Quantcast

Web Letters | The Nation

Web Letter

"Mass Movment"? Is this article refering to the "Green Tea" baggers of Copenhagen?

Marti Evans

St. Louis, MO

Jan 11 2010 - 11:12pm

Web Letter

I might point out that the consensus about AGW is crumbling quicker then the ice on my driveway. Even Professor Mojib Latif, a leading member of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has shown that at least 50 percent of the climate change is natural, and he is certainly no "denier." I happen to believe it is probably a lot more then 50 percent. However, the point is that it might be nice is we actually knew just how much effect humans have before we wreck the economies of the developed nations and impede the developing countries from actually developing with this Kyoto/Copenhagen foolishness. We can certainly be conservationists without thinking we all have to drive solar-powered roller skates. Since the climate models that you rely on to prove AGW have not been able to predict the cooling of the last decade, maybe we can wait until we have models that work better, or even better we might pay more attention to actual temperature data and not to data massaged beyond recognition by our friends at the EAU/CRU.

Dan Sudlik

Somers, NY

Jan 11 2010 - 3:16pm

Web Letter

How's this for starters. Grab a shovel and help affected areas of the US dig out from one of the worst snowstorms in regional history.

Eh?

That would be making a useful contribution to society... as opposed to shoveling this climate-warming BS on people.

As a previous poster said: get a job!

Jack Davis

Phoenix, AZ

Jan 11 2010 - 1:20pm

Web Letter

There are some things, like climate or the human body, that are too complex for humans to fully understand, let alone model. The hubris required to claim that you understand climate is considerable. The recent Climategate revelations of deceit and chicanery show that this was more a political undertaking than serious science. The need to "control the climate" is just a wonderful justification for controlling everyone and every business in the world!

Of course people can build models that predict global warming. And as is the case now, when global cooling occurs instead, others will find a new feature to model that "predicts" global cooling. It's a business, and researchers have to get paid. But their followers, who are in it for the "feel-good," not the money, are basically in the Church of Global Warming or else are in it because it furthers their politics. These people, who would sacrifice both our economic standard of living and our personal freedoms, for politics, are not only despicable but dangerous.

The article states that "giving up is not an option, not for anyone who cares about preserving a livable planet for our children."

The is the statement of a "true believer," with all that implies. Perhaps you should get out more.

"The fight against climate change has reached a decisive moment. We must seize it with all our hearts." Fighting against "climate change" makes Don Quixote look like a font of wisdom. The climate will always change, and, as now, it may not change the way you want it to. But of course, if your goal is to control everything, that would provide just more justification, wouldn't it?

"With all our hearts" says way too much about this movement.

Edwin Klingman

San Gregorio, CA

Jan 11 2010 - 1:01pm

Web Letter

The reason Copenhagen failed is that the leaders of many nations appear to have grasped the fact that the Copenhagen benchmarks are tantamount to an economic suicide pact. Even among Copenhagen's supporters, there is not a hint of hope that drastically cutting our carbon production today will do more than drop the planet's average temperature by one to two degrees. And yet for this tiny gain, the nations of the world are expected to hobble their energy production and manufacturing sectors and return our per capita carbon output to roughly 1875 levels.

Even assuming that anthropogenic global warming has a solid foundation in hard science (definitely arguable) I have yet to see any liberal/global warming activist make a cogent case as to why a planet that is two degrees warmer in 2110 is worse than a planet that is two degrees cooler at that time. After all, Earth was warmer in the Middle Ages than it is now, and that warm period was a boon to humanity. Farmlands opened up where the weather was formerly too prohibitive. More open waterways allowed for greater commerce, etc. Likewise, a warmer planet in 2100 would likely be a net gain. Tell me, Al Gore, apart from disproven doomsday scenarios, why does this "problem" need solving, particularly at the cost of trillions of dollars in the middle of a worldwide recession?

Instead of pouring trillions of dollars into a dubious problem with even more dubious solutions, why not take a large percentage of these funds and (a) prepare for the negative consequences of global warming, and (b) positively affect the lives of those very people global warmists insist will be endangered by a warmer planet. Instead of spending trillions to take carbon out of the air, why not spend billions to develop heat-resistant, drought-resistant crops? Why not spend billions to dig a freshwater well for each needy village in sub-Saharan Africa? Surely this is a better, and more humane, use of our funds, with the added benefits of concrete, visible gains (as opposed to ephemeral "results" found only in computer models that shove contested data through questionable assumptions).

The failure of Copenhagen was a victory for common sense economics, particularly when one considers that the solutions to any climate crisis are much more likely to come from a vibrant, wealthy economy than a depleted, static one. Hopefully common sense will yet prevail in Germany and Mexico City in the coming months, and humanity can be about the business of improving life for all people, no matter what the ever-changing, always-variable climate may bring.

Jesse Rine

College Park, MD

Jan 11 2010 - 12:55pm

Web Letter

Are you people really this stupid? It's over. You've been outted. And I'm sure, that for most of you, this isn't the first time.

Go outside. What's it like? Does it feel warmer than normal? Or is it colder? Tell me; How many records are being set, all over the world, for cold temperatures? You people have heard of Accums' Razor [sic]. Haven't you? What about Freud? "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

Surely you know of the e-mails from your climate church. You know that they destroyed their research data, fifty years of it, rather than turn it over on a Freedom of Information Act request. Right? Who would do such a thing? Who would destroy their own lifes' work? Nobody. Unless it was bogus.

Doesn't it bother you, that your icons are getting rich off of your sychophantic devotion? Al Gore owns a hedge fund, full of the suckers' money. He has a carbon footprint second to none, as he flies around from his mansion, in his private jet, to one place or another, in order to instruct you on how to live your life.

What's it gonna take for you to realize, that the emperor has no clothes, and that you are a moron?

Get a job!

Timothy L. Pennell

Middlebury, CT

Jan 11 2010 - 11:12am

Web Letter

The Copenhagen process fell apart because the two most powerful countries--China and the United States--opposed it on economic grounds, believing that any limits on growth would be bad for their economies and their power in the world. And, with egos that big, I won't be expecting any progress. So it appears that what we'll be doing in the next 100 years is watch what happens to our environment and try to adapt, which is only what our brains are capable of doing. There is no crisis (threat to our existence) yet, so our brains cannot plan to restrict and limit until the crisis hits us in the face. Will that be too late? Stay tuned and watch from the sidelines.

Dan Robbins

Henrico, VA

Jan 9 2010 - 6:43am

Before commenting, please read our Community Guidelines.