Generic cialis. Cialis attorneys. Liquid cialis. Cialis….

Oak furniture. Contemporary furniture. Antique furniture. Furniture….

Don B.

None of it is treasonous but can you provide supporting evidence?

We heard the same arguments of economic catastrophe over getting lead out of gas, over reducing sulfate emiisions from coal, and replacing CFC's to prevent the ozone whole from enlarging. Many more expamples exist of government intervention fixing what the market mechanism are unable to account for.

Dr. Kesten C. Green is a senior research fellow of the Business and Economic Forecasting Unit at Monash University in Australia. Dr. J. Scott Armstrong is Professor of Marketing at The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.

In March the biggest climate conference of the year took place in Copenhagen: 2500 participants from 80 countries, 1400 scientific presentations. Last week, the Synthesis Report of the Copenhagen Congress was handed over to the Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen in Brussels. Denmark will host the decisive round of negotiations on the new climate protection agreement this coming December.

SIGHH… here's the real science.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/a-warning-from-copenhagen/#more-690

This post is not about science, it is about a fascistic notion that dissent is treason. Yes, there is plenty of disagreement on global warming – which was the original name of the religion – changed due to inconvenience of having to deal with the "speed bump" on the global warming super highway.

Here is another post on mises blog by William Anderson

here is the most interesting part of that blog post: Holocaust "denial" in parts of Europe is punishable by prison, and I guarantee you that people like Krugman and his zealot friends will want similar legislation in the USA for "global warming denial." I wish I were exaggerating, but I see this coming.

Dr. Kesten C. Green is a senior research fellow of the Business and Economic Forecasting Unit at Monash University in Australia. Dr. J. Scott Armstrong is Professor of Marketing at The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.

And what is Krugman's area of expertise?

I added four words to Krugman's last paragraph and that can be used against Krugman's economic policy recommendations, using Krugman's own standard's we should call him a traitor based on it.

"Yet the deniers are choosing, willfully, to ignore that threat, placing future generations of Americans in grave danger of untenable debt burden, simply because it’s in their political interest to pretend that there’s nothing to worry about. If that’s not betrayal, I don’t know what is."

I also posted the following comment to the mises blog entry:

"
EES says…

Okay, so Krugman is a True Believer. But what has he done about it? What has he given up?

He wants to stimulate spending! He wants to break windows and rebuild them. He wanted a housing bubble, earlier this decade, where by vast tracts of farmland would become suburbia with mcmansions sitting on them
"

I don't get it muirgeo, all the link says is that a bunch of people got together and talked about a bunch of potential responses to warming over 2 degrees. There wasn't any science there.

Suitable science would include a climate trace that didn't fail then obscure an intentional r2 test, or a demonstrated cause and effect in an inclusive, closed environment that demonstrates a causative, non-converging relationship between CO2 and warming.

re: Betraying the Planet

Dr. Krugman,

In your recent column, you criticized opponents of the "cap and trade" legislation as committing "treason against the planet" and acting with "immorality" and "irresponsibility". You go on to mention researchers at MIT who are predicting a 9 degree rise in global temperatures by the turn of the next century.

While you don't mention whether there is competing research detailing various other potential scenarios, or what sets the particular research you cite apart from competing climate models, I think a more central question is this, based on your claims specifically against those in opposition to the Waxman-Markey bill: precisely how many degrees would that bill lower temperatures? One degree? 5 degrees? 0.1 degrees? How, specifically, does passage of the cap-and-trade bill alter the computer models on climate change? What percentage of arctic tundra will now not defrost, what percentage of polar ice caps will not now melt? How much less in "grave danger" are "future generations of Americans" now in as a direct result of this legislation?

Failure to be able to answer this central, overarching question, seems to be laden with the same hyperbole and "politics as usual" you find so distasteful and immoral on the part of the dissenters.

Sincerely,
Dave Smith
Houston, TX

Posted by: S Andrews

Your chart from a noted climate skeptic shows ZERO trend over the last 30 years.

This graph ( see figure 7 top graph) shows the corrected data revealing a warming trend of 1.54 C/decade.

Now… who to believe?

Well I happen to be in Alaska. Just returned from the bush (no bears ate me and no moose stomped me…sorry!). Having returned here year after year I have seen glaciers receding on a yearly basis and on a long term basis. I've been to Exit Glacier and Portage glacier and many more in Alaska and in Canada, the lower 48 and in Europe. They are all melting before my eyes.

So S. Andrews …pardon me if I believe the latter graph along with all the other mountains of supporting evidence and question why you choose the former graph.

Krugman is dead on people like you are if nothing else treasonous to logic and science in favor of political ideaology.
And that goes not just for the scientific argument but the bogus economic argument that we've heard shrilly over and over and over as governnmment intervention resolves market foul ups and uncovered externalities.

Yeah treason of reason! Such people along with Wacko Jacko fanatics should not be allowed to vote if we are to be consistent in deciding some basis to determine voting elgibility other then a pulse and 18 years of age.

I think this guy makes points that make sense to me, anyway:

http://reason.tv/video/show/621.html

The reason most people don't believe the obvious science on climate change is exactly the same reason creationist don't not believe the evidence of evolutioinary biology. Al Gore was dead on AN INCONVIENT TRUTH. At some point one's opinion of how the world is meets up with the hard cold defiant facts.

This is no different.

Just another doomsday cult.

Pass the cyanide laden Kool-Aid, it's got a faint hint of almond…

Posted by: Cheers

Of course you don't get it. Because your cognitive dissonance didn't allow you to click on the obvious link titled "Synthesis Report" which has a simple summary page on page 6 outlining the dramatic findings of the 2500 participants , their 1500 scientific presentations and the 100 scientific citations referenced with in the report.

You have no abitlity to "GET IT" because you are not interested in the inconvienent truth. It's that simple so quit pretending you have some interest in the truth and maybe look to Gary's post as a possible out for your situation of denying reality to feed your fantasy view of how the world should work. Reality does not bend to your whim!

If you are someone who believes that government is the solution to all of our problems, and that the government being in total control over everything will mean they can fix every problem in our lives, then I can understand why you love Owl Gore.

Krugman is dead on people like you are if nothing else treasonous to logic and science in favor of political ideaology.

Instead he said this…

And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet.

That is dead on fascist.

Quack Doctor Muirgeo goes on to say…

This graph ( see figure 7 top graph) shows the corrected data revealing a warming trend of 1.54 C/decade.

Now… who to believe?

Here is another proof of your deception. The page you posted refers to 0.154 K/decade. That's Kelvin, not celsius, and that's 0.154 and not 1.54. Comprende?

BTW, did you get to Alaska by foot or by air? How much is the "carbon footprint" of your annual pilgrimage to Alaska?

Now go light a candle in front of the poster of Marx hanging on your wall.

Would a physician worth his/her salt argue that a sore throat should be treated with cough drops regardless of cause? Neither would an economist worth his/hers agree with Krugman contra Garrison.

The more Krugman says the better everyone will know him for the stooge for the left he has morphed into.