I agree with Andrew. Calling the act of voting against the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill treason is ridiculous. What’s more disturbing is that while Krugman goes on and on about what’s wrong with climate change skeptics, he never talks about what policies would actually address the threat of global warming. He writes:

In other words, we’re facing a clear and present danger to our way of life, perhaps even to civilization itself. How can anyone justify failing to act?

What does “acting” mean? Would any action do? It seems like it. In his article, he doesn’t spend any time talking about whether or not this particular bill would have an impact on global warming. Maybe the real treason isn’t to raise questions about global warming, but to act and regulate without ever wondering if the cost of regulations outweighs their benefits.