More From NYT Finest

***Warning: Some explicit ranting. Put the chil'den in another room ***

Paul Krooooooooogman, is at it yet again. Paul, the economist, like his liberal brethren Al Gore, the engineer, has become, somehow, an expert pundit on climate change.

Let me be the first here to say: They know squat. I know nothing and freely admit it. I'm just not lucky enough to have a job to pay me to pretend being an expert.

Yukon Ho! Krooooogman says:

The rage, by the way, is amazing. Nothing gets me as many crazed emails and comments as any reference to climate change. The anti-global-warming people are just filled with hate for anyone who suggests that maybe, just maybe, the vast majority of scientists are right.

Nothing like a good speculation piece to go with that muffin. Skepticism = hate? So much for healthy skepticism. The rest is just a baby-la-la cop out.


Maybe, just maybe, the vast majority of pseudo-scientists are wrong?

I don't want to hear "maybe" I want PROOF.

First, environmentalism is the ultimate “Mommy party” issue. Real men punish evildoers; they don’t adjust their lifestyles to protect the planet. 

Second, climate change runs up against the anti-intellectual streak in America. Remember, just a few years ago conservatives were triumphantly proclaiming that Bush was a great president because he didn’t think too much:

Mr. Bush is the triumph of the seemingly average American man. He’s normal. He thinks in a sort of common-sense way. He speaks the language of business and sports and politics. You know him. He’s not exotic. But if there’s a fire on the block, he’ll run out and help. He’ll help direct the rig to the right house and count the kids coming out and say, “Where’s Sally?” He’s responsible. He’s not an intellectual. Intellectuals start all the trouble in the world.

So they’re outraged, furious, at the notion that they have to listen to guys who talk in big words rather than sports metaphors.

Interesting. Still speculation though.

So when did he conclude this social examination? They fall into two categories only?

I'm sure there's some of that going on but, again, he's completely avoiding the people who don't fit in his neat cultural theory. He's, furthermore, insulting those with a critical mind wanting to scratch further; those who aren't happy with stopping the buck with punditry.

Equating deniers to anti-intellectualism is a big, big specious assertion.

I think what people are objecting to, Kroooooogman, is that they're being coerced into changing their lifestyles meanwhile they watch the elites leave one gigantic carbon print frolicking around the world in limos and private jets.

See this? Yeah, you know what I'm talkin' 'bout, mm, mm. Environmentalism is literally killing Africans.

On a side note, he speaks of anger as if it belongs exclusively to one side of the coin. Liberals are rational and free of anger. Sure. If you say so...Mr. Smarty Pants.

Liberals can be every bit as idiotic. Take the the Liberal party of Canada for example; a party at this point which not only lacks substance but is outright a joke. They recently commissioned a public contest asking citizens to come up with a creative protest picture about why Prime Minister Harper was reluctant to attend Copenhagen.

Fair enough. I love seeing what people come up with.

Like the one picture that slipped through Liberal state of the progressive art screening process where some nut case photo shopped Harper's face on Lee Harvey Oswald's face just as Jack Ruby shot and killed him.

Oh, yeah. Free speech and all that. Absolutely. I defend the picture. What I don't condone is that a PARTY OF THIS COUNTRY posted it on its site!

The Liberals would be the first, because they're a bunch of whiny, hypocritical bitches, to go absolutely bat shit insane if a picture of this sort had shown up on a conservative website.

The people running the Liberal party web site showed poor judgment. Heck, I'll even go out and say they're dumb assholes. For kicks.

Once again, free speech hell yeah but for the Liberal party "web team" to accept it on the "natural governing" party site is inexcusable and people should lose their jobs over it.

The subsequent apology was weak to boot.
The ultimate irony is the Liberal party of Canada's record on the environment was an abysmal failure. They signed Kyoto and did squat about it. In other words, they smiled, signed and didn't deliver.

And they have the balls to pull shit like this?

So excuse me Paul, if I don't buy into your gibberish. This is what passes as "progressive" thinking in the liberal rank and file. Apparently.

Look, there’s a faint echo of all this on the left — people who are outraged at the idea that we’re going to make saving the planet basically a business decision, aligning private incentives with environmental goals so that doing the right thing becomes a profit opportunity rather than a moral duty. That, I think, is what’s behind the furor over cap and trade.

No. Because it's a game of wealth redistribution where a select few will profit big time. I don't know if the green revolution will destroy or enhance our economies and neither does he.

Africa and developing countries will get sodomized once again because of a new, perverse version of the "White Man's Burden."

A result of our bull shit? Try this. 

Another thing I find interesting is the math. They set carbon emissions targets as far out as 2050. But I thought we needed to do something now. They frame their arguments as if the world is about to collapse any second now. Oh, I see. If we don't do something now, the future will be even worse. Sound stuff.

Mr. Paul is better off dealing with actual facts posited by skeptics rather than belittling and insulting people's intelligence.

But it’s the anti-environmental craziness that matters. An important part of the population just doesn’t want to believe in the kind of world in which we have to limit our appetites on the say-so of fancy experts. And so they angrily deny the whole thing.

 

You first.


Until then, let me be "angry" in peace.

Ugh.