Quantcast

Web Letters | The Nation

Web Letter

McKibben, in writing about the usage of love to persuade, missed the most obvious ace in the hole that the good guys have: people's children.

Adam Rurik

Mt. Pearl, Canada

Mar 1 2010 - 4:53am

Web Letter

Well-written article. However, I believe McKibben's argument would be more effective if it was not seeded with apparent hostility to profits and successful companies that provide a crucial service to society. This has always been the weakness of the global warming enthusiasts. Their near-universal hostility to freedom from government intrusion and free enterprise and penchant for blaming one partial continent's sins on a global phenomenon create the impression that behind the "proven science" is an agenda antagonistic to the very ideas that are the foundation of our nation. The global warming enthusiasts' solution is an expanded governmental presence in our daily lives through greater regulation, penalties and higher taxes. This homogenous voice from the enthusiasts leads one to suspect that the real agenda is something other than "Save the Planet." Certainly, if one is attempting to convince another of the crucial need for action, following that up with an agenda that clearly limits the other's freedom and prosperity will be met with resistance. Why are global warming enthusiasts so apparently one-dimensional and uncreative in providing solutions? Why does the answer to warming also appear as an attack on my freedom and sovereignty, and an endorsement of a form of government that is oppressive?

On a more specific note: he fails to repudiate the clear violations of scientific method, and the revelation of a clear political agenda on the part of a major global warming scientist. I would have liked to have seen a reasonable explanation as to why we should not be concerned that such a significant scientist and organization needed to destroy data that contradicted his/their hypothesis. This is not one small needle in a haystack, as you pretend. That “needle” confirmed what many of us suspected: that global warming science is infected with politics and agendas. This contradicts the essence of scientific inquiry, and leads us to pause. We pause, as we see that this underlying politics and agenda is invariable hostile to free enterprise and limited government. These are ideas some of us treasure. Certainly the drastic societal remake enthusiasts prescribe deserves better science, a science that is conducted without bias or preconceived conclusions. I don't believe I've seen this.

Thanks to McKibben for his involvement and passion.

Steve Quanstrom

Fort Collins, CO

Feb 26 2010 - 5:51pm

Web Letter

The author apparently is unable to see the vital differences and wants to pretend that attacking climate fraud is the same thing as attacking science. And they wonder why their positions are collapsing, after around seventeen major errors are found in the IPCC documents. Is this the best the incoherent idiots can do? "Settled science" or "settled fraud"?

John D. Froelich

Upper Darby, PA

Feb 25 2010 - 4:39pm

Before commenting, please read our Community Guidelines.