Quote of the Week – Dear Paul Krugman: 'I'll see you in hell'

qotw_cropped

Krugman as usual, considers himself to be a judge of other people’s views, morals, and conscience.

I find the column title amusing.

Krugman_hell

Here’s what is so amusing and at the same time troubling about his column.

Krugman_hell2

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

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Talk about hypocrisy

Very well and very succinctly put Mr Watts

Camburn

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.

Bruce Foutch

“I don’t like to commit myself about heaven and hell – you see, I have friends in both places.”
– Mark Twain

The Rural Juror

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.

Nigel S

Wow, did he share Mann’s Nobel Prize?

Felix

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.

geologyjim

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”

Bill

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.

margaret berger

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.

Konrad

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 😉

John Tillman

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.

Kaboom

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.

Robertv

Schwartz Slams Krugman
http://youtu.be/4qes1g99pg4

Pittzer

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.”

Colin

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.\…..

JDC

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.

redjefff

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

William Chadwick

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!”

DirkH

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?

Brendy

Did I mention that I won the Nobel Prize? Can anyone guess the carbon footprint of my ego?

Terry

Krugman, Hansen, Mann….. why are these people still employed? Unbelievable.

Paul Krugman first know thyself.
Second know more of your own direction and you will not have such a blunt sore nose from all the crashes.

For the record, liberals don’t have a conscience. Someone want to relate exactly when Krugman the crappy economist suddenly became qualified to have an opinion about climate science?

Ron McDonald

Krugman.
NY Times.
What more need be said?

Andrew

We’ve seen this progression many times. It is but a short step from that sort of hate-speak to tyranny. Steps along the way include being declared ‘an enemy of the people’, arrests on false pretences, re-education camps, disappearances, etc.
It would never cross the Eco Taliban mindset that the biggest “denier” of them all is the Earth itself, which hasn’t warmed since 1998, despite all the hype. The temperature it gets to settle at is ultimately determined by variations in the sun’s spectral output. The link between varying magnetic flux from the sun, as it affects the deflection of cloud-forming cosmic radiation/particles, needs to be understood and publicised to a much greater degree.
CO2 is a good neighbour who picked up a smoking gun as the cops arrived.

Russ R.

Krugman once was a respectable economist, but he stopped contributing anything of economic value when he started writing for the NY Times.
A fun game is to contrast what he writes in his column against his own academic writings from before he devolved into being a political hack.
James Taranto at the WSJ gives a fine example here, refuting an argument in Krugman’s column with a quote from his own textbook.
Another equally fun game is compare Krugman’s about-faces on topics depending on whether it’s the Red team or the Blue team in charge.
Here Alex Tabarrok points out Krugman’s alarmism over the the catastrophic nature of the federal debt under Bush (circa 2003) vs. his nonchalance over the much larger federal debt under Obama (circa 2012)

john robertson

Nice call Anthony, course as a secular Anti-humanist that nasty piece of work is already living it.
Today is the “Hell” they imagined, caught lying, reputation swirling around the bowl and derisive laughter rising from the crowd.
That is hell on earth for our self styled betters and saviours.

O.Olson

JDC says:
March 15, 2013 at 12:01 pm
Careful what you say. From the readers here I’ve learned very much of scientific value, but also on occasion read a few comments bordering on bigotry concerning the scientific abilities of the nonbelievers among us and our ancestors.

“Paul Krugman wouldn’t see any of this as rational skepticsim”
He wouldn’t see it, period. He’s bragged he gets all his news from the left-wing echo chamber.

Vince Causey

That is not very fair of Krugman. His world view does not even allow a person to “deny global warming” out of simple ignorance, much less having sincerely held science based beliefs. It is always “personal gain” or “political reasons.”
I would expect him to say the same about those who deny fiscal stimulus. Presumably they are just plain evil. They couldn’t be motivated by cogent economic arguments, could they?
If he was ten times better at economics than he is at climate science, he might achieve mediocrity. Alas. . .

Don’t send me to heaven, it ain’t where i should go
‘Cause the devil’s got a charcoal pit and a good fire down below.
Barbecue, sliced beef and bread,
Ribs and sausage and a cold Big Red…
–from Robert Earl Keen’s “Barbecue”

Ray

I guess Krugman thinks he has more authority on Heaven and Hell than the new Pope.

O.Olson

Not only their morality…

Skiphil

Or you could tell Krugman how to find Michael Mann (many years hence, I hope and trust after they have both enjoyed very long natural lives with time to see how many of their ideas were proved wrong)….. Reminiscent of Hamlet, when the King is asking where Polonius is,

Claudius. Where is Polonius?
Hamlet. In heaven. Send thither to see. If your messenger find him not
there, seek him i’ th’ other place yourself….

