Krugman Redefines Treason
Paul Krugman, never one to hold back on comments, now has declared that anyone who doe s not believe as he does on global warming is guilty of "treason against the planet." Lest a reader think I am exaggerating, here is what he wrote:
And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn't help thinking that I was watching a form of treason -- treason against the planet.
To fully appreciate the irresponsibility and immorality of climate-change denial, you need to know about the grim turn taken by the latest climate research.
But, there is so much more to his apocalyptic attacks on anyone who might think differently:
To fully appreciate the irresponsibility and immorality of climate-change denial, you need to know about the grim turn taken by the latest climate research. (Emphasis mine)
The fact is that the planet is changing faster than even pessimists expected: ice caps are shrinking, arid zones spreading, at a terrifying rate. And according to a number of recent studies, catastrophe -- a rise in temperature so large as to be almost unthinkable -- can no longer be considered a mere possibility. It is, instead, the most likely outcome if we continue along our present course.
Thus researchers at M.I.T., who were previously predicting a temperature rise of a little more than 4 degrees by the end of this century, are now predicting a rise of more than 9 degrees. Why? Global greenhouse gas emissions are rising faster than expected; some mitigating factors, like absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans, are turning out to be weaker than hoped; and there's growing evidence that climate change is self-reinforcing -- that, for example, rising temperatures will cause some arctic tundra to defrost, releasing even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
This truly is amazing. Krugman pretty much now holds the view that HE is the standard of good and proper thought. Remember, throughout history, the punishment for "treason" has been death. By the way, don't think that people like Krugman are going to back off. Holocaust "denial" in parts of Europe is punishable by prison, and I guarantee you that people like Krugman and his zealot friends will want similar legislation in the USA for "global warming denial." I wish I were exaggerating, but I see this coming.
One thing that does interest me is that Krugman pretends that other researchers (including researchers at MIT) who hold to different views simply don't exist, or anyone who does express a dissenting view either is an industry stooge or insane. And all of us know what must be done about these "enemies of the people," or should I say, "Enemies of the planet."
Comments (73)
Enjoy Every Sandwich
Okay, so Krugman is a True Believer. But what has he done about it? What has he given up?
Or is he another one of those "sacrifices are for the little people" types?
Published: June 29, 2009 7:32 AM
Daniel J. Fallon
Krugman, fearful of the Austrian bloodhounds exposing his Keynesian hackery, is trying to escape by scurrying into the murky world of global warming. The uncertainty of the science- combined with the public's high state of anxiety, uncritical acceptance of official pronouncements, and (unknowing) acceptance of rent-seeking, makes it a very suitable swamp for hiding sophist weasels indeed. The hunt must perservere!
Published: June 29, 2009 7:55 AM
Martin
Highlighting another line from the article:
"Given this contempt for hard science, I’m almost reluctant to mention the deniers’ dishonesty on matters economic."
Does Mr. Krugman understand the word "irony", do you think?
Published: June 29, 2009 7:57 AM
Krugman Is A Traitor To Freedom
"Remember, throughout history, the punishment for "treason" has been death."
Someone should silence that potential mass murderer before he puts his final solution into action and turn us all into a statistic.
Krugman = Hitler !!!
Published: June 29, 2009 7:59 AM
fundamentalist
Next we will start hearing how many people global warming kills every year and that those who oppose environmental legislation as murderers. That's how the left works.
Cigarettes are a good example. The real science behind smoking can only tell us tha smoking increases your chances of getting lung cancer. That's all. In fact, about 30% of lung cancer happens in people who have never smoked. But socialists torture the stats until they force them to reveal that smoking actually murders a certain number of people each year. That's a lie, but then if socialists had to be honest, they would have no followers.
When socialists latched on to environmentalism as a way to destroy property rights and enlarge the state, environmentalism went from being a scientific curiosity to an ideology. Now ridicule is a substitute for reason.
Published: June 29, 2009 8:13 AM
Global Warming Is True
I am NOT debating the global warming science. I am certain that global warming is true and that it is in good part the result of human action.
What I am debating is the politics of global warming. No it is not okay to tax, cap, invade freedoms and invade private property.
Those libertarians who debate the science of global warming run the risk of being proven wrong.
Global warming could in fact be true and caused by man. At this point, what are you going to say to defend your freedom and private property since you built your case upon the fact that global warming is false ? What will you do if it's true ?
I, on the other hand, am not debating the global warming science, just like I would not debate the existence of God to prove my atheist views.
Wether God exists or not, I will never accept tyranny over me, even if that tyrant is God.
Just because he is God doesn't mean I have to obey his rules, I can say no and follow my own conscience.
Well, same thing for global warming. Just because global warming is true doesn't make it right to rob money from people and deprive them from their private property.
Libertarians should instead acknowledge that global warming is true and offer free market capitalism, private property and freedom as the best way to fight pollution and global warming.
I absolutely hate it when Libertarians debate the science of global warming, you are playing the enemy's game.
