Betraying Humanity, Krugman Sides With Planet

According to Paul Krugman, my stance on Waxman-Markey makes me an irresponsible and immoral "climate-change denier." In addition, he believes that those arguing against Waxman-Markey are guilty of "a form of treason - treason against the planet" and are "unforgivable."

I don't deny climate change. In fact, it is because of climate change that I embrace carbon-emitting technology. Climate change has been dramatic and brutal both before and since the age of industrialization. The only reason humanity is thriving right now is as a result of the technological advancements that have been built on the very foundation of cheap and plentiful energy. In fact, one could argue that climate change has been trying to send us the way of the dinosaurs ever since we arrived on this rock.

And a rock it is--the third one from the sun. If it wasn't so ideally positioned, life would be toast. The treason of which Krugman speaks presumes that I swore loyalty to this rock we all call home. I haven't. Technology permitting, if the earth seemed set on getting too close to the Sun or too far from it, my family and I would be on the first ship off of this planet.

Now, Krugman's screed isn't limited only to labeling me and others as traitors. He says that folks like me haven't looked at the evidence (wrong: I have). Frankly, I don't think he actually wants people looking at the evidence. When that evidence is examined and is debated openly, people change their minds about climate change and what to do about it. Don't believe me? Take a look at two debates hosted in New York City by NPR and IQ2US.

Debate 1 (March 22, 2007) - Motion: "Global Warming is Not a Crisis." Results: 30% of the audience agreed with the motion at the beginning of the debate. At the end of the debate, 46% agreed with the motion.

Debate 2 (January 21, 2009) - Motion: "Major Reductions in Carbon Emissions Are Not Worth the Money." Results: 16% of the audience agreed with the motion at the beginning of the debate. At the end of the debate, 42% agreed with the motion.

Mr. Krugman, are you sure you want an open and honest debate? Because openness and honesty have yet to occur, as evidenced by the following two graphs:

More details here.

More details here.

There has not been an honest debate in this country about climate change or cap-and-trade. Instead, we get a massive, 1,200 page cap-and-trade bill, largely unread and unreported, rammed through very late on a Friday night after all sorts of winks, nods, and other nefarious deal making. Talk about treason...

The very need for cap-and-trade rests on the assumptions that 1) global warming is real and accelerating, 2) global warming is caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions, 3) global warming will have a destructive impact on the earth and humanity, with the potential to eliminate life as we know it, and 4) the U.S. Congress has the necessary knowledge and ability to control global climate.

Those are the assumptions; here is the reality: There is evidence that the globe is warming as it comes out of the Little Ice Age, which ended around 1850. There is irrefutable evidence that, historically, the earth has been both significantly warmer and colder than it is now. There is no hard evidence directly linking greenhouse gas emissions to global warming. And there is evidence that the models being used to project global warming and other atmospheric issues are faulty.

If the climate changes (as it most certainly will), we need more cheap, plentiful energy, and more technology so that humans can adapt and thrive, rather than fewer options for humankind. Our ability to thrive on this planet has always been dependent on our ability to adapt to changing local climate conditions, not on having a static, ideal climate - something that simply never existed.

In vain pursuit of an "ideal" climate for the planet, Krugman and his ilk would throw humanity back to the dark ages to be ravaged by nature. "If that's not betrayal, I don't know what is."