't doubt that many who posted negative comments about him could back up their claims.
There can be many reasons for making ad hom comments even when you can make full and informed comments.
I personally think there is a time for civility and a time to cast away civility.
It's like in the movie Terminator II (I think that's the movie) where the terminator has a whole list of responses and ends up just saying something like 'Go fuck yourself.'
Nature Mom said in part above: "Still - worked for Nixon? He'll be playing pinochle in Hell with William F. Buckley, won't be a problem."
A psychiatrist is still a full medical doctor and is therefore a doctor of medical science and qualified to use the scientific method to evaluate data.
The movie was the original Terminator.
Ad hominem attacks are lazy arguments. Too many people today are unable or unwilling to concede that the other side may have legitimate (i.e. non-evil) reasons for believing what they believe. If you can't understand why a person believes something you are going to have a very hard time convincing them to see things your way.
A little over a decade ago, I was discussing the 9/11 attacks with my students and I asked how many of them believed that George Bush was behind the attacks. A depressingly large number raised their hands and I asked why they believed that. "BECAUSE I HATE HIM!" one girl exclaimed and then kind of turned red, embarrassed. "That's not a good reason, I guess," she said. I said, "no but it's an honest one."
I was able to disagree with President Obama without hating him or thinking less of him as a human being. Granted, that is considerably harder with President Trump. But it shouldn't be harder with Charles Krauthammer who spoke out for what he believed was right, no matter who was in power and who earned the respect of not just conservatives but people like President Obama, President, Clinton, and left wing journalists like Michael Kinsley.
1.Although I should let Nature Mom speak for himself, I'd be shocked if the "Still - worked for Nixon" was not regarding his first line "He was a liar, but a skillful liar."
2.In regards to evaluating evidence for policy, social scientists are likely generally better than hard scientists.
3.There are certainly differences of opinion as to whether "Krauthammer spoke out for what he believed was right" or whether he was a shill. As for me, he was a liar and a warmonger.
4.In regards to the names you mentioned, arguments by ethos are also lazy arguments. The problem I see isn't that too many people regard arguments from 'the other side' as evil but that too many people regard all arguments as equally valid.
Krauthammer argued in favor of the Iraq war, so I can understand why you think of him as a warmonger. But what is your evidence for believing he was a liar?
As for my own lazy argument by ethos. What I was trying to get across is that very prominent politicians and political thinkers who disagreed with Charles ideologically held him in high regard. If he were as you have claimed a lying shill, I don't understand why that would be the case.
Obviously, not all arguments are equally valid. But an argument can still be valid even if you don't find it persuasive. Also an argument can be logically flawed, yet still sincerely believed.
Well, they publicly held him in high regard, anyway. There can be any number of reasons people say one thing in public and another in private. I have no idea if that's the case here or not. (Both Krauthammer and Kinsley worked for the New Republic for instance. Not necessarily a surprise a person would say nice things about others who have written there. 'Oh sure, we're a great publication, every writer who has worked here has been brilliant.'
The only way to believe he wasn't lying there is to believe that he was as fooled as most others (about 67% of Americans according to the polls at the time) about the lies from the Bush Administration. My view is believing that would be incredibly naive. He was an active participant with the Bush Administration in their propaganda efforts in that he not only quoted their lies but also buttressed them.
This is an article he wrote as he became a global warming denier (which he falsely denied he was) which suggests he was maybe more a hack shill than a liar:
Just because the Bush administration was wrong about WMD in Iraq, does not mean they lied. They certainly focused on the intelligence that supported their goal, but I think they were quite surprised that the WMD wasn't there. Special Agent George Piro who interrogated Saddam Hussein for months after his capture said that Saddam always feared Iran more than the USA. He had gotten rid of his WMD, but he didn't want Iran to know that. It's understandable to believe that if he didn't have WMD programs he would have allowed inspections.