Libertarians who debate the science of global warming are effectively saying that if global warming is true, then it's okay to massively tax and confiscate property from the people and to eliminate all freedoms and maybe even execute some dissenters.
By debating the science of global warming, you are not defending freedom or private property.
Strop debating the science and start debating the politics.
Let them know that even if global warming is true, which it is, that it is absolutely wrong to invade our freedoms and private property.
Instead, develop a free market, private property solution to global warming.
I am truly ashamed of Libertarians who debate the science instead of the politics and which offer no free-market, private property solution.
Some of you libertarians are atheist like I am, aren't you ? Well, I for one acknowledge that I could be wrong, God could exist after all.
But just because he exist doesn't mean I have to love him and obey him. Bible God is a scumbag and should he appear before me, I would tell him to go to hell.
I am an atheist by principle, not by structure. Meaning that I repeal all forms of tyrannical authority, therefore I don't care if God exists or not, he is NOT my God, I am a free soul.
If one day God is proven to exist, I will still continue to be independent and refuse his evil rule.
My atheism is not about God's existence or not, it's about my freedom and dignity.
By debating the science of global warming, you guys are compromising your own values of freedom and private property.
You are unconsciously saying that you would be ready to bend over your values should global warming be proven true.
I for one will never bend over my values of freedom and private property, even if the earth is about to fry like hell.
Published: June 29, 2009 8:20 AM
I Hate Smokers
fundamentalist,
I consider unwanted second-hand smoke to be murder.
As long as smokers keep the smoke in their lungs and increase their own risks, that's okay.
But at the moment the smoke reaches my lungs, then they are murderers. That's how I see it.
That's why I am against smoking in public places or when it's impossible to contain the smoke.
Because this is effectively initiation of force.
Second-hand smoke violates the libertarian non-initiation of force principle.
Therefore, it is absolutely appropriate that a powerful authority renders the life of smokes miserable.
Until a clean cigarette is developped or until smokers stop imposing their second-hand smoke against us, I see it fit to be tough on them.
Published: June 29, 2009 8:28 AM
Ian
If he's such a lover of the planet, why would he support an economic structure that supports overconsumption?
Published: June 29, 2009 8:47 AM
Nathan
The above response should also include "until government ceases to own public property."
If property has an owner who allows smoking you implicitly allow your lungs to be invaded by smokers when you enter.
If a bar has a very large number of smokers and it's next door neighbor proves smoke is leaking over, he has a case for compensation or limitation of the smoke coming from the bar owner.
Published: June 29, 2009 8:47 AM
Les
I guess Krugman would simply deny the data contained in:
http://lewrockwell.com/orig9/deming3.html
Published: June 29, 2009 9:07 AM
Brad
My despondency over the vast run up in debt by the Federal Government took the form of a simple equation. ALL statist constructs - left, right, secular, theocratic - once they have impaired their respective economies through their massive misallocations, necessarily find some group to triangulate against to scapegoat for the ills brought down by the very Statists themselves. I've wondered just who was going to be the candidates for the slave labor camps and the charnel houses. After reading this Krugman "op-ed" I think I see some drawing of lines in the triangulation process. I suppose Mexican illegals are still in the running. Woe to the carbon careless Mexicanos.
The term fascism is tossed around freely on the internet, and usually by people who don't know what it truly means. I don't think it is being hyperbolic in any way to call Krugman an Eco-fascist. His zealotry is scary. I can only assume that the families of those cremated in the camps (soon to be filled with "treasonous" individuals) will be fined for the carbon footprint left by their loved ones. I can only hope that our MIT trained masters are working on an eco-friendly filter to put on the crematorium smokestacks.
It is scary to me just how fractured we have become, and the existence of such zealotry in the corridors of power. We seem to be working inexorably toward an unavoidable conflict, one that can't be resolved peaceably. I am not the one who is putting it in this context. Krugman is the one talking of treason. He is the one talking about the brutal consequences of not believing as he does. He either is a very poor writer and chose a word he didn't intend to, or he knows full well the implications involved.
When people are chased by superstitious demons pulled out of their own minds it rarely ends with a reasonable discussion and a handshake. You can't rationally convince someone out of deadly mental figments. It's impossible to wrestle and pin the pink elephant with purple spots that doesn't exist. Unfortunately, there are too many people in the hallways of Capital Hill, the Oval Office, the editorial staffs of newspapers, and the august halls of educational institutions who believe just as Krugman does.
Am I chased by demons on my own account? Sure. But we have two hundred plus years of guillotine blades and stacked skulls in the rear view to guide us, not some computer models based on what ifs. I'd much rather worry about the next ten years and my chances of being on the wrong side of the razor wire than that my great-grand children will be pastoral cannibals in a sandy wasteland. I guess I speak treason rather fluently. Sorry Paul.
