Let’s start with the good news first: Environmental Defense Fund president Fred Krupp wrote an op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal outlining the need for the Copenhagen talks to make progress toward an effective verification and compliance system in a final agreement.
Fred says:
The road to a serious global agreement goes through the U.S. Congress… The task, then, for U.S. negotiators and their counterparts, is to focus on establishing the fundamental building blocks for an effective treaty that can be finalized in 2010.
He then lists those building blocks as:
- Inclusiveness
- Financing
- Verifiability and compliance
Read the whole piece for insight into each point.
Now the bad news: Sarah Palin wrote an op-ed in today’s Washington Post that purports to be about Copenhagen, but really just rehashes “climate-gate.” The piece tries to paint global warming as purely political issue and dismisses the underlying science. Read at your own risk. Media Matters has posted a thorough fact-check of the piece.
7 Comments
I have heard people say that Paris Hilton is “famous for being famous.” But I kind of have the impression that Sarah Palin is “famous for being stupid.” Are there many people that really listen to her? Nothing personal against her at all, but I would not really spend much time on anything she says, not after what I’ve seen so far.
Hmmmm. Sarah Palin simply rehashes climate-gate. While you have completely ignored climate-gate. Climate-gate is probably the biggest scientific scandal in the history of science and you “warmers” just act like it’s nothing. The “science” of climate change is not science at all, it’s a political agenda. The debate is over, we have the proof and anyone who disagrees is just a denier.
To the people running this web site and this blog,
It is time now that you need to discuss things. In the climate-gate situation, you have been caught in a scandal, which includes falsifying data, suppressing opposing views, and outright lying. I am impressed that you posted a link to an article by Sara Palin, but rather than downplaying it, you need to discuss what she says. There are two sides to every argument, not just your side.
And your side is obviously not really a consensus of opinions no matter how many times you say that it is. There are many people, including reputable scientists and climatologists, who have views different from yours. Some of them have even written into this blog site. Yet, you dismiss them and do not debate their views. There have been people who have posted web addresses of sites that have opposing points of view (I have been one of them) and you don
and you don
and you don
This is the third time trying to complete this blog. continued from the end of the 2nd paragraph
…and you don’t even answer them or debate the different points of views.
The scandal that you are facing is going to bring you down if these things don’t change. Maybe you are right in your point of view. In this case you need to present the correct data, not falsified data, and you need to debate with those who oppose you. But, if you are wrong, you need to listen to other points of view. Maybe we are headed to a global crisis like you say, but maybe it is different than what you think. Maybe someone else’s point of view will save the world instead of your point of view. You need to listen, really listen, and then discuss and debate. Otherwise you are going to be shown to be the fools instead of everyone else.
As the ad on the radio says, “Not a sermon. Just a thought!” So this is just my thought for now.
K.C. Weber
When will you remove the lies and “facts” that have been proven wrong from your web site and radio ads.
It makes you look stupid when you promote stuff that is proven to be wrong.