Neither link you supplied catches Charles in a lie. In one column he didn't talk about WMD when writing about the difficulty in establishing a republic in Iraq. In the other link, Charles railed against "the science is settled" argument when it comes to climate change. You can accept that climate change is happening and is being caused (at least in part) by mankind without accepting the science is settled. As a general rule science is never settled. Newtonian physics was settled until Einstein came along for instance. Climate scientists have yet to produce a model that accurately predicts climate change. Without that it is impossible to know with any degree of certainty what effect any specific remediation plan might have and thus difficult if not impossible to do a cost/benefit analysis. If the science was settled we would be able to do that.
I think climate change is real, but I also think we have a long way to go until it's fully understood and the science could be considered settled. Am I lying?
1.The presumed existence of WMD in Iraq was never the reason Americans were falsely led into the war. The additional arguments, all of which Krauthammer falsely argued were 1.Saddam Hussein was in league with Osama Bin Laden 2.Saddam Hussein was working on new WMD 3.Saddam Hussein was working on building nuclear weapons (Yellow cake from Niger, or as W Bush said 'Yellow cake from Africa.')
All of these things were argued against fairly convincingly before the start of the war, and in all of these things, not only did Krauthammer falsely claim they were occurring or had occurred, he engaged in the malicious propaganda against those who rebutted these claims.
2.In the case of global warming, Krauthammer could similarly have been asked 'what is the cost/benefit analysis of going to war with Iraq?' And, if he could not answer that, then he could certainly be replied to "well maybe we'd better wait until you or your Bush Admin cronies can answer that before we do anything." Not only is science never settled nor is intelligence information.
I fail to see why something scientific needs to have a cost/benefit analysis but that other things don't. I appreciate that neither he nor you specifically stated that, but his argument is nothing more than 'science has been wrong before, so it could be wrong here.'
If that's the standard, obviously then Krauthammer and his fellow neoconservative columnists and propagandists should have been fired for being wrong about Iraq and the W Bush Administration should have been impeached and convicted.
In the case of that specific article, his '14 year pause' was debunked (1998 was a very warm El Nino year and is a well known talking point of climate change deniers.)
Adam, this is exactly the kind of thing I was complaining about. I tell you that I believe climate change is happening, but I don't believe climate change is fully understood. You tell me I am lying about both beliefs. Does that mean you think I don't believe climate change is happening but I do believe the mechanics of climate change are fully understood by science?
You obviously disagree with me, but what is the problem with accepting that I believe what I tell you I believe, even if those beliefs (in your opinion) are mistaken? This is what I meant about assuming those that disagree with us can't just be mistaken, but must have dishonest and venal motives for taking the positions they take.
As for cost/benefit analysis and climate change, as an economist, you must understand that any law or regulation to reduce carbon emissions is going to have an economic cost. Whether that cost is worth it depends on the benefit. This regulation will reduce carbon emissions by "X" amount, and this will reduce global temperatures by "Y" degrees at a cost of "Z" dollars. But I hardly ever read or hear discussions of climate change that take this approach. Anytime I read someone questioning a scientific climate change model, the response seems to be "THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED YOU CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER!!!" Any reduction in carbon emissions, no matter the cost, is an unquestionable good, even if the ultimate effect on our climate is de minimis.
I don't want to get into a climate change debate. My point is that reasonable people can, in good faith, have questions about approaches to dealing with climate change. I would tell you to try evaluating arguments on their own merits instead of dismissing them out of hand because you believe the proponents are making those arguments dishonestly. But unfortunately, too many people fail to explain their arguments and just bash each other about the head and shoulders with conclusions. I am really going to miss Charles...
I think my full post made it clear that I agreed with your comment regarding climate change. I suspect you didn't read beyond my first sentence, which I can appreciate. I apologize for my misunderstanding.
I thought you meant 'was your defense of Krauthammer a lie' or were both defenses lies. And by that I think they clearly are.
Environmental economists are fully aware of cost/benefit analysis, however we economists prefer marginal analysis, not aggregate analysis so the term in environmental economics is 'the equimarginal principle.' The point where the increasing marginal cost of pollution abatement crosses the decreasing marginal benefit of pollution abatement.
The problem with Krauthammer's article, outside of bringing up at least one climate denialist falsehood, is that it's a logical fallacy based on the flawed notion of 'science has been wrong before, so we can't say for certain it isn't wrong this time.'
the other point, as I mentioned in my previous comment, is that everything is subject to cost/benefit analysis or equimarginal analysis not just environmental laws or regulations or laws in general.