On the other side, those who talk about this being a "hoax" aren't doing anyone any favors. A hoax connotes a fabrication for tactical purposes and those perpetrating it know full well that it is empty of substance. No, this isn't a hoax. These people truly believe that Hell on Earth is around the corner. After reading Krugman's little piece I have no doubt he is as troubled by the "environmentally careless" as Hitler was by the Jews. I guess we'll just have to wait for the tome in which he can work himself up with relish over his hatreds.
Published: June 29, 2009 9:12 AM
matskralc
Hmm.
If property has an owner who allows fraud you implicitly allow yourself to be defrauded when you enter.
If property has an owner who allows punching in the face you implicitly allow yourself to be punched in the face when you enter.
If property has an owner who allows murder you implicitly allow yourself to be murdered when you enter.
Published: June 29, 2009 9:15 AM
Martin
Quote @ Global Warming Is True : "Those libertarians who debate the science of global warming run the risk of being proven wrong."
Such is the scientific method.
Recast the sentence as "Those environmentalists who refuse to debate the science of global warming run the risk of being proven wrong."
Published: June 29, 2009 9:24 AM
Rich
Dude. Try to think. If you go into an aromatherapy center, you're going to smell aromas. If you don't want to smell them, don't go.
Published: June 29, 2009 9:32 AM
Walt D.
Why am I not surprised that someone who is an ardent believer in Keynesian Economics is also an ardent believer in Global Warming? Both require the same intellectual laziness.
Since Global Warming is a religion, shouldn't the non-believers be classified as heretics ?(And subject to death by burning at the stake?)
BTW as regards murder, the millions of children who needlessly die from malaria each year as a result of environmental policy put the environmentalists way ahead of Hitler and Stalin as mass murderers.
Published: June 29, 2009 9:54 AM
Ben
Global warming is probably real. The exact causes of it are debatable. We do know that this world has seen much hotter temperatures in the past than it does today. The main take home message is, none of it truly matters. The time scale that climate change actually begins to affect localities is on the order of a full generation. That gives each individual an entire lifetime to alter where they choose to live in response to global warming. The people who fear monger about species being killed off are the same people who run around touting evolution in everyone's face. Evolution is real, and those species poised to survive will adapt. 99.99% of all species that have ever existed on Earth have already died and will continue to do so ad infinitum.
Published: June 29, 2009 10:06 AM
Walt D.
I heard a good story by Billy Bob Thornton going into an Irish Bar in New York.
He lights up.
Bartender: You can't smoke in here you'll have to go outside.
BBT: I can't smoke in an Irish pub - you've got to be sh*tting me.
He goes outside with his beer and cigarette and sits down on the patio at a table next to the sidewalk.
Waitress: You can't smoke there, you'll have to stand out on the sidewalk.
BBT stands up and steps out on to the sidewalk.
Waitress: Excuse me sir, you can't drink you beer on the sidewalk!
Published: June 29, 2009 10:08 AM
(8?»
Remember now, Krugman is a master mixer of the Kool-Aid. Determining whether or not he is a drinker of it as well is merely an attempt to judge his level of self-delusional inebriation against the idea that he does not partake at all, thus implicating his lack of morals in the creation of incoherent political propaganda.
The more his name comes up in serious circles such as this blog, the more his Kool-Aid drinking followers get a chance to ridicule them as Krugman never ceases to pile on, now going so far as to use an Economic Deniers label. Those poor Keynesian victims, will they ever get the chance to make things right?
Once again, as with pigs, there is no winning a battle with the Kool-Aid dispensers, for it is the spirit of the battle that empowers them. A spirit that I see present in these types of threads as well. Krugman sets a trap, and every single time, it is sprung by the do-gooders who "have to do something!" in alleged self-defense.
You can only disempower Krugman in one way, by ignoring him. Anything else fuels his divide-and-conquer destructionism. Of course, even my critique may give him cause to claim further abuse, as I'm sure these are words he does not wish to hear.
Published: June 29, 2009 10:48 AM
Pete H.
What's scarier are most of the comments - I only found three disagreeing with Krugman before I stopped looking; some agreed to this extent: "we need to go after them and make them pay for their treason against the planet. Remember these names and don't forget them."
Of course, it is the New York Times.
Published: June 29, 2009 11:32 AM
Zap
"That's why I am against smoking in public places or when it's impossible to contain the smoke."
I am against barbecues, I am against campfires, I am against perfumes and colognes, I am also against B.O, I am against belching and I am adamantly opposed to farting............on and on we could go.
I dont expect to live forever though so Ill let it slide, fart if you must, Ill hold my breath until I am down wind.
Published: June 29, 2009 12:20 PM
Jonathan Finegold Catalán
I like how all these mainstream economists ignore all the evidence that proves that CO2 emissions is not the cause of global warming. The funniest thing is that you don't really have to look that hard. Scientists are screaming out the real research, hoping for somebody to listen to them.
Honestly, for as "liberal" as Krugman claims to be, he is the most close minded person of them all.
