Krugman: The Climate Change Deniers in Congress are Killing Us

[babylonsister]

Betraying the Planet

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: June 28, 2009


So the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill. In political terms, it was a remarkable achievement.

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.

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.

Thus 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.

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29krugman.htm...

[Democracyinkind]

1. The corporate shills who have gotten themselves a green paint job are killing us even harder.

is there a superlative for killing? Well, you get my point.

[rosesaylavee]

2. I don't understand...

what do you mean?

[Democracyinkind]

3. I worry more about the industry influencing the writing of laws than I fear rednecks in the house.

One has power, the other doesn't really. The climate denialists, even when propped up by Exxon and co. are no match for the lobbyists that Exxon hires to help write legislation. One is dangerous and little talked about, the other is overblown and isn't taken seriously by any sane person around the world.

I always had the feeling that the denialists are just one arm of a larger strategy. They work hand in hand with with their counterparts guiding legislation.

Maybe a far shot. It's just that I don't fear stupid, I fear under-the-table stuff.

[izquierdista]

4. You're right

The stupid is a convenient diversion, while the lobbyists decide in the back room how to turn up the global warming so that they can sell more air conditioners.

[Democracyinkind]

5. Haha. Your post totally made my day. I'm writing that one down. Thanks.

priceless.

[doc03]

6. It's not just Republicans my (D) Congressman voted

against it, for good reason I believe. I sent him an e-mail thanking him for trying to save my job.
http://theintelligencer.net/page/content.detail/id/5255...
This Democrat voted for it and I e-mailed him, telling him I hope he gets voted the hell out office in 2012. Cap and trade will literally devastate this area, we have been in a recession for 30 years and this will be the final death blow.
http://theintelligencer.net/page/content.detail/id/5255...

[DatManFromNawlins]

7. For every factory shuttered here

Two get started in India or China. The fact of the matter is that the congressmen ain't killing shit except American jobs. If AGW is going to occur, it's going to occur whether the US continues to be complicit or not, and it's intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise. Even if they enacted the strongest climate change bill possible, the actual changes to Earth's climate would be so insignificant that nobody would notice anyway. I was chiefly against the bill because it won't do any good, and because it creates a new market for the rich to get richer trading what amounts to ether. As long as our largest trading partners continue to pollute as they do, we could pass 100 of these bills and they wouldn't make a difference.

[doc03]

8. Well at least there are two of us

that can see the damage this bill will cause. The Cap and Trade will actually increase the CO2 and pollution problem outside the USA and therefore the earth as a whole. All C&T will do is drive more jobs to other countries that don't happen to give a damn about global warming. If we don't use our coal here China will, so rather than using it here where we have the EPA they will use it and not do one thing to clean it up. A new coal fired power plant is going on line in China every 10 days. What gives these people the idea that we will make green jobs here? GE and other companies may develop the technology here but when it comes to manufacturing wind mills and solar panels they will go were there is no EPA, C&T, Unions or OSHA. Haven't we been having global warming since the last ice age?

[Democracyinkind]

9. 3 to be exact. cRap and trade is just another scam to feed the rich and poison the poor.

Wait 'till they bring out the sequestering scheme. We have seen nothing yet. This must be the biggest structural fraud of the decade.

[ItNerd4life]

14. I agree completely. Many environmentalists don't care about the environment

they care about the environment in the U.S. Other countries can destroy the planet and that's okay.

Put laws like this into affect in the U.S. and you destroy U.S. jobs and move production overseas where they have no environmental laws.
There goes the environment.

[Uncle Joe]

10. And I would add massive methane release to this paragraph.

"Thus 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."

To congressman Braun, why on Earth would the scientific community; thousands of individuals dedicated to the pursuit of science and advancement of knowledge want to perpetrate such a hoax!?

"Indeed, if there was a defining moment in Friday’s debate, it was the declaration by Representative Paul Broun of Georgia that climate change is nothing but a “hoax” that has been “perpetrated out of the scientific community.” I’d call this a crazy conspiracy theory, but doing so would actually be unfair to crazy conspiracy theorists. After all, to believe that global warming is a hoax you have to believe in a vast cabal consisting of thousands of scientists — a cabal so powerful that it has managed to create false records on everything from global temperatures to Arctic sea ice.

Yet Mr. Broun’s declaration was met with applause."