That's why I wrote above, the same question could have been asked to Krauthammer "what is the cost/benefit analysis of the war in Iraq?" and if you can't provide an answer to that, shouldn't we hold off on the war until you can answer that as you seem to suggest doing with addressing climate change?
Actually, he didn't suggest even that in his article. I don't know where you read in to that in it. His article was simply the line of 'science has been wrong before...'
Here is a discussion of the equimarginal principle and climate change: http://www.env-econ.net/carbon_tax_vs_capandtrade.html
The Krauthammer column about climate change that was used to accuse him of lying didn't discuss cost/benefit analysis. That was a point, I was trying to make. Krauthammer's point was that climate science is not "settled."
A scientist should always be willing to reexamine a conclusion in light of new data. The true anti-science position is to claim that science is settled and that conclusions cannot/ should not be questioned. Charles set forth a litany of scientific conclusions thought to be settled which later turned out to be wrong, not to make the point that science is sometimes wrong so climate science could be wrong, so we should ignore it and do nothing. His point was that climate scientists and others should not be able to foreclose further debate or good faith challenges to their conclusions by saying "the science is settled."
I understand the problem. People want to educate the public about climate change and marshal political will to change our carbon emissions. Simple straight forward messaging is much more effective than going in to great detail with hundreds of footnotes. Add to that those who have an economic incentive to stall action on climate change that use their own simple messaging to fight against a clear consensus against limiting emissions. I get that. But it's still wrong to shout down legitimate questions. It's also wrong to call a man a liar because he argues that no scientific conclusion is so settled it can never be questioned if new data is discovered.
1.Science doesn't work on the basis of 'science has been wrong before so we can't say anything is settled science.' In order to seriously question whether some scientific theory is settled or not there needs to be an alternate theory that better explains the data or, at least, credible questions of the present theory.
The vast majority of climate deniers don't ask legitimate questions, they just regurgitate falsehoods like the 'X year warming pause' (since 1998.)
I don't know if all the questions asked there by Krauthammer were similarly lifted from climate denial claims but just because a question is asked does not make it a 'legitimate question.'
It is also the case that legitimately poking a few holes in the overall theory of climate change does not mean the entire theory is not 'settled science.' That even a broad scientific category such as the 'law of gravity' might be altered does not negate the 'law of gravity.' (There are new ideas as to what exactly gravity is to do with the bending of space.) Climate change theory is extremely robust to the point where very few legitimate scientists question the overall theory, even if they disagree with aspects of it.
Similarly, as I seem to need to keep pointing out, it's not only science where there are doubts raised (legitimate or otherwise) about the evidence presented, for example the lies that Krauthammer pushed to sell the Iraq war.
If you check that article, not only did he 'shout down' those who asked legitimate questions but he (at least indirectly) even questioned their patriotism.
I hadn't even thought of it at the time, but if you check the two articles: Krauthammer's certainty on all the evil things that Saddam Hussein was supposedly doing (working in league with Osama Bin Laden, making new WMD, working on nuclear weapons) and his 'shouting down' of those who legitimately questioned all these claims, vs his silly 'science was wrong before...' article on climate change certainly suggest extreme hypocrisy to the point of extreme dishonesty.
This reminds me of something else. The logic of those in it is a bit weak, but it does show the idea that raising questions is a subset of raising legitimate questions.
I was in a conspiracy theory chat room (tiny chat) website and I remember one person commenting something like:
"Of course climate change is a scam. The United Nations is behind it (through the IPCC) just like the United Nations was behind the Iraq War (U.N Resolution 1441?) and we know what a scam that was.
I'm not a scientist obviously but I have in common with scientists the language of mathematics and I have taken a number of statistics courses.
So, from that I can explain to you briefly (and link a couple sites to you) that explain why the vast majority of scientists do consider climate change to be 'settled science' as it revolves around the statistics concept known as 'triangulation.'
