The New York Times' blowhard economics writer Paul Krugman apparently didn’t sense the stupidity in pontificating to readers about the supposed need to “politicize” the weather. Yes, you read that right.
Krugman took a pit stop from his usual Keynesian blather on economics to go on another ridiculous climate change rant in a July 17 op-ed headlined, “Why We Should Politicize the Weather.” The self-aggrandizing economist kicked up a stink over Republican presidential candidate Ron DeSantis’ recent statement that he “‘always rejected the politicization of the weather.’” But in Krugman’s pseudo-intellectual worldview, “we absolutely should politicize the weather.” In fact, he proclaimed with gusto, “weather is a political issue. And Americans should be aware that it’s one of the most important issues they’ll be voting on next November.” Cue the canned laughter.
Krugman’s ad nauseum whining about the leftist climate change boogeyman is even more comical in light of the fact that he was the former adviser to the scandal-plagued and defunct fossil fuel energy giant Enron. Krugman became infamous for penning this ludicrous statement about Enron’s collapse: “I predict that in the years ahead Enron, not Sept. 11, will come to be seen as the greater turning point in U.S. society."
In his latest piece of rambling rubbish, Krugman managed to redefine the term “environmental extremism” and pin it on Republicans while he bemoaned how the world was on the precipice of climate Armageddon:
[W]e’re living in a time of accelerating climate-related disasters, and the environmental extremism of the Republican Party — it is more hostile to climate action than any other major political party in the advanced world — would, in a more rational political debate, be the biggest election issue of them all.
Doublespeak much? If Krugman seriously believes that “environmental extremism” is a disease of the Republican Party, then it’s clear that he has absolutely no clue what that term means. He also managed to say the quiet part out loud when he mentioned the quirk in climate change fanaticism talking points: “Can we prove that climate change caused any particular disaster? Not exactly.” Wow, no kidding! But that didn’t stop Krugman from trying to salvage his argument by hedging that “the burgeoning field of ‘extreme event attribution’ comes close.”
Krugman should just stick to his day job of getting economics wrong instead of veering off on topics where he manages to show himself to be even more clueless.
Conservatives are under attack. Contact The New York Times at 800-698-4637 and demand it distance itself from Krugman’s climate propaganda.