I have friends, political scientists, sociologists, who all share an interest at least in certain kinds of science fiction.
― Paul Krugman
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming might be one of them.
Politics determines who has the power, not who has the truth.
― Paul Krugman
Skeptics have no power, but have the truth

RACookPE1978

Now, now. Let us be careful in the accuracy of the rejoinder: While the postulated location of the said person is in little doubt given the current and future projected (linear) trends of behavior, this probability cannot be expressed with error bars (from behind Hansen’s jail bars ?) and today’s liberal standard (or non-standard) deviations.
Also. we cannot absolutely be certain of the ability to see the said person “in hell” (from heaven) while both subjects are in the afterlife.
While we have Lazareth’s statements affirming to the ability of viewing subjects in hell from heaven, that second-hand statement was not published in a scientifically accredited and (97 percent government-researched) peer-reviewed document.

ralfellis

“In the afterlife ” ??!! So AGW is indeed a religion, and it now has an afterlife.
I expect that AGW unbelievers will go to the fires of hell, to be doused in water as hot as molten brass to melt their skin and drink putrid water – while believers will have cool running streams, couches with soft cushions, fine robes, and black-eyed and busty girls who serve the best wine and sweetest fruits.
The descriptions here of the fates of all unbelievers (kuffers) in hell and the believers in paradise, are taken from the Koran – but one expects the fates of AGW unbelievers will be much the same.
.

MT Geoff

It’s funny how Krugman sees market failure in any free activity which then requires a government action to correct it, e.g. “driving during congestion puts a burden on other drivers so the government should charge a large fee for it.”
It is not an “externality” that I happen to drive home when a lot of other people drive home. It’s society and how we work together and build schedules and have the freedom to live in one area but work in another.
As for heaven or hell, well, lots of different beliefs. I think that, when this life ends, God’s grace is large enough for all of us. If I’m wrong, I’ll be in big trouble — or there won’t be any me. Shrodinger’s heaven??

What is CO2? – CO2 is Bad.
Where is CO2? – CO2 is everywhere.
What is the original sin? – The original sin is breathing.
Guilt, mystery, control.
Yup! Warmism is a religion alright.

Eric H.

Krugman walks the party line. Fiscal spending has not been a significant factor in any recovery since 1950, and it is not working now. Didn’t work for Japan and now I learn that it didn’t work for Spain. Romper and Romper 2004 is an interesting read, as is Taylor’s article on the housing crisis. Taylor uses a model to show how the housing bubble would have been much less severe had the Fed not held interest rates as low for as long as they did. It’s a model and I don’t know how much better econ models are compared to GCMs but it is interesting anyway. Benanke says the interest rates don’t correlate to the housing bubble but the housing market crashed when rates were ratcheted up. Almost as fun as the climate debate..The left without empirical data holding on to a theory despite its obvious failures.

numerobis

Anthony, it’s a bit disconcerting trying to keep track of your position. Sometimes you are very clear that there’s no global warming — in this post for example, where you think that Krugman is targeting you. Other times you swear up and down that you believe there *is* global warming, but not much, and anyway it’ll be a good thing.

Once again, the problem here is talking out of one’s expertise. I have no doubt that Krugman is an excellent economist, and his Nobel (well, not quite Nobel, but let’s drop that area of bickering) is well earned, even though such a “Nobel” has crowned highly praised economists from all sides of thought ; that doesn’t qualify him in the least to pontificate in quantum physics, cosmology or Earth sciences. In all subjects apart from Economy, he is at par with any educated person, and certainy below par with anyone who has a good Science degree. He is no “scientist” (meaning “hard science”), only an amateur in such subjects.

tz2026

Reminds me of the Bishop Sheen story:
Audience member Q: “How did Jonah spend 3 days in the belly of a whale”?
(Bishop) A: “When I get to heaven I’ll ask him”.
Q. “What if Jonah isn’t in heaven?”
A. “Then you can ask him”.
Krugman loves debt which is imposed on the following generations. So he doesn’t mind turning the USA into Zimbabwe 50 years hence, as long as it isn’t a few degrees warmer.
Denying the truth for petty personal or political reasons is an inconceivable sin. It is also grave and if done with full will and knowledge mortal. Denying a lie is not a sin and denouncing lies as such is a righteous action.

phodges

Paul Krugman is not liberal.
He is a socialist, fascist, communist, TOTALITARIAN