As an economist, though this is not my area of expertise, I can provide to you some ideas on the concepts in dealing with uncertainty as they are dealt with in behavioral economics and game theory as you have mentioned 'uncertainty' a number of times when you bring up the 'cost/benefit analysis' of addressing climate change.
this site used to be so good...I am sure this reply will be erased by the time anyone ever reads it....but wow...adam t....what a douchebag !!!...I am here for the articles and nice pics that Scoopy puts on here and I read the political stuff and some times I have to laugh at some of the crap people say and what they believe in on both sides...but I never thought anyone on here would ever say something like good riddance to some one who has passed away. adam t … let me guess your situation...live in mom and dad's basement...invite your nerd friends over for some D and D and some video games...when someone says something mean to you , you run to your safe spot and call mom to come down and hug you ???...sad POS buddy...and before you say " oh gosh you must be a trump fan " ...no... I am just a person who notices @ssholes on websites...good luck in your life you loser
OK OK I got Krauthammer mixed up somewhat with Ben Stein. Stein worked for Nixon, Krauthammer did not. My mistake, but it's an easy mistake to make. Both were blessed with brilliant minds, undertook rigorous and expensive educations to hone their intellects, and used their resulting access to the levers of government to make the world a shittier place.
Krauthammer was a genius rhetorician, in the same way that Rommel was an effective general and Tim McVeigh was a competent terrorist. He always knew the weak points of his own arguments and buried these weak points behind his premises and framing - or inoculated against them with specious asides.
I think some of you are confused about the ad hominem fallacy. If we were discussing some argument of Krauthammer's, and I attacked the man as a proxy for his point, that's fallacious. It's also not what I'm up to here.
Someone has used the occasion of his death to put about this false story that he was some kind of good guy; that we are better off for him having lived. This is false, to point it out I am taking up a contrary position: if God's alive (and as judgemental as my Catholic upbringing taught me), he'll roast in hell.
This is not an example of the ad hominem fallacy, any more than it's fallacious for someone to stack up cards and try to argue that he was a good man.
Hooray! RIH. Good riddance to vile trash.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing that would be even better than his death would be the death of bullshit 'weren't they wonderful?' eulogies such as this. (Not that I doubt that Fox 'News' is sincere in believing this bullshit.)
I certainly never expected Adam to give a glowing eulogy, but I didn't think respectful silence (or even just silence) was too much to ask.
DeleteBefore I even clicked on the comments link showing 9 comments, I KNEW AdamT would be in here celebrating. You know what, Adam? People like you should have been aborted.
DeleteThe Gent suddenly insisting on civility and political correctness. So, in addition to being an idiot Trump cultist The Bent is also a hypocrite.
DeleteThis just came to me and I thought it was pretty good: The Bent was against being an idiot before he was for being an idiot.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf there were no bullshit eulogies I doubt I would have commented. Why should I be 'respectful' to Krauthammer? he was a liar and a warmonger. the world is a better place without him. What has he ever done to deserve respect?
ReplyDeleteHe was a liar, but a skillful liar. This makes him both better and worse than most politicians.
ReplyDeleteAdam, the link is to Fox News. Of course they're going to say he was the greatest thing since chocolate-covered girls.
Still - worked for Nixon? He'll be playing pinochle in Hell with William F. Buckley, won't be a problem.
1.It's not just Fox 'News' that is giving him this fawning coverage, and nor is it just to him, it seems almost any public figure, no matter how terrible or incompetent is lauded with 'weren't they wonderful?' eulogies.
Delete2.Nixon was such an odd person. He was clearly a thug but his only personal interest seemed to be a genuine welfare for the United States.
One of the defenses of Krauthammer was that he was just as duped as most Americans in terms of the lies that sold the Iraq War. However, I read a couple days ago that he was not just a columnist at the time, but was also an adviser to the Bush Administration which I gather was undisclosed to his news employers. So, presumably he was both an inside and outside seller of the lies. That's just about as unethical as a person can be.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteCharles played chess, not pinochle.
DeleteI was picturing a hell where you don't get to play your favorite games.
DeleteUntil I read the comments here, I don't think I had ever heard anyone say or write a negative word about Charles Krauthammer. Well other than President Trump of course. Interesting company you guys keep.
