Comments on: Who are you to deny global warming?

By: Tamara

Tamara — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 20:43:07 +0000

I am all for recycling and conserving energy because that is the right thing to do for our planet, but I do not believe that man has caused global warming. I can not believe that our children are being taught in school that they are causing global warming. And that they better make changes or our world will end.

By: Wendy Milling

Wendy Milling — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:24:09 +0000

Keith, how dare these people talk to you that way?! I would tell them that the fact that your mind has grasped reality is what qualifies you to talk about global warming, and if they do not understand that, then they do not understand the concept of objectivity. AT. ALL. Ask them why they think it’s called “Objectivism.” If they are unable or unwilling to exercise independent judgment on the matter, then they have absolutely no business critiquing anything YOU say about it. These people are morons.

End of rant. By the way, great work!

By: stephen ottridge

stephen ottridge — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 23:17:54 +0000

I completely agree with you Keith. BTW are you the son of Bob and Gillian Lockitch?

By: irvn

irvn — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:10:35 +0000

I remember the 1970 book.. it did not address what I felt at the time were concerns regarding pollution, costs and property damage, but displayed a scenario in which we basically were living back into a middle ages level of technology, especially with regard to metals, transportation and heating/lighting.

Not very pretty; I know a few “back to nature” types and they acknowledge the debt in the use of aluminium and plastics, and that was before the advent of miniature electronic devices.
But the pollution as property damage or even negligent assault/personal injury, especially both air and water, I do not believe has been addressed adequately.
Regarding human effects on the planet? Pollution has the priority, as it can damage or hurt people; deforestation can be a aesthetic concern, but increased erosion and again property damage.. same for draining of wetlands, which is a bad idea if the issue is one of “stewardship”, and again erosion.
The warming is simply a matter of too little data, and too much willingness to adopt of mindset of blame and acting recklessly, which may be difficult to eradicate or even temper, given the “there oughta be a law” inclination.
By the way I love trees: majestic serene and fearless, I could write pages of metaphors, and easily transfer them to how one could live one’s life…

By: Russell C

Russell C — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:31:30 +0000

The key words to notice in your reader’s questions are “denier”, “You are not a climate scientist”, and “many experts support the existence of global warming”. All of which are used by IPCC / Al Gore followers to create a distraction from what I call the “800lb-gorilla-in-the-room”: They have not established anywhere that skeptic scientists’ dissenting conclusions about natural conditions for global warming are disproved, nor have they shown us specifically where there is tell-tale evidence of big industry-inspired errors in the skeptics’ peer reviewed published reports, after they accuse the skeptics of such corruption.

By: Samuel Cottrell

Samuel Cottrell — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:24:17 +0000

There was an EPA report that was squashed that showed the Earth’s warming and cooling trends correlate with other planets in the solar system.

What has me concerned is a conversation I had last year with a highschool friend who is now a philosophy professor (unfortunately a fan of Kierkegaard). He mentioned that he had recently had discussions with his collegues that suggested the push from the left is to get away from a consumer based economy to a research based economy. (???huh???) I wonder if scientists are being dupped into supporting these claims to garner more money for their research organizations.

By: Mike Dial

Mike Dial — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:15:19 +0000

If anyone is interested in the science behind those who question anthropogenic global warming, they can read ‘Heaven and Earth; Global Warming, the Missing Science’ by Ian Plimer of the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide. You’ll be in the science up to your ears, if that’s what you sincerely seek.

By: Burgess Laughlin

Burgess Laughlin — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:05:21 +0000

Thank you for this post. It is especially inviting and informative because of its Q&A approach and because it is personal, not only about you as a writer, but for the reader — who has almost certainly encountered the same sort of question and welcomes “ammunition” for dealing with it.

By: Daniel Wahl

Daniel Wahl — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:06:34 +0000

Nice post! I think it’s also important to point out to questioners like this that if they feel they are in no position to disagree with “the experts,” by their own admission they are in no position to agree with them either.

And they certainly should not expect the “right” to force others to live in a way that “the experts” (or those who claim to speak for them) suggest.

Cheers!

By: Ken James

Ken James — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 07:19:48 +0000

Dr. Brooks, I emailed you congratulating you on a stella performance at Ga. Tech last week. This is a follow up email. Can you explain to me why Alan Greenspan supported Ayn Rand, and then abandon her philosophy? I can not find a concrete answer.