When Keynesian Correlation Is Causation: Krugman's Contrived Climatic Conundrum

Tyler Durden's picture

From John Lohman

Forget high unemployment, hyperinflationary central bank policies,  competitive devaluations, and all those useless demographic and political factors that go into the Shoe Thrower’s Index.  In what can only be described as a moment of pure Keynesian genius, Paul Krugman concludes that the primary reason for the surge in food riots is…global warming.  
 
Perhaps he’s right.   In order to put an end to these pesky riots and revolutions we should reduce our carbon footprint via extensive taxes on emissions (even though many scientists believe CO2 actually lags temperature change).  Come to think of it, we should reduce all activities which are ‘positively correlated’ with a rising temperature anomaly, just to be on the safe side.  And millions of public sector jobs would be created as new regulatory agencies would be needed, thus solving our structural unemployment issue.
 
Paul, meet the Keynesian Climate Model….

…with a higher correlation than CO2  (chart concept Ira Glickstein)

But the correlation between Keynesian policies and temperature anomalies is just a bit more impressive.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
sysin3's picture

+10 for alliteration.

another +1 for sarcasm.

and +lots of gold coins for anybody who will rid me of these bankers and economists and politicians and lawyers and ..... oh hell, never mind.

Pool Shark's picture

But what's the % correlation between the lack of pirates and increase in global warming???

 

AAAAAAARRRRRR!!!

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

Global warming is real if you bother to look. There's very clear pieces of evidence which this article did not mention:

2010 is the hottest year on record, ever:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

Much more 'record high' than 'record low' temperature events in the US:
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/images/temps_2.jpg

Record low ice in January 2011 in the Arctic:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2011/02/record-...

Record heatwave in Moscow and the first ever 100F reading in Moscow for hundreds of years of temperature records:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/08/photogalleries/100810-ru...

And all that during a solar minimum.

But yeah, continue denying it. You remind me of another sect, who lived a couple of thousand years ago:

"The Mount Vesuvius eruption theory is the longest running scam of Rome!"

"Eruption scientists falsified the data to support this illegal tax on the wealthy!"

"This is just a regular earthquake, last summer has proven it beyond doubt that Mount Vesuvius is about to enter a protracted period of inactivity!"

(EDF of Pompeii news conference exerpts, dated 24th of August, 79 AD)

 

dwdollar's picture

"2010 is the hottest year on record, ever:"

LOL...  our 100 year record right?  The Earth is 4.5 billion years old...  I'd wager my left nut that the Earth has been much hotter in the past.

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

Right, and we also know it that the earth is flat: just look how flat it is!

Whom do you believe, government satellite pictures or your own damn lying eyes?

 

 

Excerpts from the army manual of intergalactic travellers:

rule #1: if you see such rising temperatures on a planet, during a solar minimum:

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/images/temps_2.jpg

GET OUT AND FIND ANOTHER PLANET, QUICKLY.

 

dwdollar's picture

WTF does this have to do with the Earth's shape?

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

Your denial of global warming is in good old flat-earther tradition.

I tried to convey an analogy to you, in an example that you might understand.

I failed.

 

dwdollar's picture

Okay, I'm trying to follow you, but it hurts my head.

A theory is correct, solely on the fact that someone 500 years ago thought the Earth was flat?

Is that what you're saying?

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

Okay, I'm trying to follow you, but it hurts my head.

FYI, that's not a headache really: it's your brain trying to grow due to unusual stimulus (rational thought processes).

A theory is correct, solely on the fact that someone 500 years ago thought the Earth was flat?

I simply ridiculed your (very transparent) denial. You apparently did not understand the joke. That's not a problem - others certainly did.

 

dwdollar's picture

No logic or evidence.  Just pointless insults.  That's all you have.

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

Logic and evidence is there, you just did not notice it while replying to it:

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/when-keynesian-correlation-causation-kr...

 

Calmyourself's picture

Shrunken nad man..  You are aware the Chicago carbon credit exchange shut down right..  The money arm of your religion figured out the game is up, you should too..

nihilist's picture

Logic is there?  WTF?  Okay, let's stipulate that you are, in fact, logical, then please explain the resulting blackbody radiation emitted by the earth using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and why a linear increase in CO2 results in a linear increase in effective warming and how the resultant warming somehow neglects the 2nd law of thermodynamics?  Furthermore, please explain why the effective warming caused by the absorption of IR by CO2 is greater than the effective warming that results from the absorption of IR by dihydrogen oxide.

Hint:  You will not find the answer on NPR. 

