In a post today from the New York Times, Op-Ed Columnist Paul Krugman published an opinion article entitled ‘Betraying the Planet’. In his article he criticizes the representatives in The House who voted against the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill (which passed regardless). When discussing the afforementioned climate-change bill Krugman goes on to say,
But 212 representatives voted no. A handful of these no votes came from representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected the bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases.
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.
…
Still, is it fair to call climate denial a form of treason? Isn’t it politics as usual?
Yes, it is — and that’s why it’s unforgivable.
Treason. Really. I happen to be a climate-change/global-warming/whatever-the-hell-you’re-going-to-call-it-tomorrow skeptic. Does that mean that I’m a traitor to my country as well.
By the way Mr. Krugman, have you been writing your columns from a cave for the last year? Clearly you haven’t been outside. The weather is quite nice, and the end of the world hasn’t come. In fact, artic sea-ice is on the rebound. But I’m sure you won’t be bothered by details like that.
Should I mention the growing number of dissenters in your beloved field of climate-change? I think I shall. The latest report on climate-change from the U.S. Senate Minority Report states that there are now over 700 international scientists who no longer support the “Concesus” of man-made global warming.
Also, from an article today in the Wall Street Journal,
The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. — 13 times the number who authored the U.N.’s 2007 climate summary for policymakers.
Huh. That’s funny. How can you have a concesus when you don’t have a concensus. Strange; downright illogical.
Maybe next time you try to insult my intelligence and patriotism, you should stick your head out of your cushy office window and take a breath of fresh air (which contains carbon-dioxide, a gas necessary for human and plant respiration) and reconsider hitting the ‘Post’ button for your next column of mindless hate-filled dribble.
I appologize (not really) for my tone in this post, but I have had it up to the eye-balls with people calling me and others who are skeptical of global warming ‘deniers’. As if relating us to holocaust deniers. Not the case. I have spent a great amount of time researching the claims of global warming myself and have come to the conclusion that the findings are erronius and in many instances, completely fabricated.
While there are a great many good scientists out there in the field of climatology, their paychecks are unfortunately written by private individuals and organizations with an agenda. An agenda that doesn’t always agree with the scientific findings. So many ‘adjust’ the findings in order to secure their next grant.
There are some great resources out there for fellow skeptics on the topic. My favorite essay is called ‘Aliens Cause Global Warming’. Written by the late Michael Crichton (author of Jurrassic Park, The Andromeda Strain, Timeline, etc). Another great essay is ‘Complexity Theory and Environmental Management’, also written by Crichton and available on his site.
Josh
9:37 pm on June 29, 2009
Permalink
In addition to being a great author, Dr. Crichton earned his Bachelor of Science degree Summa cum laude from Harvard, and went on to become a Medical Doctor. He was a very very intelligent person and his research and conclusions about anthropogenic global warming hold much credibility.
Tuckie
7:56 pm on June 30, 2009
Permalink
Just wanted to say, that while Krugman definitely went a bit to the extreme in that paragraph, he was saying treason to the planet (while that in itself doesn’t quite make much sense as a phase), which is different than being a traitor to your country. Also, after staring at that graph for 5 minutes, I still don’t see any real usable data that would signify a trend, with that amount of fluctuation over only a few years, its hard to say what exactly is going to happen. Finally, I’m a skeptic in regards to simply whether or not the size of the ice cap has any real meaning one way or another, as there are just so many variables that come into play.
In summation: I think that we are still a ways off from being able to know with absolute certainty one way or another. Everyone seems so set on disproving the other group, that the simple pursuit of proof itself seems to have become a secondary goal.