Global Warming Hysteria

"Yet the deniers are choosing, willfully, to ignore that threat, placing future generations of Americans in grave danger, simply because it’s in their political interest to pretend that there’s nothing to worry about. If that’s not betrayal, I don’t know what is."

I like how Krugman feels this about the debt and deficit.

Jeff B., I just wanted to thank you for your comment. It's awesome ;)

all of the sudden dissent isn't so patriotic

Jeff B, and David,
I feel that you are posing a grave threat to prosperity and to the health and welfare of all individuals, through cap and trade and deficit spending. Therefore you are willfully choosing to ignore the threats and dangers to future generations.

The problem for Krugman, Jeff B, and David... I have facts and reason on my side while they cling to feelings.

Why are HUNDREDS of scientists shut out of this debate? By the way, why has no honest debate taken place?
Why? An honest debate about "global warming", "climate change" etc, etc would make the automotons preaching this nonsense look very foolish.
There are honest to God problems facing this country, why in the hell waste time and TRILLIONS of dollars tryin to kill the boogey man of "global warming?"
Everyone with a brain knows it will work as well as the porkulous bill this gincompetent president shoved down our throats.

As more and more scientists back away from assertions of Global Warming hysteria, (due to HARD science), it appears Krugman is panicked by the thought of not being able to say, "See, we were right" when the cycle turns the other way, as it now appears to be doing. However, if he and others can get even a slight action towards their goals, they can claim it was them that saved our planet. That's why it is so critical to get such legislation passed now. Can you just imagine the egg on their faces when the cycle turns (naturally) and they can point to no man-caused action to explain it? It'll be like Time magazine's previous report "Are We Entering a New Ice-Age?" That would devastate the liberals, but I suspect they would quickly gloss it over, and then quickly move on to another "crisis".

And whatever happened to the previous liberal causes...hole in the ozone (everyone dies of cancer in 2 years), deforestation...if you remember it would cause a catostrophic DECLINE in CO2, its one disaster after another with these people.
Hint, here'a a disaster coming your way...this fraud Obama is gonna destroy the liberal brand for decades. As sure a s the warming and cooling of the earth (naturally) a liberal gets elected every blue moon, proves completely incompetent, and liberals go away for decades.

31,000 scientists sign a petition debunking global warming:
http://www.petitionproject.org/

This never gets any airtime. Matter of fact, Al Gore claims that there are NO scientists who disagree. Gotta love his selective sight.

Thirty-one THOUSAND scientists telling the truth.

Jeff B. you totally trumped Krugman, he's not even a good economist, much less a person.

Maybe something good will come from Krugman's brand of nonsense. The Club of Rome, a Malthusian group if ever there was one, was the inspiration for The Club for Growth.

A must read is Unstoppable Global Warming (Every 1500 Years) by Singer and Avery.

I've been following the sunspot cycle on spaceweather.com and have found the correlation of this deepest minimum in a century to a decrease in planetary temperatures.

Also interesting are previous correlations, such as the Maunder Minimum (a.k.a. "The Little Ice Age") which lasted 70 years--the of nearly 500 years of records. Our two year minimum pales in comparison.

Really seems like many scientists have drastically underestimated the sun's impact on our climate.

John S, remeber, in 1990 the other George Bush pushed through his own version of Cap & Trade. so as you all can see, I don't think it is a political issue.

Here's my question; even if the threat of global warming is overstated or even non-existent, is their anyone who believes that spewing pollutants, toxins and carcinogens into the atmosphere is good for us? Last time I checked the air we breath is pretty critical to our survival.

Personally I hate crap and trade, but I'm afraid that a serious issue is getting lost amidst the controversy over global warming. Fine, the earth won't melt, we'll just all die from chronic respiratory disease. Does that mean we shouldn't do something?