ReplyDeleteI am deeply saddened by his loss. There is no political writer I have admired more. His writings and commentary came first and foremost from a place of reason, with the added ingredients of humor and grace. FYI, Krauthammer never worked for Nixon. The former vice-president and presidential nominee he worked for was Walter Mondale. Charles said he moved to the right in his beliefs because he was a scientist and was swayed by evidence that conservative ideas worked better than liberal ideas. You don't have to agree with him about that. But were he still alive you could disagree with him using facts and arguments, not name calling.
If all you can do is launch ad hominem attacks, you are in effect saying, "I can't disagree using reasoned arguments, so I will call you names instead." Now I do recall Charles referring to Trump as a rodeo clown, though I think that was more accurate analogy than ad hominem attack. But if you feel you need to attack Charles after death because he once said unkind things about Donald Trump, so be it...
1.Me? I can't stand Trump.
Delete2.Krauthammer was a psychiatrist. To refer to him as a scientist is a bit of a stretch.
3.If you haven't read anybody said a negative word about Krauthammer, with respect, you haven't read much.
4.Nobody said Krauthammer worked for Nixon.
In regards to the negative comments about Krauthammer and his supposed use of facts and arguments...
DeleteI find the comments here to be interesting, because, as a couple of the posters there wrote, their responses to a person's death are normally restrained or sad. Not really so this time, not so far anyway.
Whether these are ad hom attacks on Krauthammer or not, you could argue with them, but I don't doubt that many who posted negative comments about him could back up their claims.
https://politicalwire.com/2018/06/22/charles-krauthammer-is-dead/#disqus_thread
There can be many reasons for making ad hom comments even when you can make full and informed comments.
I personally think there is a time for civility and a time to cast away civility.
It's like in the movie Terminator II (I think that's the movie) where the terminator has a whole list of responses and ends up just saying something like 'Go fuck yourself.'
Nature Mom said in part above: "Still - worked for Nixon? He'll be playing pinochle in Hell with William F. Buckley, won't be a problem."
DeleteA psychiatrist is still a full medical doctor and is therefore a doctor of medical science and qualified to use the scientific method to evaluate data.
The movie was the original Terminator.
Ad hominem attacks are lazy arguments. Too many people today are unable or unwilling to concede that the other side may have legitimate (i.e. non-evil) reasons for believing what they believe. If you can't understand why a person believes something you are going to have a very hard time convincing them to see things your way.
A little over a decade ago, I was discussing the 9/11 attacks with my students and I asked how many of them believed that George Bush was behind the attacks. A depressingly large number raised their hands and I asked why they believed that. "BECAUSE I HATE HIM!" one girl exclaimed and then kind of turned red, embarrassed. "That's not a good reason, I guess," she said. I said, "no but it's an honest one."
I was able to disagree with President Obama without hating him or thinking less of him as a human being. Granted, that is considerably harder with President Trump. But it shouldn't be harder with Charles Krauthammer who spoke out for what he believed was right, no matter who was in power and who earned the respect of not just conservatives but people like President Obama, President, Clinton, and left wing journalists like Michael Kinsley.
1.Although I should let Nature Mom speak for himself, I'd be shocked if the "Still - worked for Nixon" was not regarding his first line "He was a liar, but a skillful liar."
Delete2.In regards to evaluating evidence for policy, social scientists are likely generally better than hard scientists.
3.There are certainly differences of opinion as to whether "Krauthammer spoke out for what he believed was right" or whether he was a shill. As for me, he was a liar and a warmonger.
4.In regards to the names you mentioned, arguments by ethos are also lazy arguments.
The problem I see isn't that too many people regard arguments from 'the other side' as evil but that too many people regard all arguments as equally valid.
Krauthammer argued in favor of the Iraq war, so I can understand why you think of him as a warmonger. But what is your evidence for believing he was a liar?
DeleteAs for my own lazy argument by ethos. What I was trying to get across is that very prominent politicians and political thinkers who disagreed with Charles ideologically held him in high regard. If he were as you have claimed a lying shill, I don't understand why that would be the case.
Obviously, not all arguments are equally valid. But an argument can still be valid even if you don't find it persuasive. Also an argument can be logically flawed, yet still sincerely believed.
