Krugman as usual, considers himself to be a judge of other people’s views, morals, and conscience.
I find the column title amusing.
Here’s what is so amusing and at the same time troubling about his column.
It makes me wonder if he in fact believes in the soul and the afterlife, rather than Dawkin’s thesis that God is dead which seems to be popular with the left.
After reading Willis Eschenbach’s excellent essay on how global warming alarmism and policy hurts the poor the most, watching Dr. Matt Ridley’s uplifting video on how CO2 is helping to green the planet, seeing Steve McIntyre point out that the latest Marcott hockey stick appears to be either a statistical fabrication or unrealistic data error, and noting Dr. Savory’s simple solution for rolling back how desertifcaton leads to climate change, and knowing that Paul Krugman wouldn’t see any of this as rational skepticsim, but would instead label it a sin, while promoting policies that hamper our economy and personal freedom, weaken our defense, hurt the poor, and won’t make any measurable difference to the outcome, my response becomes quite simple.
Dear Paul Krugman,
I’ll see you in hell.
Sincerely,
Anthony Watts
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Talk about hypocrisy
Very well and very succinctly put Mr Watts
Paul Krugman’s understanding of Climate Science is on par with his understanding of economics.
He has never seen someone else’s dollar he doesn’t want to spend.
And he has never read papers like Marcott.
Kinda feel sorry for the poor chap meself.
“I don’t like to commit myself about heaven and hell – you see, I have friends in both places.”
– Mark Twain
His opinions are no more sound when it comes to printing money endlessly, err I mean, economics.
He is a real Nobel Prize winner and no better than the faux winners; it is what I expect.
Wow, did he share Mann’s Nobel Prize?
Aw, Anthony, let it go. I KNOW it has to be hard dealing with personal attacks as you continue to fight the good fight. But it is a good fight, one well worth undertaking. And history will show your efforts were in a righteous cause.
The challenge for everyone is trying to ensure that the AGW program does not achieve its apparent goal of pointlessly bankrupting the developed world and impoverishing the developing world, leaving literally billions of people to suffer needlessly.
You have the high ground. I hope you will not become discouraged. Your cause is just, and the work you, and others of like mind, continue will prove out in the end.
Keep the faith.
Felix
Anthony, you are so clearly on the side of the angels in all of this that I think you best not plan on seeing Krugman on the other side. Just as you two are on opposite sides here, so will you be in the hereafter – if good sense is indeed to be rewarded in such a dramatic fashion.
Krugman is ample evidence that a Nobel Prize is no indication of either intellegence, accomplishment, or common sense. There’s a reason he’s earned the nickname “Ferret-face”
Ironically, his research for which he won the Nobel was in the area of trade. In that area, he is much more free market (i.e. for free trade) than his other views. Of course, that is natural as free trade is a no-brainer and even most marxists are or were for free trade.
Don’t waste any pity on him. He and his ilk have done great damage to the everyday hardworking person who has had to pay a personal cost from the policies they have pushed.
A bit harsh perhaps? As an atheist, I believe we can have heaven or hell right here on earth, depending on how we treat each other. However if there is a hell beyond this life, I too will meet you there. I have met people who believe they are going to heaven and I do not need to spent eternity with them 😉
No surprise that statist Krugman, despite having a semi-Nobel Prize (unlike Mann), doesn’t understand science. Neo-Keynseian economic theory has repeatedly been falsified (but then little Neo would not be recognized by Mother John Maynard; it’s an absurd caricature of his mature thought). If economics were a hard science, it would long ago have gone the way of phlogiston. Their standard excuse for why its prescription for more government spending & larger deficits has never worked, but in fact always makes things worse, is that we haven’t spent enough.
Krugman’s Nobel means that three Swedish socialists agree with him. The econ prize is faux-Nobel, but same goes for Gore & Obama’s genuine articles.
The ability to tax breathing & most human activity is too precious to statists for them ever to abandon the myth of AGW, or whatever it might be called in future, no matter how many times the hypothesis has been shown false.