[doc03]

11. How many times has science

declared that something harmed your health then 6 months later they come up with another study totally debunking it? Weren't we all supposed to die from the Swine Flu back in the Ford Administration? More people got sick from the vaccine if I remember correctly. What about the recent Swine Flu pandemic that was supposed to have killed a few more million of us off by now. Oh another several million of us were supposed to die from the Bird Flu a couple years ago. What about the coming Ice Age science warned us about in the 70's after we had a couple bad winters? By the way is coffee good or bad for you this week? How about eggs should we worry about them this week? What about all those cow farts? I heard the last couple years the earths average temperature dropped but the global warming crowd don't want to hear that one. Wasn't that information deleted from one of the recent environmental reports because it doesn't support their argument? The earths climate has always gone through cycles for millions of years. Now you will say, oh but it is happening much faster now? Nobody was recording temperatures back 10,000 years ago, prove it.

[depakid]

12. Reading this hogwash, it's hard not to wonder whether your "job" is worth saving

since apparently you and your congressman could give a rats ass about the science or anyone else on the planet.

[ItNerd4life]

13. Sadly, most people won't realize how accurate your statements are.

Consider this: The climate models 10 years ago & 5 years ago are now being proven as wrong, what is to say that today's models are not wrong also?

If you go on Wikipedia, they have a chart showing global temperatures over the last 140 years. The global temperatures have been rising at a steady pace,
yet C02 emissions have skyrocketed in the last 100 years. That indicates that C02 is NOT the cause of global warming. But you never hear anybody questioning this type of data.

I do believe that humans must learn to live more in harmony with the environment, but I don't like people who cry wolf just so they can get government funding.

[Bill McBlueState]

17. "If you go on Wikipedia..."

link, please?

[omega minimo]

20. That's stupid. The Industrial Revolution is inclusive of both those time frames.

"That indicates that C02 is NOT the cause of global warming. But you never hear anybody questioning this type of data."

I hope somebody questions that type of stupid logic.

[Uncle Joe]

15. Your argument lacks common sense and logic.

Science is just the latest and highest endeavor of human understanding regarding the workings of our natural world.

Science is not and never was perfect, errors, mistakes and false assumptions will happen; simply put because to err is human and scientists are human, the learning process is a continuum and ever correcting. Having said that, logic and common sense suggest to accept the trend of accumulated learning, and the latest trends toward the belief that humanity is heating up the planet to unsustainable levels is overwhelming.

You cite a few false assumptions and totally disregard the world you live in which has been totally transformed all because of science's successes. Automobiles, airplanes, trains, television, the Internet, space travel, reconnaissance satellites, weather satellites, photography, polio vaccine, small pox vaccine, heart, brain and any other kind of surgery, heating and air conditioning, microscopes, telescopes, telephones, micro surgery, micro wave ovens, computers, the electric light bulb, the steam engine, the battle against malaria and typhoid, coal mining, oil extraction, motorcycles, jet skis, ranges, dishwashers and refrigerators, prosthetic limbs for amputees, solar panels, wind farms, tractors, harvesters, motorized boats, deep sea diving, and with those examples, I'm not even scratching a snowflake on an iceberg's ass. All of that rests either directly or indirectly on the shoulders of science, what would be your alternative, read chicken guts for the future?

Scientists can determine the general climate going back further than 10,000 years, by studying the makeup of ice cores, fossilized tree rings, they can tell by mineral deposits as to when the Earth had major meteor strikes going back millions of years.

Yes the Earth's climate has gone through cycles for millions of years, but tell me this has the Earth sustained billions of man made automobiles relentlessly spewing carbon dioxide in to the atmosphere on top of it's natural cycles? How about hundreds of thousands if not millions of industrial plants doing the same, we've industrialized farming those cow farts number in the hundreds of millions if not billions to support 6+ billion people on the planet. There are dead zones stretching for tens if not hundreds of miles from the coast in places like New Orleans where no sea life can live because of runoff from fertilizer and pesticides coming down the Mississippi, don't bullshit me with humanity can't adversely effect the planet!

Worst case scenarios, if your right and thousands of scientists are wrong which is highly doubtful, we will still become more energy efficient, less dependent on communist and terrorist supporting nations for outmoded and destructive sources of energy and suffer some economic upheaval in the process, needless to say, if you're wrong, humanity's very existence is at stake and the economy will suck like it's never sucked before; should we not correct our course.

[doc03]

16. How in the hell can science tell

what the climate was 10000 years ago when with all our technology they can't even make an accurate 5 day weather forecast? You totally disregard the rest of the world, if suddenly we start living like the Amish (which is what a lot of the environmentalists want) the world will keep right on going. Do you think China gives a rats ass about CO2? Haven't we lost enough of our jobs already to your satisfaction? What killed off the dinosaurs? (climate change) Caused by Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble I suppose. We have these do goods like Al Gore and John Edwards living in a 25000 square foot mansion consuming more energy than 10 normal homes. But he buys green credits or some bullshit and that is supposed to set an example for us peasants. While I lose my job and pay out the ass for electricity some fat cat absentee land owner gets carbon credits for planting trees.

