<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for 20 climate experts call for aggressive U.S. action]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by randino http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-22-climate-scientist-open-letter/ Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:17:45 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-22-climate-scientist-open-letter/1 As Satlin once said about the Catholic Church, "How many divisions does the Pope command?" This is just the latest in a long list of op-eds, letters and pleas from the world's scientists to take action on climate change.  They have all been ignored - just as this one will be. Power and money rules and ruins, and the truth is a hunted fugitive.

 Randy Cunningham   Cleveland, OH

 

]]> As Satlin once said about the Catholic Church, "How many divisions does the Pope command?" This is just the latest in a long list of op-eds, letters and pleas from the world's scientists to take action on climate change.  They have all been ignored - just as this one will be. Power and money rules and ruins, and the truth is a hunted fugitive.

 Randy Cunningham   Cleveland, OH

 

]]> Comment #2 by Ken Ward http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-22-climate-scientist-open-letter/ Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:08:06 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-22-climate-scientist-open-letter/2 I am mystified that 20 prominent climate scientists (including Gus Speth, who should know better) can call passage of Waxman-Markey "essential" while in the same breath, dub 450 ppm "inadequate to sustain the integrity of global climate." The two statements are completely contradictory and therefore cancel each other out. As Randy notes, we have here yet another in a long line of muddled public statements from scientists. The only appropriate stance is to flatly reject Waxman-Markey (I would suggest calling it "utterly inadequate") and call on the President to go back to the drafting table and come up with something that at least has a shot of working.

]]> I am mystified that 20 prominent climate scientists (including Gus Speth, who should know better) can call passage of Waxman-Markey "essential" while in the same breath, dub 450 ppm "inadequate to sustain the integrity of global climate." The two statements are completely contradictory and therefore cancel each other out. As Randy notes, we have here yet another in a long line of muddled public statements from scientists. The only appropriate stance is to flatly reject Waxman-Markey (I would suggest calling it "utterly inadequate") and call on the President to go back to the drafting table and come up with something that at least has a shot of working.

]]>