A global warming denier: a person who uses the non-catastrophic and mostly natural variability of climate as a pretext to deny poor people the hope for a better life by curtailing their energy use and economic liberty.
Schwartz Slams Krugman
http://youtu.be/4qes1g99pg4
JT, sums it all up nicely. Well done, sir.
“The ability to tax breathing & most human activity is too precious to statists for them ever to abandon the myth of AGW, or whatever it might be called in future, no matter how many times the hypothesis has been shown false.”
I get so tired of being called a “denier”. It only means that the name caller has nothing else to back up their agrument than resorting to these tactics. And now I am being condemned to hell because I dare question them? Wow – it reinforces the fact that they cannot base their opinions of actual science. I ask for science. I am called a denier. I look at them and say – You are the denier. You are denying me the right to question their opinion. I also get so tired of their self righteousness. And hypocrisy.
Shouldn’t an economist being giving out economics advice? Or explaining why he did not predict the economic meltdown? Perhaps, like climatology, economics is a subject which is mainly interested in telling other people how to behave.
A simple random sample of mine showed we are cooling, globally, for at least the past 12 years
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
Most seem to agree with my dataset
link here
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2013/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2013/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2013/trend
Furthermore, my data set on maxima shows we will be cooling for some time to come.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
this will cause a shift in cloud formation and condensation, causing some places to become much cooler whilst other countries might get some GH benefit- even though they will see less sun…
an example is Alaska (getting much cooler) and CET (getting a bit warmer, but a lot wetter…)
People of course can ignore these results, but to ignore them is the same as ignoring the truth. The truth has a habit of showing up, eventually, see John 19-37&38 – how appropriate for this time of the year,
(I am not worried about this except for the waste of $trillions, on so-called climate science, and expensive energy alternatives).
Also, how on earth are we expected to do terra forming on future planets if we cannot even get the basic science of the ideal atmospheric composition right?
Here you can see that putting up more CO2 in the air is good for you,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/24/the-earths-biosphere-is-booming-data-suggests-that-co2-is-the-cause-part-2/
People wanting less CO2 and less H2O are actually denying their own father and mother…..
if you go far enough back in time.\…..
The libertarian right (myself included) has many, many atheists among its ranks. Far more than the left as a collective whole on a percentage basis, that’s for sure. Not to single this article out explicitly (as I’m not even sure it was intended to be pejorative) but many I’ve come across here act as if godlessness somehow equates to moral bankruptcy. As with most anything there are indeed atheists who are degenerates, but on the whole most of us are upstanding citizens just like those who choose to believe in a higher power (or powers for that matter).
That aside, this is an extremely minor issue compared to the pure, unadulterated idiocy that he churns out with an almost uncanny regularity.
I and about 10 friends have an agreement… the first guy down there gets in line for ACDC tickets. Anyone else want in?
Anthony,
You need to start looking into Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). Krugman is a recent interloper and reluctant admittant of what went on, and who has been embarrassed into recognizing the truth. Check out Dr. Bill Black’s explanations about how the current financial crisis is 40X worse than the S&L crisis [MAKE SURE YOU LISTEN TO THIS]:
Transcript:
http://harryshearer.com/duis-id-nulla-et/
Listen to the interview here:
http://harryshearer.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/May_1_2011-1.mp3
Maybe Krugman can stop by the circle of Hell reserved for commies and visit Obama’s dad and Uncle Frank. “Hey, guys, good work on young Barry!”
Bill says:
March 15, 2013 at 11:37 am
“Ironically, his research for which he won the Nobel was in the area of trade. In that area, he is much more free market (i.e. for free trade) than his other views. Of course, that is natural as free trade is a no-brainer and even most marxists are or were for free trade.”
How are prices determined in a marxist economy? Marx thought the value of a good was determined by the amount of labour necessary for the production of a good. So, if I want to sell for a higher price, I need to have more coffee breaks in the factory?