LONG BEACH— I read today an op-ed by Paul Krugman concerning the climate change bill. I was surprised to learn that Krugman is a Climatologist. I did not know that.
I have watched the climate change debate rage on and on. I have even met with Nobel Laurette Dr. Sherwood Rowand and discussed with him his award winning work on climate research. What I learned about his research, and what he said to me directly was, he found that a rise in temperature increases the “green house” gasses. I found that interesting because to listen to Krugman or Gore or the Discovery channel, a rise in green house gasses casuses an increase in temperature. It’s a slight twist of the facts that Mr. Sherwood found and it begs questioning.
But to listen to the histerics of the new pop-Climatologists like Krugman and Gore, to question is to disobey. There should be no scientific debate on this issue. None.
I do wish to question this though. Krugman stated in his article: “rising temperatures will cause some arctic tundra to defrost, releasing even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.”
Plants consume carbon dioxide. Many arctic tundra plants don’t survive the harsh cold weather, but the seeds have been sewn. A defrosting of the tundra, should it even occur, results in an incalculable amount of possible outcomes each having incalculable impact on the globe. It could be that newly thawed highly fertile land results in an explosion of plant life which devours the carbon dioxide released by the thawing of frozen land, thus lowering the overall amount of carbon dioxide in the atmostphere.
There are many scientists with hard scientific evidence who would beg to differ from Mr. Krugman’s reactionarism. Many at well reputable national institutions as well. But when they speak, they are mocked and the hard evidence they present is discarded. And these disenters of global climate change are typically not beholden to any political group, interest group, or energy scheme. They’re just scientist doing what they do, questioning what is presented to them seeking more information.
TennesseePaul
Stephen VanNuys
Brooklyn Daniel
The Freedom Thinker
Agreed. Krugman needs to stick to economics. He’s shaky enough there, but he’s way out of his league here.
My personal opinion of Krugman is that he always has the liberal end in mind (universal health care, climate change policy, etc.). He really doesn’t care about the actual economics of his positions or whether the results will be good or bad for a lot of people, he just likes to throw his Nobel weight around to use it to try and influence the debate towards the end result.