Published: June 29, 2009 12:20 PM
Zap
"That's why I am against smoking in public places or when it's impossible to contain the smoke."
I am against all of these things as well, so if you are using any of these products or derivatives of same please knock it off!!
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_1_3x_Known_and_Probable_Carcinogens.asp?sitearea=PED
Published: June 29, 2009 12:29 PM
I Hate Smokers
Nathan,
"If property has an owner who allows smoking you implicitly allow your lungs to be invaded by smokers when you enter."
I agree !
When I go to other people's place and they smoke, I shut the F. up and endure. After all, they did not force me to come to their place. I totally agree.
Nobody should be stopped from smoking in their private property.
I don't see why we should outlaw smoking in restaurants and bars. If the restaurant or bar owner allows smoking, well so be it, I will go to another restaurant or call for delivery instead.
The benefits of freedom far outweigh the dangers of a few puffs of second hand smoke.
And lack of freedom is more dangerous than second-hand smoke.
After all, second-hand smoke did not kill 50 Million people in WWII !!! Tyranny did !
Published: June 29, 2009 12:44 PM
David Kraus
I see global warming as a property rights issue that would be more appropriately sorted out in civil court.
Published: June 29, 2009 12:50 PM
I Hate Smokers
Nathan,
"If property has an owner who allows smoking you implicitly allow your lungs to be invaded by smokers when you enter."
I agree. As long as you're on your private property, you can smoke yourself to hell.
When I go visit people who smoke, I endure. I am at their place. However they had better not smoke at my place. This also explains why nobody comes to my place.
Zap,
My point is that second-hand smoke is a threat to your health.
Farts stink but doesn't give lung cancer. However, I'm sure that comparative-epidemic studies on this subject hasn't been made. Most people can tolerate second-hand smoke smell, nobody can tolerate fart smell.
I bet you will die faster by smelling methane all day than by smelling second-hand smoke.
Yeah, I do hold my breath when I cross a smoking mob in the street and I start breathing again when I'm far away from them.
They can smoke and I can hold my breath.
Still, I view second-hand smoke as a violation of the Libertarian non-initiation of force principle. However I must agree with you on the farting as well.
Farting is also a form of initiation of force.
My father always told me that it was his asshole and that because he is the private owner of his asshole, he has the right to do what he wants with it.
Since I am the private owner of my own body and noze, I can leave for a few minutes while the fart smell is gone.
Now, who's property is the fart ?
Published: June 29, 2009 12:57 PM
I Hate Smokers
"I dont expect to live forever though so Ill let it slide, fart if you must, Ill hold my breath until I am down wind."
I guess if you hold your breath when I fart, I can hold my breath when you smoke.
Published: June 29, 2009 1:01 PM
Zap
Re I hate smokers
Talk about only seeing what is seen, this guy apparently obsessively focuses purely on "the seen" in regards to smoking.
Does he drive a car, ride on a train, take an airplane, barbecue, wear cologne, use soap, fart......Im sure I could find dozens of cancerous emission causing activities that he engages in and that I do not.
So why should he be allowed to poison me with his deadly emissions!!
When he cuts it out with his deadly cancer causing pursuits, I will give up smoking, until then.....oogots!!
OK I do fart so we are even on that score
Published: June 29, 2009 1:06 PM
Down With Krugman
8,
"You can only disempower Krugman in one way, by ignoring him."
They ignored Hitler and look where that got them.
Krugman = Hitler.
There is only ONE way to disempower Krugman.
The same way you would "disempower" Hitler if you could go back in time.
Krugman is a very dangerous man, he is a potential mass murderer an he is inciting to mass killings by accusing climate dissenters of treason against the planet.
By those bold accusations he is litterally inviting all eco-terrorists to kill climate dissenters. He is also inviting aggressive government officials to track, lock and later on exterminate us.
If they could kill 50 million people in the name of germany, imagine how many they will kill in the name of the planet.
Krugman must not be ignored.
If an armed robber is about to kill you, will you ignore him or will you try to defend yourself against him before he kills you ?
Well same thing for Krugman. He is one of the most dangerous man in the USSA right now !
Published: June 29, 2009 1:18 PM
Krugman = Hitler
8,
Read carefully, when Krugman says that us climate dissenters are guilty of "treason agains the planet" what he really means is that he wants us all dead.
Krugman wants us all, who disagree with him, dead !
To accuse someone of "treason against the planet" is to effectively want him dead. Wake-up 8 !!!
Hitler killed more non-jews than he killed jews. Most of his victims were soviets and opposants to his regime.
If you decide to ignore Krugman, you do so at the peril of your own life.
Published: June 29, 2009 1:25 PM
Krugman = Hitler
"or anyone who does express a dissenting view either is an industry stooge or insane."
Isn't it funny that it's always the insane that accuse those who disagree to be insane.
By accusing climate dissenters to be "traitors against the planet" Krugman has proven himself to be a dangerous insane megalomaniac.
At first, I laughed at Krugman and his neo-Keynesian policies. I took him for a clown. I tought he was a mere economic illiterate.