The fact of the matter is, a linear increase in effective warming would require an exponential increase in CO2 (which we do not have nor will we ever attain).  Secondly, you can't escape the 2nd law of thermodynamics, as heat, in the absence of work, will always flow from a region of warmer temperatures to a region of cooler temperatures.  You need to do work to make energy flow from a cooler region to a warmer region.  If the global warming alarmists somehow figured out that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is moot then why am I still paying electricity to keep my refrigerator cold.  Even if you bubble wrap the entire planet heat will still escape, unless there's some force doing some work that keeps it all bottled in.  Any kid with a decent understanding of Physics can grasp this concept.

What I would like to know is what the inverse correlation is between the Global Warming Hockey SCHTICK and the average IQ of global warming alarmists.

jmc8888's picture

Nice

It's amazing people don't realize that just outside of the earth's atmosphere, there is just about absolute 0. Meaning we're constantly being cooled, while the Sun warms up one side ever rotating. 

Not to mention bogus data collection...i.e. take Phoenix, my area.  Since I'm 32, and have lived here my whole life, I've seen the phx area grow from slightly under 2 million(1.6-1.8), to over 4 million.  Guess what, my backyard temps are up about 10 degrees.  Is that global warming? No, it's called HEAT ISLAND.  Hell even Fountain Hills gets much warmer than it used to and it still is in the outskirts on the backside of a mountain.

But too bad, no one noticed this in the global warming data gathering. 

WHat they DID do however, is take the sea temps that went lower, and disregarded them. 

Not to mention the following of wall street sophistry is inherent in the green scam.....

1. Bunk models (aka Housing goes up forever type shit)[as if any model isn't bunk really...it's a guideline....with huge potential of error...not a cornerstone of a thesis...except to the dipshit who don't know how to use them)

2. Carbon Credit Exchange (helped set up by NerObama) which is really just ANOTHER derivatives scheme.  The price goes up (in perpetuity), everyone suffers, except the squid sucking the lifeblood on the top.  But I guess the scientists are doing god's work too, just like Blankenfein.

 

If someone REALLY was a green lover, they'd be for NAWAPA, Nuclear Power, and Fusion.  Not another rig job based on idiots thinking they are doing a good job. 

All this other stuff is just more complete bull, brought to you by the head imperial monetarists...who want another way to SCREW YOU OVER.

Righteous post nihilist. As Jeff Spicoli once stated, 'Awesome, totally, Awsome'

 

 

 

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

Logic is there?  WTF?  Okay, let's stipulate that you are, in fact, logical, then please explain the resulting blackbody radiation emitted by the earth using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and why a linear increase in CO2 results in a linear increase in effective warming and how the resultant warming somehow neglects the 2nd law of thermodynamics? 

You are seeing the trees but missing the forest. You are missing three big things.

Let me sum up the main problem for you:

In the coming 10-20 decades humanity is about to release as much CO2 into the air as plants could collect and store in roughly 100 million years in the Permian era.

That is what can create an unsurvivable (for humans - life will be fine) feedback loop.

Secondly, the planet will have (much) higher surface temperatures, and yes, eventually it will enter thermodynamic equilibrium again and will radiate out as much as it absorbs.

Humans won't be there to observe that phase though.

Thirdly, you are missing the basic fact that the heat equilibrium of the planet is also fueled by a thermonuclear reactions that occur in the core. That heat is slowly escaping, but the process itself is more or less constant. If there's an insulating atmosphere then guess what happens? Yes: surface temperatures go way up.

 

Overflow-admin's picture

As I already said, I think there is 100% correlation between global warming alarmists and bubble negationists.

 

Sheeple un jour, sheeple toujours!

I Am The Unknown Comic's picture

Hey More Critical fuckTard:

Nihilist is correct, although I am sure the response is way over your head.

It is a solid fact that at one point in the earth's existence, the earth was a giant volcanic, methane-rich fireball incapable of supporting life as we know it.  It is also true that at one point in earth's existence, the earth was a giant ice-covered planet (known as "Snowball Earth"), also incapable of supporting life as we know it.  Climate change is a natural phenomenon that has existed since the earth was formed and will continue to exist until the earth ceases to exist.  You and the rest of you non-scientist global warming con artists are absolute fucking idiots.  Shame on all of you. 

