Paul Krugman Busted

Like some global warming theorist, Paul Krugman has been caught massaging the data to support his theory. He’s not “adjusting” temperature data like the warmists, but he is presenting data in a form that omits the 40% of the data that doesn’t support his thesis. Cullen Roche explains at Business Insider (via Pragmatic Capitalism):

Dr. Krugman tries to show how much interest rates matter by comparing the Fed Funds Rate with Housing Starts. He shows a chart and declares that there appears to be a strong correlation. Except, as this emailer notes, he appears to have shifted the chart to make it appear as though there is a correlation where there isn't one.

Here's the Krugman chart:

And here's the version that would have originally shown up when the data is pulled from FRED:

See what was done there? The period in the early 1960's was removed, and so was the period from 2000 on. In other words, out of a 55-year time period, Dr. Krugman decided to remove 20 years' worth of data. For those keeping track, that's removing almost 40% of an entire data set just because the data didn't fit the narrative. And when you add those years back you get a result that shows a very weak correlation:

Maybe it’s time for Krugman to return his Nobel Prize, which was for economics, not polemics. A scholar is supposed to pursue the truth and include all data. A polemicist omits the inconvenient truths.

Hat tip: Clarice Feldman

Like some global warming theorist, Paul Krugman has been caught massaging the data to support his theory. He’s not “adjusting” temperature data like the warmists, but he is presenting data in a form that omits the 40% of the data that doesn’t support his thesis. Cullen Roche explains at Business Insider (via Pragmatic Capitalism):

Dr. Krugman tries to show how much interest rates matter by comparing the Fed Funds Rate with Housing Starts. He shows a chart and declares that there appears to be a strong correlation. Except, as this emailer notes, he appears to have shifted the chart to make it appear as though there is a correlation where there isn't one.

Here's the Krugman chart:

And here's the version that would have originally shown up when the data is pulled from FRED:

See what was done there? The period in the early 1960's was removed, and so was the period from 2000 on. In other words, out of a 55-year time period, Dr. Krugman decided to remove 20 years' worth of data. For those keeping track, that's removing almost 40% of an entire data set just because the data didn't fit the narrative. And when you add those years back you get a result that shows a very weak correlation:

Maybe it’s time for Krugman to return his Nobel Prize, which was for economics, not polemics. A scholar is supposed to pursue the truth and include all data. A polemicist omits the inconvenient truths.

Hat tip: Clarice Feldman