But ever since he accused us of "treason against the planet", now I know that Krugman is a very dangerous man, a potential mass murderer that must be taken very seriously.
It's no longer time to laugh, our lives are at stake.
Published: June 29, 2009 1:31 PM
Krugman = Hitler
"or anyone who does express a dissenting view either is an industry stooge or insane."
What makes Krugman think he is not an insane government stooge himself ???
His accusations make him a potential mass murderer.
Because of his constant attacks against individual freedoms and private property, we could accuse Krugman of "treason against humanity" !!!
Published: June 29, 2009 1:35 PM
I Hate Cigarettes
"Talk about only seeing what is seen, this guy apparently obsessively focuses purely on "the seen" in regards to smoking."
I am obssessed by "the breathed". I hate smoke not because I can see it, but because I am forced to breathe it.
But that's my point, when I drive my car, I am not keeping my pollutants to myself.
Now, CO2 and water vapor are not toxic.
But unburnt hydrocarbons and NOx are carcinogens and produce ozone which causes smog and respiratory problems.
People die because of this.
In this sense, when I'm driving my car, I am initiating force against pedestrians and other people.
How must we address this ?
What is the Libertarian solution to me polluting the world with the exhaust of my car ?
I agree with where you are going, you are saying that if I claim that one form of pollution is unethical, then all forms of pollution are.
Therefore if a smoker should not be allowed to expell his second-hand smoke, I should not be allowed to drive my car.
I agree, how can we solve this problem ?
Technology such as the catalyser allows to eliminate unburnt hydrocarbons and NOx from exhausts.
Is there such a technology on cigarette filters ?
I still say that the solution would be clean burning cigarettes.
Come on, we can go to the moon and mars but can't make a clean burning cigarette ?
Published: June 29, 2009 1:52 PM
ICE CRAPS
"ice caps are shrinking,"
There is much less ice now than 15,000 years ago, how come there is still people on this planet.
If the shrinking of ice caps means death to us all, then humanity should have been extinct 15,000 years ago with the end of the ice age.
There was no ice caps during the Dinosaur era, the world was much hotter than it is now and there was 5 times more CO2.
How come did life thrived and survived, we should not be there today.
It never ceases to amaze me how eco-fascists think that without the ice-caps, this world will come to an end.
Yeah, the planet is getting warmer, but that doesn't mean the end of the world.
Published: June 29, 2009 1:57 PM
Eric
My wife and I had a discussion about this topic a few days ago. She leans liberal and I lean libertarian. Basically she thinks that global warming is caused by man and my thoughts are that there is no way to be 100% sure the cause of global warming is man made.
I said for every scientist that thinks it's caused by man there is another that says it is not. Ultimately as an individual you choose which to believe. The discussion moved to the government and where it draws the line and if the government should have control of what people do and don't do based on something that may or may not be caused by man.
Like "Global Warming is True" said I wasn't going to win the argument about whether man caused warming or not. But, I did have a chance to win the argument about the government not being the best at deciding what action to take.
Published: June 29, 2009 2:00 PM
S Andrews
EES says...Okay, so Krugman is a True Believer. But what has he done about it? What has he given up?
He wants to stimulate spending! He wants to break windows and rebuild them. He wanted a housing bubble, earlier this decade, where by vast tracts of farmland would become suburbia with mcmansions sitting on them
Published: June 29, 2009 2:17 PM
David C
Here's a thought experiment. What would happen if someone pointed a gun at Krugman (or Al Gore for that matter) and demanded he be truthful about which is more important: personal liberty or a person's carbon footprint?
Published: June 29, 2009 2:33 PM
Toby
@ David C: They would laugh in your face and take your money to create "green jobs".
Published: June 29, 2009 2:51 PM
Brad
I Hate Smokers-
Not overly fond of them myself.
But, smokers are murderers? Hyperbolic much? If you can't differentiate between someone in the next booth lighting up and someone coming at you with a bloody ax and a devilish gleam in his eye then I don't know what I can say that will make sense to you.
But - a little second hand smoke is similar to breathing some car exhaust. Do you drive a car? Are you then just as much a murderer?
Do you have a house? Do you heat it? Where does the energy come from? Are there any pollutants cast off into the air? Are you doubly a murderer?
Do you ever use a charcoal grill?
Do you use colognes? Perhaps not cancer causing but people with allergies can suffer.
Where does your bodily waste go? Where you live? Where you work? Do you know for a fact what the overflow policies are?
Ever disturbed anyone else with noise?
Ever live in an apartment and do any painting?
Ever put any chemical down a drain?
Ever use the rest room without thoroughly washing your hands the proscribed thirty seconds in hot water and soap?
Ever sneeze or cough without covering your mouth?
Do have a lawn, or live somewhere where there is one? Do you use a push mower? Gas or electric spins off murderous pollutants.
Ever use any sort of chemicals on your lawn?