Oh, and on another note...for absolute fucking proof that you are all a bunch of evil con artist fucktards...consider this:  The Battle of the 300 by Leonidas in Thermopylae is a fact.  It is also a fact that this battle could not possibly happen today because the ocean levels have DECREASED so much that the invading army of Xerxes could simply walk along the beach (or the paved road) that exists today.  There would have been no need to go through the narrow seaside pass in the rocky, mountain cliff, which is many feet above sea level at this point in time.  In other words, we have absolute fucking proof that ocean levels are FAR below what they were circa 480 BC.  So, FUCK OFF AND DIE YOU ASSHOLES! 

Id fight Gandhi's picture

Actually it's a historical fallacy That 500 years ago they thought the world was flat.

Anyone especially navigational and nautical people could easily see the curvature of the earth from high points.

The argument is a misunderstanding that Columbus could find a direct route to India as the Americas were never plotted at that point in time and how long supplies would last.

jmc8888's picture

They knew America was here.  They obviously didn't have specifics....but they knew SOMETHING was there.  Maybe it was india, maybe it was something else.   But they knew there was SOMETHING.

It's really all about Nicholas of Cusa, the inspiration for Columbus and his voyages.

Especially now that we know both Vikings and Chinese visited here before Columbus.

...but...but...but...we were told otherwise..

No shit, and they were wrong. Think they might have been wrong or lying about other things? (speaking to a general audience)

G-R-U-N-T's picture

"But what's the % correlation between the lack of pirates and increase in global warming???"

Excuse me PS....There is no lack of pirates. Pirates have created the spin to convince all the dumb shits in the world that the air we exhale (CO2) is a pollutant despite the fact that it is a nutrient and is a trace gas which is insignificant by definition. They will continue to use any means necessary to make the masses believe this lie so they can loot the living shit out of them.

Fuck you anthropogenic CO2 causing global warming bitchez!!!!

 

jmc8888's picture

Isn't it funny that CO2 was originally referred to as 'the gas of life', back when scientists, were ACTUALLY scientists.

You know, before imperialist monetarist lackey's fucked up science...or maybe this is the result of our decaying schools.

People need to wake up and see just how much money influence can change 'reality' into 'fakery'. It's not the gas of life, it's the thing that'll kill off everyone....brought to you by Carl's Jr Borse NYSE.  Because it's got electrolytes.

 

chopper read's picture

i agree.  i hope it warms up more quickly because the past 1,000 years have been freezing compared to the 10,000 year average.

http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/images/ScreenQuality/fig2-Temp10000...

 

Much debate regarding 'climate change' legislation is driven by a paticular chart demonstrating a 'hockey stick' ramping in recent global temperatures.  However, prior to this we were known to have been in a 'mini ice age' during the time of the Napoleonic Wars and American Revolution (with temperatures having dropped from previously much higher levels).

 

In fact, it is important to note that the 'estimates' for much of the 'hocky stick' graph were never even remotely realized.  Global temperatures leveled and have actually fallen sharply by comparison in the most recent two years. 

 

 

The fact is, if the measurements can be trusted, we are currently near the higher end of our temperature range as it relates to the past 1000 years. Yes, the rise appears to be somewhat rapid and maybe even driven by human activity.  However, the more logical explaination to me right now is that this has possibly come about either naturally or as a result of more widespread advances in agriculture - with subsequent domestication and feeding of animals, as well as global population growth from increased food production, in general.

 

Considering the potential effects of assumed 'greehouse gases', it is then Methane (particularly from cows), not CO2, which could be considered the primary culprit.

 

"Agriculture is responsible for an estimated 14 percent of the world's 'greenhouse gases'. A significant portion of these emissions come from methane, which, in terms of its contribution to global warming, is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide."

 

http://animals.howstuffworks.com/mammals/methane-cow.htm

 

Assuming this is true, then why do global despots seek control of CO2 emissions rather than Methane?  Clearly, this provides for them opportunity to dismantle coal-fired power plants and other industry.  Further, it may even give them jurisdiction over our ability to exhale!

 

As an aside, we hear much talk about the depletion of 'non-renewable' resources.  If so, then will not these decreasing fossil fuel supplies already act as the self-corrections on human CO2 emissions that are sought by our global puppet leaders?

 

Further, has not life on earth already coped quite successfully with much higher temperatures in the past, anyway?  Will not receding glaciers open up more farmland in the Northern Hemisphere?

 

 

 

And will not more CO2 create more plant life and ultimately more oxygen in our air?  I like oxygen, don't you?

 

Given all of the facts, is this worth handing over even more power to unelected bureaucrats who are clearly supported by a shadow government seeking to dismantle our Constitutional Republic?

 

At this point, I think not.

