Sounds cool doesn't it, the kind of thing a supervillain would say as he reveals his dastardly plot and promises to destroy us all? With obligatory maniacal laughter, of course.
Sadly, the truth isn't nearly so cool: I don't get a bizarre spandex outfit, I don't have a hidden Evil Headquarters, and I don't have Harley Quinn and Poison Ivy hanging off my arms. (Dang!) Instead, according to the New York Times' Paul Krugman, I have betrayed Mother Earth and her High Priest Al Gore because I, along with the 212 member of the House of Representatives with some sense left, opposed the Waxman-Markey global warming cap-and-tax bill:
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.
Krugman, himself a model of mendacity, then goes on to cite supposed evidence that damns global warming skeptics (who, by the way, are deserving of show trials for their heresy) as immoral and irresponsible. Let's look at one in particular:
The fact is that the planet is changing faster than even pessimists expected: ice caps are shrinking,…
Um, no, actually, they're not. According to corrected data from Nansen, the sea-ice extent for April and May of this year at the North Pole was nearly normal. For some historical perspective on polar ice variations, Watts Up With That has a great article you should read – and so should
Captain Hysteria Paul Krugman.
(By the way, the Antarctic ice shelves show no sign of climate change, either.)
The rest of the article is filled with similar alarmist hyperbole masquerading as facts, all meant to scare the public into demanding something be done NOW!, before it's too late – even if the evidence doesn't justify it. (Cultists of the High Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming like to say the scientific consensus is settled, but the truth is far different.) I haven't the time to deconstruct all Krugman's rantings, but I can recommend the following sites as good places to follow for hard looks at the "science" of global warming:
Krugman's article is typical of the left-liberal, statist mindset: government is the only vehicle for fairly allocating resources, so we need a problem so vast, so imminent, and so threatening that it justifies a massive government intervention in the economy and our private lives. And if skeptics should point out inconvenient truths, well, they're just traitors, all of them.
Dr. Johnson once said that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. These days, he might have included environmentalism, too.