Krugman, Friedman: those opposing cap and trade are traitors or worse
Cap and trade is a solution that doesn’t work for a problem that doesn’t exist. Yet worthies like Paul Krugman are vehemently for cap and trade and find “treason” among the global warming “deniers”:
the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill. In political terms, it was a remarkable achievement. But 212 representatives voted no…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.
To fully appreciate the irresponsibility and immorality of climate-change denial, you need to know about the grim turn taken by the latest climate research. The fact is that the planet is changing faster than even pessimists expected: ice caps are shrinking, arid zones spreading, at a terrifying rate. And according to a number of recent studies, catastrophe — a rise in temperature so large as to be almost unthinkable — can no longer be considered a mere possibility. It is, instead, the most likely outcome if we continue along our present course…
researchers at M.I.T., who were previously predicting a temperature rise of a little more than 4 degrees by the end of this century, are now predicting a rise of more than 9 degrees. Why? Global greenhouse gas emissions are rising faster than expected; some mitigating factors, like absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans, are turning out to be weaker than hoped; and there’s growing evidence that climate change is self-reinforcing — that, for example, rising temperatures will cause some arctic tundra to defrost, releasing even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Temperature increases on the scale predicted by the M.I.T. researchers and others would create huge disruptions in our lives and our economy. As a recent authoritative U.S. government report points out, by the end of this century New Hampshire may well have the climate of North Carolina today…
Gosh! Other government reports, suppressed by the government, draw very different conclusions. And it certainly seems that global cooling has been going on for some time, likely as a result of solar activity. For the record, we’re skeptical of AGM because an increase of 100ppm in CO2 causing such catastrophic problems just doesn’t pass the test of common sense, in our opinion. Indeed, it has been argued that increases in CO2 are an effect of rising temperatures, not the cause. We could be wrong of course, but Krugman’s rather hysterical tone doesn’t help the hypothesis he’s trying to sell.
Oh, what the heck, we give up. Perhaps we should just take the advice of Paul Krugman and stop being “deniers” and “traitors” — and perhaps implement this from Tom Friedman: “A simple, straightforward carbon tax would have made much more sense than this Rube Goldberg contraption. It is pathetic…It stinks. It’s a mess. I detest it. Now let’s get it passed in the Senate and make it law.” What impels these men to such righteous fervor, and to such apparent hysteria at dissent?

June 30th, 2009 at 1:47 am
Krugman is really a prize. The other day I saw an article from him about Iran. He wrote that there was a perfect approach the US could take. Raise taxes. Gas taxes, in particular. He said that the US government should increase gas taxes by $1/gallon.
Yeah, that’ll show ‘em!
(The theory was “it will reduce demand, and cut off the market for Iranian oil.” Left out of that calculation is that oil is fungible, and in case of reduced demand the oil which is most expensive to pump will be the first to be shut down. This distinguishing feature of petroleum from the middle east is that it is particularly cheap to produce, so it will be the last to be turned off. In other words, world demand for petroleum would have to decline very precipitously before the Mullahs lost their oil income, absent a naval blockade.)
June 30th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Thanks, Paul, but I’m against cap and trade and my soul’s just fine. How’s being an apologist for the thugs or Iran working for yours (and O’s)?
July 1st, 2009 at 12:06 am
The US Congress/Senate should get their priorities straight. If there is such a stink about carbon dioxide, what about water vapor?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
When these gases are ranked by their contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:
water vapor, which contributes 36–70%
carbon dioxide, which contributes 9–26%
methane, which contributes 4–9%
ozone, which contributes 3–7%
Krugman is an joke.
July 14th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
Krugman is a more dangerous idiot than Friedman – this bug eyed communist is a denier to other truths – up here in Montreal last evening it was really cold after two days of on and off thunderstorms. We have had few days of consistent heat.
Climate change – maybe but we had this type of rainy summer in 1992
Global warming – hogwash although this past winter was not too too cold; though not as cold as the winter of 2003/04 when it was -36 celsius for several days.