Ever do your laundry with mass market detergents?
Ever put on bug spray near anyone else?
Ever throw a metal battery away or a piece of technology outside the perscribed methods?
Ever tailgate anyone?
Ever drive under any sort of influences?
Ever have unprotected sex with anyone while not knowing your health record down to the exact detail?
Ever do ONE of these things EVER?
If you haven't then I think the EPA needs perfect specimens such as yourself.
If you have, then you stand a chance of being a "murderer".
I don't like cigarette smoke. I generally avoid places that allow smoke. I didn't marry a smoker on purpose.
But it's a big wide world. If you happen to live and work in a place that is concentrated enough to have smokers to a point that you can't outrun them no matter where you go, then you are also likely subject to many other pollutants beyond cigarette smoke. If you expect the world to actually do away with all man made carcinogens then you are naive. Your best bet is to hole up in the hills somewhere, assuming you can find enough fruits and vegetables. I can only assume you wouldn't eat raw meat. I can't imagine the holocaust to your lungs trying to cook it.
By the way, don't eat even edible mushrooms. They are very carcinogenic.
Peanut butter is too. If we can't trust that there isn't bacteria in our peanut butter supply, then how can we trust them about the fungi?
And stay away from those broiled steaks.
And potato chips.
And there is bird poop in your tortillas.
And there are bug pieces in your chocolate bar.
Published: June 29, 2009 3:58 PM
I Hate Krugman
in reply to David C,
"What would happen if someone pointed a gun at Krugman..."
POW!
Published: June 29, 2009 4:03 PM
I Hate Krugman
in reply to David C,
"Here's a thought experiment. What would happen if someone pointed a gun at Krugman..."
What would happen if you went back in time and pointed a gun at Hitler ?
Well, same thing for Krugman !
Published: June 29, 2009 4:14 PM
Dave Kraus
A, Gore is a full partner with Kleiner Perkins. Considering KPCB stands to gain from climate change Gore's opinions should be viewed with skepticism.
Published: June 29, 2009 4:27 PM
Thinker
I suppose the first people to be burnt at the stake (which would give off lots of CO2, by the way) would be the scientists who collected the data indicating that the globe is actually COOLING rather than warming. And then the scientists who have discovered that the southern ice cap is actually GROWING rather than shrinking. And then comes Al Gore for displaying in his wondrous slide show that "hockey-stick" graph which shows very clearly that historically CO2 has risen After temperature rather than before.
Yup, that about clinches it...if you do not believe in Global Warming, you a Holocaust denier!
Published: June 29, 2009 5:01 PM
Andy von Guerard
It is totally illegitimate for anyone to believe or say they know that global warming will have a negative effect on the human race, or the Earths eco system. Let's step back in time to mid evil Europe a terrible time when crops would fail and famine was all to common. Then the Earth entered a period of warming (known as the midevil warm period) where crop yields rose to record levels and there were no famines for many many years.
So why to freaks like Krugman think Global Warming is a bad thing? Do they hate the human race? Do they not want millions of acres of land opened up to grain farming because of warmer temperatures. The fact of the matter is that in the past warmer temps have helped humans, and there is no reason that can't be the case again.
Published: June 29, 2009 5:30 PM
Dennis
When Mr. Krugman makes comments such as those referenced above, not only is he displaying his ignorance of science, but he is also acting like an intellectual fascist.
Published: June 29, 2009 5:48 PM
Stephen
And all this time I thought that the environmentalists were guilty of treason against the human race.
Published: June 29, 2009 6:18 PM
Gabe
Please read part of this Club of Rome document
Club of Rome
The First Global Revolution excerpts starting on page 81
"The need for enemies seem to be a common historical factor. Some states have striven to overcome domestic failure and internal contradictions by blaming external enemies. The ploy of finding a scapegoat is as old as mankind itself – when things become too difficult at home, divert attention to adventure abroad. Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one, or else one invented for the purpose….Can we live without enemies?
…New enemies have to be identified, new strategies imagined, and a new weapons devised….
In the present situation in the world, the lack of identification of the people with the processes of decision-making is expressed in the form of indifference, scepticism, or outright rejection of governments and political parties, which are seen as having little control over the problems of our times. These attitudes are clearly indicated by a decreasing rate of participation in elections.
In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by HUMAN intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself."
Published: June 29, 2009 6:26 PM
Conservative Economics
First, we have to listen to Krugman's ridiculous economic fantasy trips because people think his Nobel Prize somehow means everything he says is truth. Now, we have to listen to this idiot talk about a subject that he has absolutely no credibility in as if he was some kind of climate expert. I think it is likely ego or a red herring to his failed Keynesian ideology that was exposed recently. Either way, he is a total putz.
Published: June 29, 2009 6:39 PM
Walt D.
Paul Krugman is a bullshit delivery device.
..to paraphrase David Kessler
Published: June 29, 2009 8:04 PM
Walt D.
