CHECK OUT OUR FIRST DISPATCH FROM COPENHAGEN

For more dispatches from Copenhagen check out the Earthkeepers Youtube Channel HERE .

  • John Murphy

    As a hobby truth seeker, I think that there will be way too
    little debate (none?) about the validity of the thesis of “man made
    global warming” it’s reality and probable effects. I reviewed the
    mission and goals of Earthkeeper and I would agree with all of them
    being rather vague but good objectives. I would describe myself as a
    litter picking, clean water, turn off the lights and down the heat,
    alternative energy promoting (includes nuclear), new technology
    advocating….Conservative.
    I won’t argue that the climate doesn’t change or that man hasn’t
    and isn’t influencing it in some ways or that we shouldn’t be changing
    the ways that we are doing things, as it is, we do and we should. Yet,
    I watched your interview and in my view, the problem with Copenhagen was exemplified by the attitude and pontification by Stephen Schneider. He stated that the majority of the attendees were the “most informed” on
    the issues which I believe he means they generally agrees with the IPPC.
    He dismisses the damning leaked emails that were released recently and
    blows them off as just frustrated scientists venting (he must not have
    not read any of them or he isn’t really a scientist). He then tries to
    reframe the debate by putting ecco-terrorists and oil companies as the
    polarizing extremes in the debate. It is ridiculous for thinking people
    to believe that the entire oil industry is willing to sacrifice the
    health of the planet for the sake of profits. As if the oil company
    executives, employees, shareholders and their families don’t have to
    live hear too, how stupid is that? It is obvious that the research
    facilities and educational institutions that are on the no time left
    bandwagon that rely on millions if not billions of dollars that hinge on
    stirring more hype. Maybe it is they that are polarizing the debate?
    Schneider might be able to hoodwink some of the young “mushy-heads” in a university setting to become climavangelists but his arguments and
    tactics are a poor camouflage for what he revealed in your short
    interview.
    The real smoking gun is in realizing the political goals and
    consequences of any type of Cap and Trade/pollution/energy tax that is
    in the hands of a world governmental body as seems to be a main goal of
    the “believers”. This type of outcome would be the true “Crime at
    Copenhagen”. Anyone who is promoting this as the solution to any of our
    problems cannot have the welfare of humankind as their goal. In my
    opinion, this disaster would be the means to make a few political elites
    frighteningly powerful and filthy rich and accelerate the erosion of
    basic human liberties and freedom across the globe. What has made
    America great is a socioeconomic system that allows for the autonomy,
    creativity and liberty of individuals. The rest of the world has got
    better in all of these areas because of what America has been fortunate
    enough to experience and model. Yet I am humbled as an American as there way too many examples of individuals whom have failed miserably at living up to the responsibilities and necessary virtues that freedom and liberty require. Still, if we reflect on history – America has done it no worse
    than anyone else and much better than most.

blog comments powered by Disqus