-Laelth

eom

Krugman's anodyne examples have had little to no impact on global climate change and neither will any "market-friendly" interventions ... it is Capitalism itself that has to go, along with the economies of endless "growth" as currently defined and the culture of consumerism.

As those things are unlikely to happen - especially with widely respected pundits like Krugman saying "now, now, it's not so bad ..." we can kiss just about everything including humanity goodbye.

a Keynesian capitalist to be sure, but a capitalist nonetheless. He still has the belief that capitalism can be "tamed" and "regulated".

History has shown that regulating capitalism is like riding a hungry tiger. It's VERY difficult to do and you're always in danger of being eaten.

Mr. Krugman said, "So the real obstacle, as we try to confront global warming, is economic ideology " I think that's putting it nicely. That "economic ideology" includes pure, consuming, greed and a strong drive for totalitarian control. Not only is the 99.9% in danger from the climate consequences of their "ideology" but also from their economic control.

Also, Mr. Krugman states, "In some ways this makes the task easier: we do not, in fact, have to force people to accept large monetary losses. But we do have to overcome pride and willful ignorance, which is hard indeed." I disagree that this makes the task easier. The greedy can be forced to pay monetary prices but not change their ideology.

The 0.01% is slowly turning up the heat and so far the frog is staying in the pot. The long we wait, the harder it will be.

and maybe not here to the letter (I think the vested interests DO play a big role in the opposition to climate change legislation), but I DO agree that the RW ideology of the Randians also plays a big part in it.

The thing about ideology, maybe even the definition of ideology, is that the pre-conceived ideas involved in the ideology are more important than any evidence to the contrary. This attitude has "trickled down" to the average believer too. Which is why you have the cognitive dissonance of average people believing things that are proven to go against their actual interests.

that these oil interests and such made a big deal out of some paper signed by hundreds of scientists deriding climate change.
-
It was out and out manipulation.
-
the scientists who signed were not involved with weather, climate or an of the earth /atmospheric scientists.
-

The deniers of climate change made much ado about this "scientific" finding.

So, you could say they were involved with weather. I do not know if Brick Tamland was one of the signatories. "I love lamp."

or had BAs in Biology.

Biology and other areas grant Bachelor of Science degrees.. so technically they are scientists.
-
And people believed these 500 scientists.. so it was not just anti-scientific thing. It was misplaced trust in the people promoting these scientists as being worth something.

Studying science doesn't make you a scientist, practicing it does. And when placing your faith in scientists it would be wise to listen to the scientists who are actually studying the field; like say, a climatologist instead of a meteorologist.

they were scientists, just had nothing to do with the field of study in which they signed the petition.

He's an effin' toxicologist. He & the other bosses actually thought they were liberals although they denied climate change, were for the Iraq War, & were never certain whether health care was a right or a privilege.

My husband's a marine biologist, most aware of the rising temp of the oceans. Bossman said to me one day when I challenged his climate denialism, "Then tell me why the ocean temperatures are getting cooler." My mouth fell open & I walked away. No sense arguing w/ PhD's who are so terribly wrong.

He also thought the so-called 9/11 mosque was disrespectful.

Some liberals...

He raises an interesting ideological point, that climate change assaults a core assertion of Ayn Randists. However, the monetary issues are truly enormous. One day, the populace will demand restitution for the damage done by the fossil fuel industry. What's the cost of liability for wrecking the climate and flooding all the coastal cities in the entire world?

The oil industry, the coal industry, and the Koch brothers know what happened with Big Tobacco. And just like Big Tobacco, and employing some of the very same propagandists, they want to delay the day they have to admit fault and pay damages.

On April 14th, 1994, seven CEOs of tobacco companies famously testified before Congress that they thought nicotine was not addictive. They used their paid-for propaganda from "tobacco institute scientists" as cover to claim they really believed that. The fossil fuel CEOs want the same cover from their propaganda campaign. "Who, us, damage the environment? We heard experts saying the science wasn't settled. So how could we know we needed to change our ways?"

The propaganda may be as much about giving them plausible deniability as it is about convincing anyone else.

Give some credit to Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal, Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman -

They don't claim ignorance of the science - they just express an irrational doubt
in facts, statistics and the conclusions which emerge from these.

But Marco Rubio is unique - he doesn't claim to doubt. He claims to have
no understanding at all. And, he's PROUD of it.

He believes that this is what qualifies him to be president.

Talk about anti-intellectualism and science haters, MARCO RUBIO is the POSTER BOY.

For a lighter take on Marco's antics please see http://stuartsdesk.com/Tea_Party_Tales.html

makes excuses for that ignorance, spreads and sells the lies, intimidates and enables media and politicians with made to order GW denying constituencies, and creates a national environment in which the denial is acceptable.

i like krugman a lot but like many observers and commentators today, they live in a talk radio free world while it bathes the countryside with reality-altering unchallenged repetition.

even worse, many of our universities continue to endorse enough of a percentage of the 1200 RW talk radio stations that if they stopped, the monopoly would have to fold. the percentage may be over 30%.

here's a list of over 70 universities that put their sports teams logos on over 170 limbaugh stations (28% of his stations):

https://sites.google.com/site/universitiesforrushlimbaugh/

, and God said unto them, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

THey want a Christian theocracy and unfortunately science clashes with that.
Many of them actually are looking forward to the Rapture and see GWarming as another sign of the coming of their Lord to save them. So even if they secretly believe in GW they are cheerleading it.

by the pseudo intellectual ramblings of a Russia elitist.

She explained how acknowledging climate change forces people on the right to alter their fundamental worldview.