I know that I seem to comment every time that Paul Krugman writes a column, and I had made a resolution to myself to spend less time considering the nonsense that Krugman spews, but when I saw today's effort in the Times, I had to comment. Krugman today writes about the wonderful news from Beijing that China and the USA had reached a deal on reducing carbon emissions so as to fight global warming. As Krugman puts it, "The agreement between China and the United States on carbon emissions is, in fact, a big deal."
After singing the praises of this wonderful deal, Krugman throws in this thought: "I know, I know. The language is a little vague, and the target levels of emissions are much higher than environmental experts want. Indeed, even if the deal were to work exactly as stated, the planet would experience a highly damaging rise in temperatures."
In many ways this is truly funny. When the deal was announced, I condemned it as nothing more than a charade by China. America promises to increase its cuts in emissions and China says that it will cut emissions starting in sixteen years in 2030. In other words, the world's biggest polluter agrees to continue spewing that pollution unchanged for a decade and a half. That is not a good step and it will mean that if global warming is real, the Earth will suffer greatly. Krugman makes clear that he understands the agreement the same way and that, in his view, big temperature increases will result which will cause major damage to the globe. But then, Krugman's inability to condemn something that president Obama has done kicks in. He sings the praises of a deal that authorizes China to keep on polluting without limits.
I guess that I think this is funny because I do not see the connection between human activity and purported global warming. Indeed, after more than 18 years with no temperature increase and with no realistic explanation how that could occur if the theory underlying global warming is correct, it seems clear that higher carbon emissions do not cause major problems. As a result, I can laugh at the hypocrisy of Krugman and his compatriots in the land of the liberals.
After singing the praises of this wonderful deal, Krugman throws in this thought: "I know, I know. The language is a little vague, and the target levels of emissions are much higher than environmental experts want. Indeed, even if the deal were to work exactly as stated, the planet would experience a highly damaging rise in temperatures."
In many ways this is truly funny. When the deal was announced, I condemned it as nothing more than a charade by China. America promises to increase its cuts in emissions and China says that it will cut emissions starting in sixteen years in 2030. In other words, the world's biggest polluter agrees to continue spewing that pollution unchanged for a decade and a half. That is not a good step and it will mean that if global warming is real, the Earth will suffer greatly. Krugman makes clear that he understands the agreement the same way and that, in his view, big temperature increases will result which will cause major damage to the globe. But then, Krugman's inability to condemn something that president Obama has done kicks in. He sings the praises of a deal that authorizes China to keep on polluting without limits.
I guess that I think this is funny because I do not see the connection between human activity and purported global warming. Indeed, after more than 18 years with no temperature increase and with no realistic explanation how that could occur if the theory underlying global warming is correct, it seems clear that higher carbon emissions do not cause major problems. As a result, I can laugh at the hypocrisy of Krugman and his compatriots in the land of the liberals.
No comments:
Post a Comment