If you're a climate change denier, you're immoral

This is current position of Paul Krugman in his latest column (Betraying the Planet) and very likely the genuine consensus of man-made global warming proponents. I don't believe there is a face nor a palm large enough to capture the kind of facepalm this kind of contention requires.

The very idea that denying what very could be an honest mistake made by those who are eternally preoccupied the health of Mother Gaia as being immoral is obscene. The contention that global warming denying is tantamount to things like thieving, lying, bullying, assaulting, even murder, is asinine.

It is interesting to note that Prof. Krugman juxtaposes the fear-mongering he espouses to that of the Bush administration's in regards to terrorism. When Bush et al asserted that terrorism posed an existential threat, Prof. Krugman recognized it as hyperbole. What is curious to note is how relevantly similar the two theories are yet the Nobel laurete is incapable of removing his liberal colored lenses to see it. The plausibility for Islamic fanaticism to become an existential threat is dependent on a long term model. That is if Al Qaeda were successful in uniting the Ummah as one therocratic nation state which had dominion over a majority of the world's oil wealth AND had nuclear capability...who in their right mind would deny that that would an existential threat to the United States? Plausible? Yes. Likely? No.

Similarly the peril of man-made global warming theory is also dependent on a long term model. If carbon was to accumulate to 450 ppm in the atomosphere, over the next century tempertures would be of such catastrophic magnitude that all life would be indanger of becoming extinct. Plausible? Only if carbon emissions really were the most decisive variable in the complex system that is climate and temperture...and it isn't. Likely? No way.

And the above analysis, denying the imperilment of carbon emissions is deemed IMMORAL to those who wear liberal colored lenses.

Which brings us to the relevant difference between the two theories compared by Prof. Krugman. While the existential threat of terrorism is questionable, what isn't is the depths of its immorality. Terrorism by religious psychotics is unquestionably evil. Resources devoted to impugning such evil are resources well spent.

Contrast to carbon emissions. Emiting carbon is amoral. In fact carbon is necessary for life. It is what all life forms are even based on. It is what makes the organic, well organic. Thus, raising doubts as to whether treasure and resources should be devoted to reducing its prescence must also be amoral, lest of course one wears liberal colored lenses.