Since I have occasionally expressed scepticism on the matter of global climate change, perhaps I should present the views of some reasonable, level-header spokesman for the other side? But instead: why not the views of a not-so-reasonable person– but he happens to be a Nobel prize winning economist, which is almost as good. I give you Mr. Paul Krugman, with his op-ed in the nation’s newspaper of record, the New York Times. His subject of those 212 miscreants in the House who voted against the Waxman-Markey measure to tax carbon and save the planet:
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, he wants to be fair, even to those damnable deniers. But it can be hard to do so with such traitors:
But if you watched the debate on Friday, you didn’t see people who’ve thought hard about a crucial issue, and are trying to do the right thing. What you saw, instead, were people who show no sign of being interested in the truth. They don’t like the political and policy implications of climate change, so they’ve decided not to believe in it — and they’ll grab any argument, no matter how disreputable, that feeds their denial.
Why couldn’t they have used reasonable arguments, like Mr. Waxman himself (in that Tavis Smiley interview which I quoted in an earlier post)? “We’re seeing the reality of a lot of the North Pole starting to evaporate, and we could get to a tipping point. Because if it evaporates to a certain point – they have lanes now where ships can go that couldn’t ever sail through before. And if it gets to a point where it evaporates too much, there’s a lot of tundra that’s being held down by that ice cap.” Presumably Krugman is too polite to criticize idiotic arguments when they are on his side of an issue. And of course he doesn’t bother with any arguments himself– “the science is settled”, as the man said.
Rumor has it, by the way, that most of the disreputable 212 were Republicans.