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
Russ R. says:
March 15, 2013 at 12:49 pm
Krugman once was a respectable economist, but he stopped contributing anything of economic value when he started writing for the NY Times.
###
All he ever did was to wrap up Marxist ideology in obfuscatory pseudo math, passing it off as economics, making other Marxist wet themselves in excitement. His Nobel prize was just a reward for fanning the Agenda. This joker is the Mike Mann of economics. The only reason why he blows wind at the NYT is because he is incapable of doing any real work.
geologyjim says:
March 15, 2013 at 11:37 am
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”
###
Wrong end.
Howdy cdc
I know Dr. Krugman has an Economics Nobel, which at least is better than a Peace Prize in recent decades, but heck. I’ve had enough economics to know that he is spouting economic claptrap as well as environmental nonsense.
Krugman’s columns are tired rants reminding us why we need to conform.
Conscience of a Liberal? The defining activity of liberals is dispensing with standards, conventions, rules, and societal beliefs. So what, pray tell, would the conscience of a liberal compare his behaviour to? Nothing but his own self-will. Thus a “Liberal’s conscience” is an oxymoron. This should adequately explain Gleick, Lewandowsky, Mann, Schneider, Schmidt, the 10-10 video, and the Climategate clique.
“The Conscience of a Liberal” is quite a title. Anyone who remembers Krugman’s piece marking the 10th anniversary of 9/11, on which he disabled reader commentary, knows that the man has no conscience. I personally find him to be a despicable human being.
When Krugman dies he will go to hell. There he will be faced with three doors. Behind door number one the people are tormented by fire. Behind door number two they are tortured. Behind door number three several people are standing in cow poop up to their waste drinking coffee.
Krugman will pick door number three. Shortly after he receives his cup of coffee the devil will come in and say “OK everybody. Coffee break is over. Back on your heads”.
Oddly Krugman will feel right at home.
Sorry Anthony, but Hell is not hot enough for the likes of Krugman, Mann, Phil Jones and all the CAGW/Man-Caused Climate Change advocates. The hoax they continue to perpetrate on mankind is deserving of the worst punishment imaginable (or should that be unimaginable) in the afterlife.
I don’t plan on seeing him there,but never the less. [*?)….
Alfred
The man has no conscience.
” … this kind of denial for petty personal or political reasons is an almost inconceivable sin … ”
Oh, the irony. Back in 2010, I concluded my article “The Case of the Curious Climate Covenant” ( http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/12/the_case_of_the_curious_climat.html ) with the following question:
“So which is the bigger sin? Failing to stop a so-called global warming crisis which has increasing credibility problems with its underlying science assessments, or breaking the 9th Commandment in order to be sure [skeptic] scientists’ criticisms aren’t taken seriously?”
JDC says,
“That aside, this is an extremely minor issue compared to the pure, unadulterated idiocy that he churns out with an almost uncanny regularity.” Idiocy translated almost weekly for Costa Rica’s ‘La Nacion’ readers. CR may have been the last state to adopt Krugman’s currency-exchange ‘bands.’ Is there another still suffering under this ridiculosity?
When they cannot base their ideas on any actual science, I do not feel so bad about being a ‘denier’. It is they who are denying Science. I must be denying Stupidity or something similar, but certainly not Science. They are denying us the right to question their ideas.
“Fiscal spending has not been a significant factor in any recovery since 1950,”
Fiscal spending has NEVER led to any recovery, significant or otherwise.
The two most common questions in heaven:
“What are you doing here?”
“Where’s old so-and-so?” 😉
The hell’s warming has nothing to do with the incoming TSI, it’s mostly anthropogenic!
Does traffic congestion necessarily cause global warming? What about “green” technology and “green” vehicles? Were those also a deception or fraud perpetrated with ulterior motives?
It’s interesting to observe the evolution of climate change. It was founded as global cooling, likely portending an ice age; it progressed to become global warming, climate disruption, catastrophic climate change, and finally climate change, with interspersed qualifications of human-caused or anthropogenic. What’s next, will they announce a consensus that they lack a consensus, other than a consensus of dreams for material, physical, and ego instant (or immediate) gratification?
It was annoying when they claimed a consensus was a valid scientific construct. It was annoying when they described normal as constant or predictable outside of a limited frame of reference. The lost all credibility when they insisted on conflating science and philosophy (or what may well be their religion).
That said, if they would shift their focus to risk management for events which may have natural or artificial drivers, and suggest mitigating measures commensurate to the threat and underlying uncertainty, then they may regain some semblance of credibility. Not, however, as scientists, but as stake-holders in our common, mischievous reality.
I am a hell denier.
vukcevic says:
March 15, 2013 at 2:50 pm
The hell’s warming has nothing to do with the incoming TSI, it’s mostly anthropogenic!
Good one 🙂
Dear Paul Krugman,
I’ll see you in hell.
Sincerely,
Anthony Watts
Anthony –
I’m not sure you can make that statement since there is no evidence you will be able to visit Krugman when he is a resident in Hell.
Moreover, if it is a possibility, I would not recommend you chance it. I mean, can one really trust the Gatekeepers of Hell to let you leave, especially when one of the things that may make Krugman’s Hell would be for you to see him there.
🙂
To Mr Paul Krugman
From Saint Peter, Pearly Gates Retirement Estate
Dear Mr Krugman,
I am instructed by a 2:1 vote of the Trinity to reply to your Epistle. You wish to assign suitably qualified applicants to join you in The Other Place (TOP). You are not delegated to make these decisions – I am. If this demarcation dispute recurs, I will send you to TOP before the cock crows three times.
You must understand that these are times of stringency. The flames of Hell have been shown to be major contributors to CAGW. It is necessary to seek less polluting fuels like MSM newspaper and modern artworks. Indeed they make very good torture material in their own right.
You must excuse Krugman, he prob’ly is like most of us that assume the scientists are just normal scientist and not the evil comic book figures who are working on world domination, as readers of this web site know well.
But you must also excuse Antony, who forgot to mention that the major point of Krugman’s comment was about an article on the use of alternate transportation. He most probably knows that most of you would not in the least be interested in such an article, and in this, I agree.
Excse the spellling.
Since the beginning of time, those who have questioned and refused to believe in decreed settled matters have been proven right. Krudman is trying to intimidate others not to look any closer into AGW because when we find the truth they will lose their ability to control the masses and also will have to live with the shame of all the damage they have done. He is starting to see the end of power to control and also sees the tar and feathers’ coming his way…….
Anthony,
“Hell” is actually a small village near Trondheim Airport in Norway, It freezes over every year.
Perhaps Krugman does accept your invite to meet him there.