The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 6 of 15)

Second, it sets America up as a target. In spite of the fact that no developed country has delivered on the Kyoto promises they signed up for, only America's failure to meet the Kyoto standards (and we will fail) will ever be held up for global scrutiny and criticism. We'll have given the world yet one more reason to bash every success we produce by instead highlighting any shortfall we encounter.

Third, the first two points set in motion a mandate to spend (a favorite Bush activity) because this problem must be solved at any cost now that the sky is falling and America is failing. With tax increases already on the horizon as a result of the recent elections, an additional round of tax and spend on questionable studies and solutions would be disastrous. The temperature of the planet may not drop one fraction of a degree as a result, but the economy would drop faster than a bird hitting a windmill.

p>The need to move to nuclear power because it is a clean, reliable, cost effective, domestic alternate to fossil fuels is clear. However, the nuclear power argument can stand on its own merit. It doesn't need to be intertwined with the global warming debate and related science (or lack thereof). And it most certainly doesn't need to be preceded by the acceptance of a flawed, unmanageable protocol that will be used only to scare us, bash us, and tax us for global entertainment. br> -- Tom Cook br> Raleigh, North Carolina /p> p> You can't be serious. Why would The American Spectator publish this piece of fear-mongering. A "Global Warming" article? Some "Scientists" have been predicting massive warming and cooling (in the same sentence sometimes) since the 1970s and none of that drivel came to pass. A more logical explanation seems to be that this is all cyclical. Where is the proof that it is not? Where is the proof of warming or cooling that is not based on someone's inference of static data? Before I buy this bill of goods that I need to get rid of my car, pay more for less energy or move to a crowded city to be in walking distance of my job, I need something more than flimsy computer models and raw emotion. br> -- Frank O. br> New York /p>

Why are there so many people in this world that are just too (pick one of "stupid", "obstinate," "hopelessly naive") to believe that global warming is a serious problem that requires immediate action? Perhaps it is because we have seen things like this before and there is plenty of scientific evidence to the contrary.

topics:
Taxes, Trade, Harry Reid, Social Security, Environment, Global Warming, Constitution, Law, Military, Iraq, Africa, Energy, Oil, Medicare