Paul Krugman - Hypocrite for the Ages
You just can't make this stuff up. Paul Krugman regularly trashes 'climate deniers' and 'flat earthers' while touting the scientific consensus pushing the global warming agenda, and now, on the fiscal crisis and Iraq War, has the nerve to warn of the dangers of 'groupthink' and the importance of respecting dissenting viewpoints.
Paul Krugman on the 'consensus of scientists' sounding the alarms on global warming and marginalizing those who would dissent:
"The anti-global-warming people are just filled with hate for anyone who suggests that maybe, just maybe, the vast majority of scientists are right."
"For years now, large numbers of prominent scientists have been warning, with increasing urgency, that if we continue with business as usual, the results will be very bad, perhaps catastrophic."
"Of course, it's actually the climate deniers who have the agenda."
"You can deny global warming (and may you be punished in the afterlife for doing so - this kind of denial for petty personal or political reasons is an almost inconceivable sin)."
Yet here he is now waxing eloquent on the importance of respecting dissenting viewpoints and not marginalizing those who express them in his column at the New York Times:
"All in all, it was an object lesson in the dangers of groupthink, a demonstration of how important it is to listen to skeptical voices and separate reporting from advocacy. But as I said, it's a lesson that doesn't seem to have been learned.
But now as then we have the illusion of consensus, an illusion based on a process in which anyone questioning the preferred narrative is immediately marginalized, no matter how strong his or her credentials. And now as then the press often seems to have taken sides. It has been especially striking how often questionable assertions are reported as fact."
I submitted a comment on Dr. Krugman's column to the NYT attempting to point out this dichotomy but it would seem I'm not 'NYT commenter' material. I can't bring myself to imagine that they would be suppressing dissenting viewpoints.