Apparently, global warming hasn't worked as a tool to promote Krugman's left-wing agenda (and some agendas that are much worse than his).
So similar types are looking for a more "serious proposal" than the global warming and one of them thinks that the threat of a looming alien invasion is the answer!
See also a Summer 2011 monologue in which Krugman defends scientific lies as well as budget deficits, inflation, and various things that wars cause.
Imagine that: a Nobel prize winner for a social science openly calls for the creation of a whole new fraudulent scientific discipline with a "bunch of scientists" publishing papers about a non-existent alien threat – a movement that is politically motivated.
I agree with Noel Sheppard that even if you were insane enough to believe Krugman's "scientists'" prophesies, which would be even much crazier than to believe a CO2-induced climate change threat, the proposed solutions would make no sense even within these assumptions.
Can you really save your butt from extraterrestrial aliens by jumping on a high-speed train?
The real extraterrestrial alien who endangers our civilization is Paul Krugman – and many other obsessed ideologues. And those who not only allow this troll to fill their servers with rubbish (greetings to the New York Times) but they even give him awards for that.Now, you must wonder: how is it possible that the "evil deniers" even dare to suggest that the global warming hysteria is nothing else than a fabricated left-wing plot to change the society? Needless to say, many other alarmists are pretty much open about this point – so often emphasized by Czech President Václav Klaus – too.
For example, look at this cartoon by Joel Pett:
It seems pretty clear from this cartoon and many others that these folks consider a world with a big government emitting lots of clichés how it is important and helpful (thanks, I know this absurd stuff about healthier children from communism way too well), a world with kilotons of regulation, almost no authentic private commercial activity, and five times higher energy prices as a "better world" and they're eager to repeat any lie that an allied Nobel prize winner or not even Nobel prize winner invents as a tool to bring this "better world" closer.
Via News Busters.
Marc Morano has also mentioned a new proposed sane legislation that would lead the government bodies to use the historical sea-level data, and not prophesies by Krugman-like scientists, to determine the long-term construction planning. It would be a good idea to eliminate the advisories by all the scientists who haven't ever repudiated Krugman and similar fraudsters.
Do I believe that a wrong prediction could improve the life or the economy?
In an isolated case, it perhaps accidentally could. But I just don't understand the world envisioned by Krugman to be a better world. And more importantly, once your policymaking starts to build on lies, it is guaranteed to be counterproductive because lies suck and hurt much more often than they help. And I must emphasize that the policymaking considerations are just a small part of the issue from my perspective. I actually do care about science and a relatively uncontaminated, honest institutionalized science in a discipline is much more valuable than 50,000 miles of Krugman railways. Krugman doesn't take this comparison into account because science and the truth mean nothing to him.
And that's the memo.
0 comments:
Post a Comment