17 Jun 2016

Calling Krugman’s Bluff on Trump and the Fate of the Planet

Krugman, Shameless Self-Promotion 14 Comments

My latest at IER highlights one of the more absurd columns Krugman has ever written. He actually argued that if Hillary Clinton doesn’t win, then the planet is doomed. My conclusion:

IER founder Rob Bradley had a great observation when he compared alarmist climate change rhetoric to a high-pressure sales tactic. The manipulative salesperson doesn’t want the mark to have time to think logically about the purchase, but instead wants to create a sense of urgency and thus relies on emotional appeals.

We see such high-pressure sales techniques in Krugman’s NYT column. He clearly is “selling” Hillary Clinton for president, and will grab any emotional ploy he can to seal the deal. He has no problem telling readers that if they don’t vote for Clinton, they are helping to destroy the planet itself. The fact that such a claim is not remotely defensible using the IPCC’s own reports, just shows how little concern Krugman actually has for the integrity of the climate change debate. If Krugman doesn’t let the IPCC reports influence his writings on climate change, why should anyone on the Right take him seriously when he lectures them on “denying” the consensus?

I know I have some defenders of Krugman and/or urgent action on climate change here: So by all means, I’m curious to see you defend this particular column from him. Sad!

14 Responses to “Calling Krugman’s Bluff on Trump and the Fate of the Planet”

  1. Andrew_FL says:

    “He actually argued that if Hillary Clinton doesn’t win, then the planet is doomed.”

    Wow, almost like people who say if Trump doesn’t win, America is doomed.

    You know like, every one of them ever.

    If politics continues to become this hyperbolic, presumably it will asymptotically approach a limit, and when politics hits its limit, we can finally dispense with it! 😀

    • Tel says:

      You know like, every one of them ever.

      If you want to pip people for exaggeration, it might work a bit better not to follow that up with a massive exaggeration of your own.

      Just a suggestion.

      • Khodge says:

        Simultaneously condemning the hyperbole of the other side by presenting the hyperbole of your side seems to be the most popular rhetorical excess of this political season.

        • Major.Freedom says:

          Philosophic contradictions is the characteristic feature of our age, which manifests in the widespread and pronounced hypocrisy almost everywhere you look.

          • Tel says:

            I blame teacher’s unions.

            • Major.Freedom says:

              Teachers are mostly just the messengers. (No offense to the teachers.)

        • Andrew_FL says:

          Let it never be said I cannot engage in rhetorical excess when it amuses me.

        • Yancey Ward says:

          Hyperbole is going to destroy the world.

      • Andrew_FL says:

        I am caught

        Actually my exaggeration was mild, really. You should listen to some of these people.

        • Bob Murphy says:

          Andrew_FL wrote:

          Actually my exaggeration was mild, really. You should listen to some of these people.

          OK, but that’s not really answering them. You would have to say, “Actually my exaggeration was mild, really. You should listen to 98% of these people.”

          • Tel says:

            I think you will find a fair number of lukewarm Trump supporters amongst libertarians and “classical liberals”. As Walter Block says, if your options are getting whipped once a day, or getting whipped once a week then you choose the best available option, which does not imply that you are voluntarily asking for a whipping.

            To me the Hillary option is exceptionally bad, and you know it’s going to be bad, and you know why it’s going to be bad.

            Trump is a bit of a crapshoot but voting for a libertarian who cannot win is a protest vote only, and declining from voting is abdication of responsibility onto others (that’s my opinion, I’m aware you don’t agree). On the balance of it I think Trump is least likely to start any new wars (particularly with Russia).

            Anyway, I don’t get a vote in US elections but it will affect me because Australia always does whatever the US asks… so if Hillary starts any new wars, we will send troops for sure.

            • Andrew_FL says:

              Abdication of responsibility is an interesting choice of words. It implies you think voting is an *obligation.*

              • Tel says:

                Well in Australia they fine you if you can’t be bothered to do it.

                In a democratic country (or a republic if you want to draw the distinction) it’s the responsibility of the citizens to keep their government under control. Voting is one way to do that, not necessarily the only way, but since the cost of voting is very low (and yes, the effect is also very small) I don’t think it is asking too much.

                You might say, “Well you can’t make me!” which is quite true, but regardless you will be the one who has to accept responsibility for the outcome… whatever that might be.

          • Andrew_FL says:

            Hah! That’s good, got me good.

Leave a Reply to Andrew_FL

Cancel Reply