[Bill McBlueState]

18. wow, you don't even know the difference between climate and weather?

Seriously, that's third-grade material.

[Uncle Joe]

19. Again you sell science short, more often than not,

they can track storms days in advance, but more to the point long term climate is easier to predict than short term weather.

Ironically, in one respect your position is closer to Amish mentality than that of the environmentalists, you're stuck in the past just as they are, resistant to change. Environmentalists recognize the need to change for the sake of humanity and if it hadn't been for science we would all be living closer to an Amish lifestyle, the next stage of change will combine the best of both worlds, Amish and modern.

If you actually studied science; instead of demonizing it, you would know a massive meteor strike kicked so much debris in to the atmosphere triggering massive global climate change; to which the dinosaurs couldn't adapt which resulted in their extinction.

As to the Chinese, I imagine they don't give a rat's ass about democracy either, but that's no excuse for us to become a communist nation, the same holds true for global warming climate change, we should be setting the pace and being able to take advantage of new developing technologies, not following their lead. However, I do believe the Chinese will come around to save them selves when they notice their rivers; fed by ever shrinking glaciers drying up. They will change or they will suffer World War III in Asia.

If you think carbon credits are the wrong way to go, that's one issue as would be any individual's home of record, but that has nothing to do with the reality as to whether global warming climate change is for real or not. The real change must come on a macro level to be effective. Your approach is to throw the baby out with the bath water, not only losing your job but the future of your descendants as well. If you have children or grand children, do it for them, this next century will be horrific if we don't change.

In short the world is changing; this is inevitable, you and I will increasingly pay out the ass for electricity; if we don't adapt, to pay for some oil or coal fat cat's bonuses, they have you by the short hairs and you don't even know it. If we do adapt, we may be selling surplus electricity back to the company.

If you truly want to see a fat cat, check out the bonuses Exxon gave it's CEO while we were being screwed at the gas pump, oh yeah and those Saudis are really hurting aren't they?

[omega minimo]

21. Anyone who lives in one region for a long time and/or pays attention to weather patterns

can observe that our national weather has definitely changed over the past few decades. The regional shifts bring deadly weather and killer storms more and more frequently, including examples never seen before.

That would be a good indication of larger patterns of climate change.

[Uncle Joe]

22. I agree, as a nation we've experienced record droughts, record floods, forest fires etc etc.

But some people take one cold winter or mild summer as a long term indicator and excuse to stay in denial regarding the harsh reality of global warming climate change.

[omega minimo]

23. Yes, and I'm speaking of patterns shifting, nationally and noticeably. California's climate has some

what benefitted, while those east have more extreme dry periods and wet periods.

Hi, Uncle Joe, I thought I'd chime in on your excellent posts, rather than comment that another poster here sounds much like a Limbaugh screed.

[Uncle Joe]

24. Hi, Omega Minimo

Thanks and peace to you, I'm out of here for the night, cover my back.

[omega minimo]

25. Trying

to not tilt at too many windmills

[Jakes Progress]

26. You guys keep up the good work.

When you read that kind of limbo stuff on DU and have to think it was posted with a straight face, you must want to shield your eyes from the ugly sight and cry "Oh, the stupid, the stupid. It is so big."

[omega minimo]

27. So big it's broadcast on national and global airwaves. Prepackaged, ready to spew.

[Jakes Progress]

31. On the other hand,

that makes it easy for the slow swimmers to absorb some crap and then get on line some place like, oh, maybe DU, and act like they think they know something. It's easier than thinking.

[omega minimo]

32. or looking out the window.

[jeanpalmer]

29. The most effective way to protect the environment

by far, is to decrease the population. That is the only effective soluton and it is the easiest. But people for some reason don't want to discuss it and don't want to hear it. Boondoggles like cap and trade have more political sex appeal.

[Bill McBlueState]

30. I enjoy hearing this discussed

For example, it would be interesting to hear about the various proposals for how the population should be decreased.

[malletgirl02]

28. Evironmentalist

That was very informative. I think environmentalist might need to re frame their argument. I order to get more people to listen they should make arguments about humanity's existence rather than saving the earth. The truth is the earth itself will heal itself from whether we do to it. Humans on the other hand probably won't

[opihimoimoi]

33. Voters should and must become more astute so as to elect people with REASON and Common Sense

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOIjd0fBPX0

Cornwall Homecoming By Sue Aston