Yikes.
Not sure why I elicited that rather confrontational post! Or maybe it wasn't, but you thought I was rejecting the argument?
I was expressing an opinion about the style of Krugman, not his content, and I certainly wasn't dismissing changes in climate.
Undecided? Yes. I am not qualified to understand the science at the level necessary to have a reliable view. But because it makes sense to me to find alternative energies, and to do what we can to slow our own contributions to warming and pollution, regardless of the cause, I back reasonable efforts to do so, and find the RW's attempts to fight it based on classification (GW v. climate change or whatever) puzzling. How many times do we have to hear "WOw, it's snowing here! So much for GW!"
(It's been in the 100s here this week. Wow, must BE GW!)
John may hear irony when he reads Krugman, but most people, either because they don't appreciate K quite as much, or because they aren't tuned into nuanced "irony", will find him more Rushlike. I know the RW hears irony and wit in Rush that I don't. |