Well, they publicly held him in high regard, anyway. There can be any number of reasons people say one thing in public and another in private. I have no idea if that's the case here or not. (Both Krauthammer and Kinsley worked for the New Republic for instance. Not necessarily a surprise a person would say nice things about others who have written there. 'Oh sure, we're a great publication, every writer who has worked here has been brilliant.'
DeleteAs for him being a liar:
http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2006/11/krauthammers_re.html
The only way to believe he wasn't lying there is to believe that he was as fooled as most others (about 67% of Americans according to the polls at the time) about the lies from the Bush Administration. My view is believing that would be incredibly naive. He was an active participant with the Bush Administration in their propaganda efforts in that he not only quoted their lies but also buttressed them.
That's one article on his lies. It used to be easier to find more but they've been pushed aside by the recent news of his death.
DeleteThis is an article he wrote as he became a global warming denier (which he falsely denied he was) which suggests he was maybe more a hack shill than a liar:
Deletehttps://www.salon.com/2014/02/25/debunking_charles_krauthammers_climate_lies_a_drinking_game/
Just because the Bush administration was wrong about WMD in Iraq, does not mean they lied. They certainly focused on the intelligence that supported their goal, but I think they were quite surprised that the WMD wasn't there. Special Agent George Piro who interrogated Saddam Hussein for months after his capture said that Saddam always feared Iran more than the USA. He had gotten rid of his WMD, but he didn't want Iran to know that. It's understandable to believe that if he didn't have WMD programs he would have allowed inspections.
DeleteNeither link you supplied catches Charles in a lie. In one column he didn't talk about WMD when writing about the difficulty in establishing a republic in Iraq. In the other link, Charles railed against "the science is settled" argument when it comes to climate change. You can accept that climate change is happening and is being caused (at least in part) by mankind without accepting the science is settled. As a general rule science is never settled. Newtonian physics was settled until Einstein came along for instance. Climate scientists have yet to produce a model that accurately predicts climate change. Without that it is impossible to know with any degree of certainty what effect any specific remediation plan might have and thus difficult if not impossible to do a cost/benefit analysis. If the science was settled we would be able to do that.
I think climate change is real, but I also think we have a long way to go until it's fully understood and the science could be considered settled. Am I lying?
Yes, in both cases you are lying.
Delete1.The presumed existence of WMD in Iraq was never the reason Americans were falsely led into the war. The additional arguments, all of which Krauthammer falsely argued were
1.Saddam Hussein was in league with Osama Bin Laden
2.Saddam Hussein was working on new WMD
3.Saddam Hussein was working on building nuclear weapons (Yellow cake from Niger, or as W Bush said 'Yellow cake from Africa.')
All of these things were argued against fairly convincingly before the start of the war, and in all of these things, not only did Krauthammer falsely claim they were occurring or had occurred, he engaged in the malicious propaganda against those who rebutted these claims.
2.In the case of global warming, Krauthammer could similarly have been asked 'what is the cost/benefit analysis of going to war with Iraq?' And, if he could not answer that, then he could certainly be replied to "well maybe we'd better wait until you or your Bush Admin cronies can answer that before we do anything."
Not only is science never settled nor is intelligence information.
I fail to see why something scientific needs to have a cost/benefit analysis but that other things don't. I appreciate that neither he nor you specifically stated that, but his argument is nothing more than 'science has been wrong before, so it could be wrong here.'
If that's the standard, obviously then Krauthammer and his fellow neoconservative columnists and propagandists should have been fired for being wrong about Iraq and the W Bush Administration should have been impeached and convicted.
In the case of that specific article, his '14 year pause' was debunked (1998 was a very warm El Nino year and is a well known talking point of climate change deniers.)
Adam, this is exactly the kind of thing I was complaining about. I tell you that I believe climate change is happening, but I don't believe climate change is fully understood. You tell me I am lying about both beliefs. Does that mean you think I don't believe climate change is happening but I do believe the mechanics of climate change are fully understood by science?