"The Emperor has nothing at all on!" at last cried out all the people. The Emperor finally realized that he was not wearing any clothes and felt very uncomfortable; but he thought "the procession must go on", so he strutted up and walked even more proudly! And the lords of the bedchamber took greater pains than ever, to appear holding up a train, although, in reality, there was no train to hold."
The Global Warming proponents are acting in the same way as the Emperor. Krugman is playing the role of a chamberlain.
Published: June 29, 2009 10:01 PM
Desdemona
I love the double think of Paul Krugman.
- Paul Krugman believes human's are causing global warming with carbon emmissions.
- Humans are a danger to the planet, and to the survival of fellow humans. Traitors perhaps, because traitors are actually people who act on beliefs
- Paul Krugman is a human and therefore a danger to the health and well being of society.
Paul Krugman who is fueling global warming by merely existing (a traitor!), thinks the real traitors are people who live no different then himself, but hold philosophical views which have no effect whatsoever on the environment. (unless neurons are warming the planet)
Published: June 29, 2009 10:26 PM
Gil
What happened to the Libertarian notion that 'victims of pollution' could sue 'emitters of pollution' in court? If some Libertarians actually believe pollution amounts to 'trespass' then the Industrial Revolution ought never have happened because of the amount of pollution required for the upkeep of all that machinery. We'd all be still living in a medieval lifestyle and the world's population would be 500 million people or so.
Published: June 30, 2009 12:43 AM
Pierre
Bellow is a link to an interesting paper which as nearly been undertaken by EPA officials. A little bit long but very instructive as to the lack of scientific evidence supporting certain common thinking.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10274412-38.html?tag=newsEditorsPicksArea.0
Published: June 30, 2009 4:00 AM
LightBringer
Gil: because most people were willing to put up with pollution so they could have a job :) The mass migration from the country to the cities shows this to be true. In a libertarian society, you only sue people when you believe the result will be beneficial to you - otherwise everyone will be involved with litigation all the time.
Published: June 30, 2009 7:45 AM
Eric Parks
I find it interesting that Krugman uses the words "global warming" only once - towards the bottom of the rant. He uses "climate change" four times. I wonder why?
He talks about things being worse than scientists had expected. This means the scientists were wrong in their calculations. What else were they wrong about?
All of this talk of treason sounds like the republicans a while back when enough wasn't being done to fight terror. If we only had the power to get things done the way they should be rather than deal with a wishy-washy Congress...
Maybe a dictator could get things done just so.
Published: June 30, 2009 7:51 AM
John Nurbo
Global Warming propagandists are Socialist, Communist Scumbags.
There aren't in the "business" of "saving the planet" for the sake of the planet. No way !
They are in the "business" of "saving" the planet in order to destroy capitalism and install their one-world socialist communist government.
The see the environmental issue as a highly mobilizing base from which they can launch attacks against capitalism, against the free market, against private property and against individual freedoms.
Their goal is not clean air, is not healthy ecosystems nor a green world.
Their goal is socialism and communism. What they hope to do is use this global warming craze in order to destroy free market capitalism and destroy private property rights.
Their real agenda is to destroy as much economic freedoms as possible. They couldn't care less about ecology and cooler climate.
Published: June 30, 2009 7:53 AM
I Hate Smokers
Brad,
At least the guy coming with an ax is honest about wanting to kill me and doesn't pretend to be a nice guy LOL !
Chances are, the guy with an ax coming to kill me has a big disgusting cigar in his mouth, LOL !
Just kidding.
Smokers aren't "murderers" but they are guilty of criminal neglect which can cause death.
Published: June 30, 2009 8:02 AM
Krugistan has weapons of intellectual mass destruction,
Being in support of legislation that is against the Constitution of America and which endangers its citizens is,by definition, traitorous.And therefore Paul Krugman is absolutley a traitor to the USA. The rest of the planet is indifferent to the psychopathic ramblings of a has-been, Sveriges Riksbank Prize winning International trade theorist .
Published: June 30, 2009 8:18 AM
Emil Suric
Global warming is not an Earth specific phenomena; it's occurring on Mars, Venus, Triton, Pluto, and other plants within our solar system. The true causes of global warming are increased solar flares, and orbital shifts. Carbon and Methane emissions are a 800 year lagging indicator.
Published: June 30, 2009 10:49 AM
Freedom First
Emil Suric and all other FAKE Libertarians,
I see that you debate the fact that global warming is true or the fact that it is caused by man.
What you are really saying is that you are ready to turn your back away from freedom, private property rights and capitalism should global warming be proven to exist and be caused by man after all. Shame on you !
ME, I think that Freedom comes first no matter if the world is getting hotter or cooler.
I think that even if global warming is true and caused by man, that it is wrong to assault our personal freedoms, wrong to assault our private property rights and wrong to assault free market capitalism.
Those measures will kill far more people than global warming itself.
As a libertarian, I believe in freedom first and foremost. I won't debate the truthfulness or the causes of global warming.
