He warned: “Watch what happens in Paris carefully to see if all that the leaders do is sign off on the pap that U.N. bureaucrats are putting together, indulgences and promises to reduce future emissions, and then clap each other on the back and declare success.”
The same James Hansen warned back in 2006: “We have at most ten years—not ten years to decide upon action, but ten years to alter fundamentally the trajectory of global greenhouse emissions” before it is too late.
Is it too much to hope that the futile global climate crusade collapses to free public and private resources for here-and-now problems, not distant, hypothetical, unlikely ones?
Robert L. Bradley Jr.
CEO and Founder
Institute for Energy Research
While climate change is the elephant in the room, what environmental doomsayers never mention is that the environment in the freer-market, publicly accountable Western democracies is cleaner by almost every metric than it’s been in more than 100 years—far better air quality, far fewer unsecure landfills, much better drinking water quality, far better wastewater treatment, far better lake/river water quality, light years better air and water treatment technologies, many more robust habitats. Having worked on hundreds of environmental projects over the past four decades, I’ve seen this improvement firsthand, though it’s a deep, dark secret to the public at large because these facts don’t fit the apocalyptic environmentalists’ narrative.
Thomas M. Doran
Messrs. Ridley and Peiser cite three principal reasons to question the idea that rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide will cause catastrophic global warming: the planet was significantly warmer thousands of years ago, world temperatures have gone up far less than predicted, and observed “climate sensitivity” to carbon dioxide emissions is much lower than climate models assume. These are indeed relevant arguments.
I submit, however, that the authors, like many others writing in opposition to the global-warming scare, overlook the primary objection: The prediction that global warming will cause immense environmental damage is an assumption that cannot be verified. It is an example of consensus science, which in recent decades strangely has pervaded the scientific community but is not science at all.
William E. Josey, M.D.
Sandy Springs, Ga.