DeleteYou obviously disagree with me, but what is the problem with accepting that I believe what I tell you I believe, even if those beliefs (in your opinion) are mistaken? This is what I meant about assuming those that disagree with us can't just be mistaken, but must have dishonest and venal motives for taking the positions they take.
As for cost/benefit analysis and climate change, as an economist, you must understand that any law or regulation to reduce carbon emissions is going to have an economic cost. Whether that cost is worth it depends on the benefit. This regulation will reduce carbon emissions by "X" amount, and this will reduce global temperatures by "Y" degrees at a cost of "Z" dollars. But I hardly ever read or hear discussions of climate change that take this approach. Anytime I read someone questioning a scientific climate change model, the response seems to be "THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED YOU CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER!!!" Any reduction in carbon emissions, no matter the cost, is an unquestionable good, even if the ultimate effect on our climate is de minimis.
I don't want to get into a climate change debate. My point is that reasonable people can, in good faith, have questions about approaches to dealing with climate change. I would tell you to try evaluating arguments on their own merits instead of dismissing them out of hand because you believe the proponents are making those arguments dishonestly. But unfortunately, too many people fail to explain their arguments and just bash each other about the head and shoulders with conclusions. I am really going to miss Charles...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI think my full post made it clear that I agreed with your comment regarding climate change. I suspect you didn't read beyond my first sentence, which I can appreciate. I apologize for my misunderstanding.
DeleteI thought you meant 'was your defense of Krauthammer a lie' or were both defenses lies. And by that I think they clearly are.
Environmental economists are fully aware of cost/benefit analysis, however we economists prefer marginal analysis, not aggregate analysis so the term in environmental economics is 'the equimarginal principle.' The point where the increasing marginal cost of pollution abatement crosses the decreasing marginal benefit of pollution abatement.
The problem with Krauthammer's article, outside of bringing up at least one climate denialist falsehood, is that it's a logical fallacy based on the flawed notion of 'science has been wrong before, so we can't say for certain it isn't wrong this time.'
the other point, as I mentioned in my previous comment, is that everything is subject to cost/benefit analysis or equimarginal analysis not just environmental laws or regulations or laws in general.
That's why I wrote above, the same question could have been asked to Krauthammer "what is the cost/benefit analysis of the war in Iraq?" and if you can't provide an answer to that, shouldn't we hold off on the war until you can answer that as you seem to suggest doing with addressing climate change?
Actually, he didn't suggest even that in his article. I don't know where you read in to that in it. His article was simply the line of 'science has been wrong before...'
Here is a discussion of the equimarginal principle and climate change: http://www.env-econ.net/carbon_tax_vs_capandtrade.html
(Marginal benefit vs. marginal abatement cost)
The Krauthammer column about climate change that was used to accuse him of lying didn't discuss cost/benefit analysis. That was a point, I was trying to make. Krauthammer's point was that climate science is not "settled."
DeleteA scientist should always be willing to reexamine a conclusion in light of new data. The true anti-science position is to claim that science is settled and that conclusions cannot/ should not be questioned. Charles set forth a litany of scientific conclusions thought to be settled which later turned out to be wrong, not to make the point that science is sometimes wrong so climate science could be wrong, so we should ignore it and do nothing. His point was that climate scientists and others should not be able to foreclose further debate or good faith challenges to their conclusions by saying "the science is settled."
I understand the problem. People want to educate the public about climate change and marshal political will to change our carbon emissions. Simple straight forward messaging is much more effective than going in to great detail with hundreds of footnotes. Add to that those who have an economic incentive to stall action on climate change that use their own simple messaging to fight against a clear consensus against limiting emissions. I get that. But it's still wrong to shout down legitimate questions. It's also wrong to call a man a liar because he argues that no scientific conclusion is so settled it can never be questioned if new data is discovered.
That's fine except:
Delete1.Science doesn't work on the basis of 'science has been wrong before so we can't say anything is settled science.' In order to seriously question whether some scientific theory is settled or not there needs to be an alternate theory that better explains the data or, at least, credible questions of the present theory.
The vast majority of climate deniers don't ask legitimate questions, they just regurgitate falsehoods like the 'X year warming pause' (since 1998.)
