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.
Just been re-reading the Divine Comedy, but I can’t seem to find the circle assigned to deniers.
“But can anyone deny that more traffic means more traffic congestion?”
trafamadore, I think Krugman was speaking squarely to you.You must obey your overlord, so that he, and a selected few, may travel without congestion.
Krugman comes across as a pathetic bully, and regardless of where his soul ends up he will be remembered as such by rational people. That’s good enough.
Great Anarch…
There wasn’t a circle of Dante’s Inferno devoted to deniers… but there was one put up for liars. The self-serving kind made out especially poorly as I recall.
There is no Nobel prize for economics, it is officially called the “Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel”. Economists bought themselves a prize to lend credility to their otherwise useless and quasi-fraudulent cargo-cult. that is not to say their aren’t bright economists like Ross McKitrick, but their utility stems from astute observation of human behaviour, and has very little to do with wild imaginings of economics. There is nothing empirical to see here, move along, move along.
trafamadore says:
March 15, 2013 at 4:23 pm
“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.”
Oh then you obviously haven’t heard of the last report of the WBGU, in which the PIK’s personnel calls for world domination.
http://www.wbgu.de/fileadmin/templates/dateien/veroeffentlichungen/hauptgutachten/jg2011/wbgu_jg2011_kurz_en.pdf
Every comic book style villain conspiracy becomes true in the world of policy-sanctioned warmism. Still waiting for a photo of Schellnhuber stroking his cat…
He’ll is an awful place. Don’t take it lightly.
Krugman is a former advisor to ENRON. ’nuff said.
Krugman seems to have forgotten at least one of the deadly sins, pride. Thinking you know it all, when you don’t, then advocating policies that hurt people, AND which fail to fix the problem, then strutting around like a peacock claiming to be speaking for the Good is just, well, I don’t think God (if he/she/it exists) would like that one bit.
Anthony –
You are doing a great service with this blog, and my hope is that you are reaching enough people with it to spur some popular, grass-roots action to fight global warming alarmism.
As I read the posts here, it is so plain that there are so many of us laymen, as well as practicing scientists who can see through the AGW fantasy. But venting on a blog isn’t going to get the job done of putting a stop to this craziness. We skeptics need to organize, compel the media to give us air time and front-page space (by court action if necessary), and advertise our views and our evidence against AGW to the publlic in any way we can – everything from billboards to bumper stickers saying “Fight Global Warming ALARMISM” (and if anyone regularly posting here has any betrter ideas, why, please come forth with them – I can’t think of everything or be entirely sure what I’m suggesting would work).
Anthony, I live in Chico myself, and I would welcome an opportunity to meet with you and discuss what we can do to build up some mojo in the fight against the AGW craziness, You can reach me by email at the_last_composer@yahoo.com.
Sincerely, Chad Wozniak
When you’re driven by ideology, it destroys and replaces it with “anything-I-can-do-and-get-away-with-is-A-OK-because-it-serves-the-CAUSE!” The credo of the alarmies for sure.
Hans Erren says: March 15, 2013 at 4:29 pm
“Hell” is actually a small village near Trondheim Airport in Norway,
There are rivals.
“Dear Paul Krugman,
I’ll see you in hell.
Sincerely,
Anthony Watts”
So Anthony, you’re meeting Krugman in Washington, DC? 🙂
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!”
Looks like Trenberth will finally find his “missing” heat! 🙂
numerobis wrote;
March 15, 2013 at 1:33 pm
“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.”
I am also confused Anthony, does the “greenhouse effect” exist and human contributions will be minor, or is this basic underpinning of “climate science” incorrect and we have absolutely nothing to worry about ?
Perhaps you are still evaluating the evidence ?
I certainly respect the policies of your blog and the “crowd sourcing” aspect has hopefully spread some different perspectives about the topic to your readers. Perhaps it’s time to allow a few of those “cranks” to make their case that the “greenhouse effect” has been mischaracterized and it in fact has no effect on the average temperature of the Earth ?
Willis has certainly explained how he believes it (the GHE) works many times, maybe it’s time for the “point – counterpoint” stage of your blog ?
Just thinking here, I sleep soundly every night knowing that if there is a Hell I won’t reside there after I depart because my beliefs have always been based on finding the truth.
Cheers, Kevin.
Paul Krugman is like P.T. Barnum. He’s not a true economist, he’s not a scientist and he certainly is not a journalist. Yet he has crowned himself the moral authority on everything from tax increases to climate change. Without the NY Times supporting his pathetic column he would be unemployable. And NYT wonders why their subscriber rate is plummeting!
