Paul Krugman, who apparently is not only an economist but also a master of the physical sciences as well, says that those in the House who voted against cap and trade committed “treason against the planet.”
Krugman assets not only that the science of anthropogenic climate change is clear, but that he knows, just knows, that those who voted against the bill hadn’t even really considered the science. Why? Because Representative Paul Broun of Georgia called climate change a “hoax.”
Well, I happen to disagree with Broun. I don’t think it’s a hoax, but I certainly do think the science is unsettled as yet. But because belief in anthropogenic climate change has taken on the aspect of a revealed truth rather than a science, evidence to the contrary about whether it’s actually happening (and especially whether it’s human-caused) has been suppressed as heresy.
Krugman decrees the nay-sayers as hostile to “hard science.” But it’s his side that is actually hostile to science, because of its need to leap ahead to certainty where none exists, and to brand everyone who disagrees as a politically-motivated betrayer of Mother Earth.
It’s also possible—although Krugman ignores this fact—to believe in climate change (even anthropogenic climate change) and at the same time see that cap-and-trade is itself a sort of hoax, a worthless and costly bill that panders to special interest groups and denies Krugman’s beloved “hard science” by pretending that solar and wind power can replace electricity.
And isn’t it odd that those who advocate limiting electric power by cap and trade in order to save the planet aren’t promoting nuclear power as well? I might actually start to believe that Krugman is something other than a political hack himself if he were to accuse those people (such as, for example, President Obama) who oppose nuclear power plants (excepting those in Europe and Iran, of course) of being guilty of “treason against the planet,” too.