I don't find the "don't worry, the earths' temperature has fluctuated wildly over time" to be a persuasive argument in and of itself. I'm sure the Japanese were secure in the knowledge they were safe because no one had ever detonated a nuclear bomb before.

I think the confusion is coming in where the senator who is an economist doesn't understand the correlation between global warming and the planets temperature dropping. As the planet heats up, the ice caps melt, cooling off the waters in the major earths currents (like the Gulf Stream). It also decreases the salinity of the water, adding to a change in the convection cycle. That is how global warming can bring on an ice age. There are natural temperature changes in the earth (like el nino), that can last for up to 50 years. But what scientist have discovered is that we have an increase in greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, etc.)These are man-made and have risen at an alarming rate. The Kyoto agreement asks that countries that join make it mandatory for industries to keep track of their emisions. If we slow down the emisions now, the plants will slowly absorb what we have released so far. Not only that,alternative energy will force us to find another source of energy other than being dependent on foreign oil.

@Mike V.:
"Here's my question; even if the threat of global warming is overstated or even non-existent, is their anyone who believes that spewing pollutants, toxins and carcinogens into the atmosphere is good for us? Last time I checked the air we breath is pretty critical to our survival."

Yes it is and that is why nobody of the "Climate sceptics" denies that Anti-Air-Polution laws aren't benificial or need to be replaced. But and here is the gross misunderstanding: CO2 is NOT a pollutant not even toxic.

Due to this misnomer many high school kids will probably be raised in fear of CO2, because it is deemed a pollutant and dangerous, while it is a normal ingredient of breathable air. In fact it is even necessary for plants to grow (photosyntheses anyone). Instead we get another horde of imbeciles that will leave school with false knowledge about science... Great, isn't it?

Don't get me wrong there are certainly pollutants that shouldn't go into the atmosphere (sulfur being one) in great quantities, but it CO2 is not one of them...

"Personally I hate crap and trade, but I'm afraid that a serious issue is getting lost amidst the controversy over global warming. Fine, the earth won't melt, we'll just all die from chronic respiratory disease. Does that mean we shouldn't do something?"

Cap'n Trade won't work, just look at Europe, it doesn't work there either. Also, respiratory diseases don't stem from CO2 but other pollutants which are regulated in usual Coal power plants (at least the NEW ones!!!). Also emission from nuclear power plants are not dangerous (if it isn't a reactor melting ;)) because it is WATER (gaseous).

"I'm sure the Japanese were secure in the knowledge they were safe because no one had ever detonated a nuclear bomb before."

Sorry, totally different things, we knew atomic bombs were dangerous and hurtful, because we tested them at home first. It is not the same with climate, we can't even test it or test parts of it isolated....

At what point are people going to start ignoring Krugman?

Mike V.
"what scientist have discovered is that we have an increase in greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, etc.)These are man-made and have risen at an alarming rate." Oh, they are? See the graph at the bottom of this webpage. Does it look like humans are the problem? And if humans aren't the problem, do you think we can cough up enough money to change the climate?
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=330911757213432&src=ADARTCL

Regarding "treason against the planet" - what requirement do I have to the planet? Since when is a planet, or an ecosystem, worthy of any respect in the sense of "deference to something considered to have certain rights or privileges".

My only requirements are to respect other people's rights to life, liberty, and property.

It's disgusting how disinterested people like Krugman are in concepts and the meaning of words. To appear to have a point, they must strip words of all meaning and redefine them to their liking. In this case, he anthropomorphizes the planet in order to concoct rights violations where none exist.

All these words used by Krugman - "treason", "betrayal", etc - imply a collective goal or pursuit for the planet, which must inevitably run contrary to the goals and values of the individual, for if the former are to be pursued by the collective, individuals must not be free to pursue the latter.

In addition, I wholly reject the notion that I, my friends, my family, etc, are to be held responsible for countless unborn future generations. At the same time, though, I would not squander my resources. Neither waste nor responsibility to the next millennium are moral endeavors.