You are playing the enemy's game and effectively giving legitimacy to their tyranny should global warming be proven true after all.
You are not Libertarians, you are assholes who deserve a great big kick in the groins.
You think that freedom is not important because you never shock yourself at the assault against freedom perpetrated by all the Krugmans or the Al-Gores of the world.
You are shocked at their bogus science but not at their bogus politics.
Shame on you.
As a Libertarian, I don't care if global warming is true or not, you had better not assault my personal freedoms, my private property rights or free market capitalism.
If you were Libertarians, you would think that way as well.
As Libertarians, our duty is to fight against government encroachment, not debate global warming.
Published: June 30, 2009 11:16 AM
I Hate Liberals
Krugistan,
In that case, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Diane Feinstein, the Brady campaigners, are the biggest traitors this nation has ever faced.
Published: June 30, 2009 11:19 AM
Walt D.
I agree with Eric. Also, we are due for another Ice Age. This is certain. The real question is when. Here is an interesting article that suggests that the Earth may be on the brink of another Ice Age.
http://www.examiner.com/x-3274-DC-Weather-Examiner~y2009m6d29-Earth-on-the-Brink-of-an-Ice-Age
Published: June 30, 2009 11:26 AM
Walt D.
Sorry, I meant that I agree with Emil (Suric).
Published: June 30, 2009 11:30 AM
Walt D.
Krugman should read this supressed EPA report. It appears we have traitors in the EPA!
http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf
Published: June 30, 2009 12:10 PM
I Hate Liberals
Walt. D.
Since we are due for another ice age and that this would be detrimental to our economy and crop production.
I propose the following solution to combat against the coming ice age.
Burn more fossil fuels. That way we get double whammy. We get all the economic benefits of a fast economy and prosperity while preventing another ice age catastrophe.
Published: June 30, 2009 12:40 PM
G8R HED
@FREEDOM FIRST -
Your name isn't Paul Krugman, is it?
"And as I watched the libertarian deniers make their arguments, I couldn't help thinking that I was watching a form of treason -- treason against other libertarians."
Published: June 30, 2009 1:13 PM
Krugistan
I Hate Liberals
Krugistan,In that case, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Diane Feinstein, the Brady campaigners, are the biggest traitors this nation has ever faced.
Biggest? Perhaps. Latest? Yes.
Published: June 30, 2009 1:37 PM
Emil Suric
@ "Freedom First"
Obviously you do care, and you seem extremely emotional about it. The science is not in your corner, the facts do not support the theory. It's inconvenient, I know. Taking a position is not "playing into the enemies hand," especially when they're wrong, and we're right.
Published: June 30, 2009 1:47 PM
Yitz Weiss
This is a great article that really makes the case for what’s real and what’s not.
* Robert Tracinski and Tom Minchin: Intellectual Climate Change: Could Australia 'Blow Apart the Great Global Warming Scare'? (VERY INTERESTING!) http://jewishworldreview.com/0609/tracinski.php3
Published: June 30, 2009 2:57 PM
damocles
The really impressive part is that Krugman's "facts" are utterly wrong; satellite measurements show the planet has been cooling since 1998 and will probably continue to do so until 2030 since we are entering a solar minimum. An internal EPA paper pointing this out was suppressed by the Obama White House, but has now escaped. A number of Russian and British scientists are worried about a new Ice age. I guess, according to the clowns like Krugman, they should be tried and convicted for pointing out that Al Gore has no clothes.
Published: June 30, 2009 6:15 PM
Bruce de la Vega
I'm fairly certain that "global warming" is political propaganda.
OTOH, I'm certain the holocaust is fact.
Published: July 1, 2009 12:20 AM
Gil
Lightbringer - your post doesn't make obvious sense. For example, suppose a copper mine starts operating upstream of a farming village. Suppose the villagers and animals are getting ill from pollutants dumped in the river the farmers are using. Do the farmers sue or do they have to move? Can the copper mine owners counter with "we're supplying everyone with copper, especially for electrical wiring, we're helping to improve peoples' standards of living whilst you quaint farmers are trying to live in times gone by"?
Similarly, suppose for the moment AGW (I'm questioning the problem of negative externalities as opposed trying to show AGW is true (I'm personally sitting on the fence with AGW)) can be shown to be true and can some disastrous for some people. Can there be the right to sue or tax polluters? Or to those who would be affected have to move because the benefits brought with the pollution more than outweigh any justification to control polluters?
Published: July 1, 2009 12:44 AM
Andrey
Propogandist Paul Krugman onse again does his job with enthusiasm.
His religious language, a militant islamist's intolerance and attacks on science and independent thinking seem almost unreal.
Can this really be happening?
Did he really just say what he said?
Is this a respectable academic, Nobel Prize winner talking like Goebbels in a 21st century America?
Looks like an Orwellian nightmare, really.
Published: July 3, 2009 6:39 PM
David
Where do we turn ourselves in?
Published: July 4, 2009 1:45 AM