New York Times columnist Paul Krugman could give "1984" novelist George Orwell a lesson in doublespeak. Evidence his recent column about global warming - and more specifically, the (in his view) mindless, unprincipled motives of conservative skeptics of man-made warming theory.
Krugman in his column tees up Florida Sen. Marco Rubio for opining that the (according to Krugman) "overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change" is wrong. More about that "consensus" momentarily. However Krugman dismisses Rubio's skepticism as not intellectually based, saying that Rubio and his party's "intellectual evolution has reached a point of no return, in which allegiance to false doctrines has become a badge of identity."
Krugman goes on to write, "I've been thinking a lot lately about the power of doctrines - how support for false dogma can become politically mandatory, and how overwhelming contrary evidence only makes such dogmas stronger and more extreme."
Contrary evidence such as what? That virtually all of the predictions of the global warming crowd's computer models have failed to materialize? That the supposed warming trend is now in its 18th year of "pause"? That the polar ice cap, which was predicted to melt completely last summer, expanded at a record rate?
It is striking to us how perfectly Krugman's comments define not global warming skeptics, but Krugman and the climate change crowd themselves. It's Orwellian.
Krugman writes: "It's hard to see what could reverse this growing hostility to inconvenient science. As I said, the process of intellectual devolution seems to have reached the point of no return."
Arrogant, yes, and again, the observation defines not climate skeptics, but people like Krugman himself, who with each passing day seem to be losing the global warming argument as calamitous predictions fail to materialize and public opinion sways the way of the skeptics (as rationally it should).
Of course Krugman hangs his whole hat on his assumed fact of "overwhelming scientific consensus" on global warming which is, like man-made warming itself, a myth. Liberals like Krugman have adopted as gospel president Obama's recent assertion that "97 percent of scientists agree that climate change is real, man-made and dangerous."
If one accepts that then Krugman's view would be defensible. But that statistic comes from a University of Queensland study by a climate activist/blogger named John Cook that has since been thoroughly dismantled.
Cook claimed to have reviewed 11,944 studies that conclude global warming has been occurring since 1950 and is man-made. However a study of his work by five leading climatologists published last year in the journal Science and Education concluded Cook misrepresented the views of those researchers. In fact it found only one-third of the studies expressed any opinion at all on the issue, and that only 41 (fewer than 1 percent) asserted that human activity was responsible for climate change.
Krugman is right about one thing. The global warming argument is being driven by dogma, not science - on the left. It is people like Krugman, not the skeptics, who refuse to acknowledge the mountains of evidence against their point of view.