“Progressives” seem to be in a bit of a pickle. They don’t want to accept a personal god, but they still want their idea of justice to be carried out by a non existent god in a non existent afterlife. Maybe that is why they are working so hard to replace god with a religion of socialism. The one true moral code for all of mankind and for all time has been delivered by the prophet Marx, and heretics must be punished.
Paul Krugman on those who verbalize dissent with his environmental views:
“may you be punished in the afterlife” (a curse)
“an almost inconceivable sin”
Premises
1. The authority to define sin presumes divine authority.
2. The authority to differentiate levels of sin is either a claim that one is god
OR presumes access to specific revelation from G/god.
3. The authority to curse presumes access to divine justice and power outside of the material realm.
Conclusions
All of the above are claims about the divine order and are hence religious claims.
Ergo: Krugman’s environmental views are religious.
So far as I know, pretty much all religions admit to being non-verifiable (Christianity aside). Hence, as a matter of practice, converting Krugman and his acolytes will be nigh impossible. Those who differ are apostates, heretics, witches — and as such must be feared, censored and shunned. I fear that our scientific arguments might be pretty ineffective, but I don’t know how to use religious style strategies against environmental alarmism.
The smugness & self-riteousness of Krugman is revolting. For that matter, any one with that level of smugness & self-riteousness, regardless of politics, is revolting. I don’t know what kind of world they have create for themselves, but anyone who tries to live in a black & white kind of world doesn’t live in the real world.
The real world is shades of gray. In the real world, both ends of political views have validity and neither side of an issue is totally correct. When I was younger & hadn’t experienced the real world, I too thought of most things in terms of black & white, no shades of gray. But with age & experience I have realized how wrong I was. Those , who at what sure be a mature age as Krugman, have clearly failed to grow up & observe & appreciate the reality of the world around them.
Collectively, we need to try to recognize our common grounds in the gray so that we can move forward together. We need to strive to be less self-riteous & try to put our selves in the shoes of those we don’t agree with & try to see the world through their eyes & understand that, for the most part, people are try to do what they see as positive thing, even if we don’t agree with the way they would go about it. And we need to encourage the smug & self-riteous on the fringes to come to the center & find common ground. So, what could we say to Paul Krugman as a community that would help difuse the smugness & self-riteousness? Not a rhetorical question & not one that I necessarily have an answer to.
Krugman hasn’t been “all there’ in the longest time. He’s an embarrassment to other economists. I wouldn’t take anything he says seriously; nobody else does.
I suspect that “punished in the afterlife” was chosen instead of “burn in hell” because even Satan doesn’t dare emit CO2 any more.
The United States is a country that has its own currency – can’t run out of cash because we print the money.
Oh my. You are in more trouble than you know.
I don’t normally put silliness like this on here, but I can’t get the song out of my mind.
“I’m a believer” as sung by Paul Krugman (with apologies to the Monkees and Neil Diamond)
I thought truth was only true in fairytales
Meant for someone else but not for me
Deniers were out to get me
That’s the way it seemed
Disappointment haunted all my dreams
Chorus w 86 part harmony (the Consensus Scientist Singers)-
Then I read Mike Mann, now I’m a believer
Not a trace of doubt in my mind
I’m in love, I’m a believer
I couldn’t leave CAGW if I tried
(yeah that last line is a little rough. Anyone have a short word for CAGW?)
Jeff L says:
March 15, 2013 at 6:46 pm
The smugness & self-riteousness of Krugman is revolting. ……….
So, what could we say to Paul Krugman as a community that would help difuse the smugness & self-riteousness? Not a rhetorical question & not one that I necessarily have an answer to.
Paul,
Accept responsibility for your own actions and Stop Exhaling. Do it Now. You are polluting our Planet. Your continued respiration is truly and succinctly ‘Living in Denial’.
MtK
“But can anyone deny that more drivers means more traffic congestion?”
Make more roads until there is no more traffic congestion.
“But still, this is a totally obvious case for government intervention that’s staring us in the face every time we hit the road.”
Yes, make more roads until there is no more traffic congestion. That’s what the market wants Mr. Krugman, Stop denying the market forces. By the way, less congestion, less CO2.
Leg writes:
…
“I’m in love, I’m a believer
I couldn’t leave CAGW if I tried”
How about:
I’m in love, I’m a believer
In the Deceiver’s vicious Lie.
or:
in the Mann-ipulated Lie