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.
Did I mention that I won the Nobel Prize? Can anyone guess the carbon footprint of my ego?
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?
Krugman.
NY Times.
What more need be said?
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.
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)
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.
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.
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”
I guess Krugman thinks he has more authority on Heaven and Hell than the new Pope.
Not only their morality…
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,
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
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.
“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.
.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Paul Krugman is not liberal.
He is a socialist, fascist, communist, TOTALITARIAN