Regarding the tragedy that is the House of Representatives passage of the "ACES" bill, Paul "Disagree With Me at Your Peril" Krugman opines, in the NYT:

...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....

and blah-blah-blah from there.

Not content (as is Mr. Obama) with winning, and telling the rest of the 50% or so of representatives to "get over it," Mr. Krugman goes straight to "treasonous."

"Treason against the planet," of course, because I suspect Mr. Krugman, beneficiary of the USA, doesn't believe there should be a USA to be treasonous against.



I forget. What did that yahoo get a prize for, again?

Oh yes — Nobel Prize in Economics. And HE can't find a single, eensy-weensy good thing to say about climate change as well? An economist? Isn't he supposed to be balanced about these sorts of things? Can't find one good thing?

I stand by my (now treasonous, to New York Citified economists) position: until and specifically until I see a balanced presentation on the pros and cons of Global Climate/Weather Change/Fluctuation, I'm calling it a huckster's ploy to get money from the populace, out of the system, and into specific pockets.

And Mr. Krugman can stick to his game, economics, and shut his pie-hole about actual, hard science. Unless, of course, he elects to actually examine the field.