After Tim Flannery (Australia's Chief Climate Commissioner, no less!) made a TOTAL fool of himself by predicting that the last drought in Australia was permanent (Melbourne dams are nearing 15 year highs now), and Australian economist John Quiggin (on the Australian Government's Climate Change Taskforce) absurdly multiplied an annual estimate of temperature reduction by 100 – violating even the most basic scientific facts of CO2 [refer to recent debates on this blog] – AND HAS NOT FIXED THE ERROR EVEN AFTER I PROVED TO HIM THAT HE WAS WRONG – we now have that American "Nobelist" "economist" Paul Krugman put his foot into his mouth.

He writes:

I’ve been searching for something useful to say about the epic heat wave and drought afflicting U.S. agriculture, other than that this is the shape of things to come. Of course it’s about climate change: a rising number of temperature records is exactly what you’d expect given an underlying upward trend in global temperatures. And the economic consequences will be large: maybe 1 percent on U.S. consumer prices, but suffering and food riots in poorer nations that spend more of their income on food.

Yet with so much of the American political spectrum in fierce denial over the issue, there is no prospect whatsoever of getting action.

Amazing. American political spectrum in denial, of KRUGMAN IN DENIAL ABOUT BASIC FACTS?

Didn't we note the other day that almost all the highest recorded State temperatures in USA are in the 1930s?

And now here's clear evidence (a peer reviewed paper), which states that droughts have been REDUCING in USA over the last 100 years, not increasing. This current one might (at best) bring it back to a zero trend.

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 33, L10403, 4 PP., 2006
doi:10.1029/2006GL025711

 

Trends in 20th century drought over the continental United States

Konstantinos M. Andreadis

 

Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA

Dennis P. Lettenmaier

 

Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA

 

We used a simulated data set of hydro-climatological variables to examine for 20th century trends in soil moisture, runoff, and drought characteristics over the conterminous United States (U.S.). An increasing trend is apparent in both model soil moisture and runoff over much of the U.S., with a few decreasing trends in parts of the Southwest. The trend patterns were qualitatively similar to those found in streamflow records observed at a station network minimally affected by anthropogenic activities. This wetting trend is consistent with the general increase in precipitation in the latter half of the 20th century. Droughts have, for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the country over the last century. The main exception is the Southwest and parts of the interior of the West, where, notwithstanding increased precipitation (and in some cases increased soil moisture and runoff), increased temperature has led to trends in drought characteristics that are mostly opposite to those for the rest of the country especially in the case of drought duration and severity, which have increased.

I'm amazed at how these so called "trained" pseudo-scientists and economists JUMP UP WITHOUT RESTRAINT OR QUALIFICATIONS when natural variation occurs in in the direction they wish. Or, like John Quiggin, simplistically multiply data in COMPLEX systems by 100 without even remotely proving that such multiplication can be justified.

The weather changes in cycles. Tim Flannery learnt this to his great chagrin and perpetual humiliation.

Krugman, whose words mean nothing to me anyway (I never read his blog, just chanced upon it through someone else), will end up even more humiliated by the end of his life for his HUGE errors of judgement if he doesn't start learning some basic statistics right away!

I encourage all these "scientists" and "economists" to go back to statistics 101, even if science is beyond their ken.

Related posts:

1. Steven Landsburg debates Paul Krugman on social policy
2. One more climate change fool hits the dust (millions still remain – in top policy positions)
3. I’m worried. Is Krugman losing touch with reality?
4. One more management “expert” idea hits the dust. Brainstorming is BAD for teams.
5. When is an economist an economist (and when is he a quack)?
6. My discovery of Ron Paul
7. I’m no Ron Paul. If anything, I’m Sardar Patel.
8. Free banking IS viable, regardless of what you think of Ron Paul
9. An economist after my heart: Steve Landsburg
10. Let’s not waste time discussing inequality. Poverty removal is the goal.