 

 

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3

 

 

 

G-R-U-N-T's picture

"Considering the potential effects of assumed 'greehouse gases', it is then Methane (particularly from cows), not CO2, which could be considered the primary culprit."

Don't know where you got this information Chops but both Methane and CO2 have zip/nada/zilch to do with real overall climate change. Most people have no idea how little the atmosphere is composed of these trace gasses. All this hype is complete and thorough bullshit to loot the ignorant masses. There's some really sick shit going on here.

This child like mini video will help give you some perspective on these insignificant trace gasses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYLmLW4k4aI

Nootropic's picture

I'm pretty sure Svante Arrhenius wasn't bought out by anybody back in the 1890s, when he published the first paper on the possibility global warming by anthropogenic causes.

FOC 1183's picture

you might want to investigate the methodology of surface temperature collection (try wattsupwiththat.com for starters).

the point is that, the data collection is so bad (and everything else is a poorly constructed proxy), and we're considering such a short period of time relative to the earth's formation, that skepticism is warranted (NOTE: skepticism <> denial)

 

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

Just to address random bogus global warming denial excuses like yours I linked to four separate, easily digestible pieces of evidence from all around the globe. You only need to follow the links.

If you still think it's just one vast left-wing conspiracy to make you pay more tax then you need your head examined.

 

FOC 1183's picture

thanks for the lack of hostility in your response.  I appreciate it.  I viewed your links.  Bottom line is, I'm not claiming a vast left-wing conspiracy.  I'm just pointing out that if you look at the temp anomaly proxies, you can find whatever you want.  At the end of the day, anyone who has been in the markets long enough will realize that these guys (on BOTH sides) are just data mining. End of story.

Do we want to set policy on data mining?

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

I'm just pointing out that if you look at the temp anomaly proxies, you can find whatever you want.

Just to give you a market analogy, if you ever see such simple stohastics/histograms of lows and highs:

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/images/temps_2.jpg

which is showing such a strong trend then I'd strongly suggest to not go short at the bottom of the solar cycle. Really.

Man-made global warming was settled science years ago even if it's inconvenient to you - the difference is that now all the signs of the global warming process and its volatility side-effects are more and more obvious to the layperson as well, via pictures, simple graphs and first-hand experience.

 

nihilist's picture

Graphs?  You mean the Hockey Schtick? If man made global warming was settled years ago then answer these questions ... stop pussy footing ...

 

Logic is there?  WTF?  Okay, let's stipulate that you are, in fact, logical, then please explain the resulting blackbody radiation emitted by the earth using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and why a linear increase in CO2 results in a linear increase in effective warming and how the resultant warming somehow neglects the 2nd law of thermodynamics?  Furthermore, please explain why the effective warming caused by the absorption of IR by CO2 is greater than the effective warming that results from the absorption of IR by dihydrogen oxide.

Hint:  You will not find the answer on NPR. 

The fact of the matter is, a linear increase in effective warming would require an exponential increase in CO2 (which we do not have nor will we ever attain).  Secondly, you can't escape the 2nd law of thermodynamics, as heat, in the absence of work, will always flow from a region of warmer temperatures to a region of cooler temperatures.  You need to do work to make energy flow from a cooler region to a warmer region.  If the global warming alarmists somehow figured out that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is moot then why am I still paying electricity to keep my refrigerator cold.  Even if you bubble wrap the entire planet heat will still escape, unless there's some force doing some work that keeps it all bottled in.  Any kid with a decent understanding of Physics can grasp this concept.

What I would like to know is what the inverse correlation is between the Global Warming Hockey SCHTICK and the average IQ of global warming alarmists.

G-R-U-N-T's picture

"Man-made global warming was settled science years ago even if it's inconvenient to you"

You have no idea how full of shit you are.

Nootropic's picture

Then where was Arrhenius wrong?

Overflow-admin's picture

Such simle trend doesn't explain anything.

 

I think you are scared because all the ballyhoo about "higer temps means stronger hurricanes" and all that shit. Just learn some basics about meteorology (deltaT between latitudes implications).

"higer temps means less ice". Once again, go back learn physics. Ever heard "sublimation"? Still believing the ice melts only because T > 0°C?

 

Sheeple un jour, sheeple toujours.

G-R-U-N-T's picture

"Just to address random bogus global warming denial excuses"

ACO2GW is complete and thorough nonsense, good lord! You have been sold a bill of goods More Critical and the more you try to explain the lie the dumber you look!


Sheepneck's picture

I like how he approaches you with civility, and you lash out at him like a dog with rabies.  It's a clear sign that you are a douche. 

