To quote Professor Krugman’s article:

“Sometimes even the most authoritative analyses get things wrong. And if dissenting opinion makers and politicians based their dissent on hard work and hard thinking -- if they had carefully studied the issue, consulted with experts and concluded that the overwhelming scientific consensus was misguided -- they could at least claim to be acting responsibly.”

Authoritative analyses: a phrase that sums up the problem better than I ever could have. Not scientific analyses, not peer-reviewed, not unbiased -- but authoritative. Sounds kind of like Iran, North Korea, or Al Gore to me.

“If they had carefully studied the issue, consulted with experts, and concluded that the overwhelming scientific consensus was misguided -- they could at least claim to be acting responsibly,” Krugman says. I don’t even have to be snide about this quote.

CBSnews.com had an article this past weekend about an EPA scientist who wrote a 98-page report warning against making hasty "decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data." The report was quashed by an EPA official who wrote in an email to a staff researcher on March 17: "The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward ... and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision."

To give you another example, the first woman to receive a PhD in meteorology was Joanne Simpson. Last year, she wrote a telling article, in which she said: “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receive any funding, I can speak quite frankly,” suggesting that she may have felt obliged to keep quiet on those of her views that were at odd with her funders'.

I'm not surprised that Professor Krugman has never heard of any of the highly qualified researchers who are skeptical of man-made global warming, because they're typically either quashed, ignored by the mainstream media, or threatened by the ruin of their professional careers. Dr Simpson’s first line is classic.

There are way too many myths out there about global warming that never get fact-checked. Krugman thinks that Arctic ice is decreasing at terrifying rates. And yet, ice coverage through June is just about average for the past 8 years. Also, the average Arctic temperature is holding near 32° F, the latest date in the year it's been that cold in 50 years of record keeping. That’s terrifying?

Back in March, 2007, Al Gore told Congress that “the science is settled.” Don’t do any more research, don’t question my judgment, “The science is settled.” The person who probably heard that first was Galileo Galilei: “The science is settled. The Sun revolves around the Earth, not vice versa. You're hereby sentenced to house arrest until you recant your heretical views.” Poor Galileo, the man Albert Einstein called "the father of modern science," spent the rest of his life under house arrest.

There's no doubt the science isn't settled. The data's not fitting the model. With the Earth cooling, what was the real reason for cramming the Cap & Tax Bill (its actual name) through the House? Hopefully, some “cooler” heads will start looking at both sides of the story, and will come up with an energy bill that doesn't include caps on CO2  -- which, it's beginning to seem, may have nothing to do with global warming.

Traitors, betraying the planet? Paul, let me give you a little advice. You got Cap & Tax through the House. It’s summer -- chill. Lighten up a bit and check out icecap.us. You might discover that there are some quality traitors at work out there.