When I first read Paul’s letter, I almost skipped it. Great! Another partisan viewpoint! He quickly dismissed and insulted all those with whom he disagreed.
I guess I was bored, so I kept reading. He is obviously the smartest person in the room. I followed with interest his logic and science of the earth warming and the consequences that may follow. He certainly was convincing with his moot argument. No one is arguing that the earth’s climate is not in constant change! I’ll venture to say that no one actually believes that man is not leaving his footprint. But how big is that footprint? Enough with the anecdotal convictions — let’s quantify it!
Once we quantify man’s footprint (agriculture, building structures, manufacturing, burning fossil fuels) vs. nature’s footprint – we can logically decide if we need a global (i.e. *all* countries) political solution to affect the warming trend. But let’s assume man’s footprint is proven to be the problem, I’m onboard to help fix it! What to do? So far, current or suggested solutions involve redistributing wealth (carbon bonds, cap & trade). They do nothing to reduce CO2 gases. Do you have a better plan? Is it economically viable?
My problem is that I feel scientists, along with journalists and educators have been hijacked by this partisan train. Because Paul and others comes across as partisans, I suspect their data and facts were cherry picked to support their respective arguments. Climategate?
Also by blaming everything on global warming (and we do), we don’t look locally for the real culprit or solution. We (as individuals) cannot dismiss our responsibility as good stewards of this planet, but let’s be smart about it.