I don't know if all the questions asked there by Krauthammer were similarly lifted from climate denial claims but just because a question is asked does not make it a 'legitimate question.'
It is also the case that legitimately poking a few holes in the overall theory of climate change does not mean the entire theory is not 'settled science.' That even a broad scientific category such as the 'law of gravity' might be altered does not negate the 'law of gravity.' (There are new ideas as to what exactly gravity is to do with the bending of space.) Climate change theory is extremely robust to the point where very few legitimate scientists question the overall theory, even if they disagree with aspects of it.
Similarly, as I seem to need to keep pointing out, it's not only science where there are doubts raised (legitimate or otherwise) about the evidence presented, for example the lies that Krauthammer pushed to sell the Iraq war.
If you check that article, not only did he 'shout down' those who asked legitimate questions but he (at least indirectly) even questioned their patriotism.
I hadn't even thought of it at the time, but if you check the two articles: Krauthammer's certainty on all the evil things that Saddam Hussein was supposedly doing (working in league with Osama Bin Laden, making new WMD, working on nuclear weapons) and his 'shouting down' of those who legitimately questioned all these claims, vs his silly 'science was wrong before...' article on climate change certainly suggest extreme hypocrisy to the point of extreme dishonesty.
This reminds me of something else. The logic of those in it is a bit weak, but it does show the idea that raising questions is a subset of raising legitimate questions.
DeleteI was in a conspiracy theory chat room (tiny chat) website and I remember one person commenting something like:
"Of course climate change is a scam. The United Nations is behind it (through the IPCC) just like the United Nations was behind the Iraq War (U.N Resolution 1441?) and we know what a scam that was.
I'm not a scientist obviously but I have in common with scientists the language of mathematics and I have taken a number of statistics courses.
DeleteSo, from that I can explain to you briefly (and link a couple sites to you) that explain why the vast majority of scientists do consider climate change to be 'settled science' as it revolves around the statistics concept known as 'triangulation.'
As an economist, though this is not my area of expertise, I can provide to you some ideas on the concepts in dealing with uncertainty as they are dealt with in behavioral economics and game theory as you have mentioned 'uncertainty' a number of times when you bring up the 'cost/benefit analysis' of addressing climate change.
this site used to be so good...I am sure this reply will be erased by the time anyone ever reads it....but wow...adam t....what a douchebag !!!...I am here for the articles and nice pics that Scoopy puts on here and I read the political stuff and some times I have to laugh at some of the crap people say and what they believe in on both sides...but I never thought anyone on here would ever say something like good riddance to some one who has passed away. adam t … let me guess your situation...live in mom and dad's basement...invite your nerd friends over for some D and D and some video games...when someone says something mean to you , you run to your safe spot and call mom to come down and hug you ???...sad POS buddy...and before you say " oh gosh you must be a trump fan " ...no... I am just a person who notices @ssholes on websites...good luck in your life you loser
ReplyDelete1.I'm a full time employed economist.
Delete2.I'm the one who needs a 'safe spot' but you're the one complaining about my comments. You're the loser, snowflake.
OK OK I got Krauthammer mixed up somewhat with Ben Stein. Stein worked for Nixon, Krauthammer did not. My mistake, but it's an easy mistake to make. Both were blessed with brilliant minds, undertook rigorous and expensive educations to hone their intellects, and used their resulting access to the levers of government to make the world a shittier place.
ReplyDeleteKrauthammer was a genius rhetorician, in the same way that Rommel was an effective general and Tim McVeigh was a competent terrorist. He always knew the weak points of his own arguments and buried these weak points behind his premises and framing - or inoculated against them with specious asides.
I think some of you are confused about the ad hominem fallacy. If we were discussing some argument of Krauthammer's, and I attacked the man as a proxy for his point, that's fallacious. It's also not what I'm up to here.
Someone has used the occasion of his death to put about this false story that he was some kind of good guy; that we are better off for him having lived. This is false, to point it out I am taking up a contrary position: if God's alive (and as judgemental as my Catholic upbringing taught me), he'll roast in hell.
This is not an example of the ad hominem fallacy, any more than it's fallacious for someone to stack up cards and try to argue that he was a good man.