I saw the word columny, presumably a portmanteau word composed of column and calumny, for the first time in this post by Matt Welch in response to Paul Krugman’s indictment of opponents of Waxman-Markey as denialist right-wing ideologues:
Allow me to re-edit the lede of Paul Krugman’s latest columny, an attempt to pre-emptively marginalize those who disagree with another sweeping federal proposal
I don’t have a great deal to add to Matt’s post:
It’s telling that, as in the health care debate, Krugmanesque supporters of cap-and-trade–which, it’s worth mentioning, has never worked–are eager to place the burden of proof for a massive policy overhaul on the shoulders of a broadcast shock-jock. If he was interested in engaging the best arguments against Waxman-Markley, he might start with the archive of Reason Science Correspondent Ron Bailey, who (unhelpfully!) can’t be categorized under any of Krugman’s caricatures.
other than to point out this sentence:
The House has already passed a fairly strong cap-and-trade climate bill, the Waxman-Markey act, which if it becomes law would eventually lead to sharp reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
There’s a critical word in the sentence, would, that demands some consideration. Would Waxman-Markey, however enforced and implemented, definitively reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Or, if perfectly implemented and enforced, could it? There’s an enormous difference between those two.