G-R-U-N-T's picture

Indeed, I appear to be a douche to all the dumb shits that have imaged after this fraud.

Now go back in the field and smell up all that methane you burp out of your Sheepneck ass. How's that for "civility" Asswipe?

tarsubil's picture

Of course! Taking the Earth's temperature is as simple as observing that it is round. Of course! I could just as well say your denial of criticism of global warming is exactly the same as denial of criticism of the world being round. But of course, that would be a waste of time on a stupid troll.

LOL, nice graphic moron. Talk about one of the dumbest ways to take the Earth's temperature. Geez, you have some serious science skills sucker.

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

LOL, nice graphic moron. Talk about one of the dumbest ways to take the Earth's temperature. Geez, you have some serious science skills sucker.

Graph reading 101 for dummies:

  1. read the labels, because unlike labels on your medication they actually matter
  2. if a graph says "number of record low temperatures measured" then do not assume that it is temperature itself that is graphed. Assume what the label says: that it's the number of record low temperatures measured.
  3. if a graph has been trending up for 50 years in a robust trend then it will take a truly exceptional force to stop that trend. Note: a solar cycle maximum that is approaching (meaning even higher temperatures starting this year and peaking sometime in 2014) is an exceptional force but it will strengthen the trend of warming.

I hope this was clear enough!

 

dwdollar's picture

130 / 4.5 x 10^9 = 0.000000029

Sampling range / Earth's age = Who gives a shit

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

You are making one of the oldest mistakes one can do when dealing with probabilities and sample sizes.

Lets take a real-life example, to bring it closer to you:

If a large rock is falling down a cliff, straight towards you, do you start considering how old the rock is (easily a billion years old!) and how small a sample size those 10 feets are since you've been able to observe the falling rock?

rock age: 1 billion years

observation time: 2 seconds

sampling range: 0.0000000000000063%

Or do you take action based on its trajectory and jump aside, to avoid being smashed dead?

 

tarsubil's picture

This has to be one of the most retarded things ever written. When a rock is about to fall on you, why would you run an experiment? You already know what is going to happen. Science is about organized experimentation and observation to learn, not to prove the obvious. I guess retardo here thinks all science is just confirming what liberal hippies already know. If only you had been able to tell RA Fisher this! All the time wasted by scientists on duplicate experiments and readings! Thanks for the laughable pseudo intellectualism there pal. Oldest mistakes indeed. You really do think you're smart, don't you?

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

When a rock is about to fall on you, why would you run an experiment? You already know what is going to happen.

I can now turn your own broken logic against you:

  • How do you know it's not a bird?
  • The sample size is too small!
  • Should there be no more observations?
  • What about the methodology?
  • Check this link, there's an article about systematic failures in falling rock observations!
  • It's a conspiracy by jump-lovers to make you jump!
  • Do not fear the falling rock, God will protect you!

Yes, to the overwhelming majority of climatologists the global warming situation is as clear as to you a falling rock situation would be: they might not know exactly what color of pulp your head will turn into, but they are pretty sure that if you do not jump the rock will seriously hurt or even kill you.

Does that explain it to you?

 

philgramm's picture

one request, kind sir.  Would you please refrain from hijacking whole threads?

tarsubil's picture

You got me! How do I know a rock isn't a bird! Yeah, how do I know?

You are working on the assumption over and over that a very simple and obvious observation like observing a rock falling is the same as observing the Earth's temperature. If you think that, there is nothing anyone can do that can fix your stupidity. Anyone with any bit of science background would shudder at the prospect of trying to make that measurement once let alone consistently over a 50 year time span. This does not dawn on you because you are retarded.

tarsubil's picture

If you think that proves anything, you do not understand science. There are so many things wrong with that it is ridiculous. Record high? What the hell does that even tell you? Certain days the maximum recorded temperature was higher than the any other maximum recorded temperature on that day. That's how you take the Earth's temperature which has to be one of the most complicated and difficult readings to make if possible at all? LOL. You are completely devoid of all critical thinking skills which are needed when talking about science. But don't let me stop you from making a fool out of yourself.

50 years is nothing in geologic time. To somehow hold 50 years up as a long time just proves again that you are completely retarded.

More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

 

I replied to a similar argument in the post above:

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/when-keynesian-correlation-causation-kr...

Man-made global warming was settled science years ago even if it's inconvenient to you - the difference is that now all the signs of the global warming process and its volatility side-effects are more and more obvious to the layperson as well, via pictures, simple graphs and first-hand experience.