The climate deniers can’t handle it when on of their own goes off-script. Full Story »
Posted by Fred Gatlin - via Paul Krugman, Google News (Science), Real Clear Politics, New York Times (Opinion), AllTop, Opinion Source, New York Times (Most Emailed), Ron Steffens (t), Tshiung Han See (t), Megan Taylor (t)
a sad, but true, story in this opinion piece, which illustrates how the new u.s. congressional hearings are operating
watching the c-span coverage of the aarp hearings of the house, it's clearly observed that the long-usual courtesies of the rules are being abandoned by the new chairmen and new committee members in their rushed hearings to accomplish various goals of the new right.
Good journalism. Krugman’s opinion piece rightly points out Republican congressional hearings are more theatrical farce than serious governance. Supposed witnesses called to testify are “ringers”. That is, people who should be anyplace other than in the hearings–as in his example of Ron Paul’s hearing about monetary policy calling, as its chief witness, someone who’s claim to fame is a book denouncing Abraham Lincoln as a “horrific tyrant” and calling for a secessionist movement from the “new American fascialistic state’” whatever the Hell that means.
Krugman’s main point is while Republican hearings should be serious in purpose and performance, in reality they’re so ridiculous right wingers end up making fools of themselves, as well as sealing their fates for 2012. Attached hereto in "Quotes" is one from Krugman ending with a quote from author Upton Sinclair that really nails what’s motivating right winger behavior and rhetoric.
But what we had, instead of high seriousness, was a farce: a supposedly crucial hearing stacked with people who had no business being there and instant ostracism for a ... More »
The subject is a little off of Krugman's prime topic of economics, other than the economic disaster possible if these anti-science well financed nut cases carry the day. But the counter-intelligent bent of the tea party and repugnantcans is well described.
On a more serious vein, we don't really need to believe in climate change to justify getting off fossil fuels. We have pollution, trashing our trade balance, supporting mafias in the supply countries which oppress their own people, financing petrol companies with no loyalty to their own country and which are part of this bonus pig trough mentality, destroying our mountains (coal) and wilderness (arctic) etc. etc. etc. Forget climate change and lets look at our best interests.
Just a few weeks ago Anthony Watts, who runs a prominent climate denialist Web site, praised the Berkeley project and piously declared himself “prepared to accept ... More »
This opinion piece has no journalistic merit. The author starts out with the usual smear attack on scientists as "climate deniers", which right away shows his ignorance of the actual science of climate. Calling Anthony Watts' web site Watts Up With That, a "denialist web site" demonstrates the laziness of the author of the column, who did not even bother to look at the web site, or he would know that it is entirely about scientific analysis of climate data. The author does not know that Dr Muller only presented 2% of the data that BEST is to analyze, and did not use the surfacestations database to judge the validity of the data that was analyzed. Go to the link to understand the problems with the data. Look at Figure 2 to see ... More »
An opinion piece with a clear point of view and quite a bit of bite and not much diplomacy here. But there's no better tool of breaking down someone's credibility than showing their inconsistency, which Krugman does skillfully.
Retrieving Comments
