ShareThis Page

Loons in Cancun

| Tuesday, Dec. 14, 2010

Another costly United Nations conference on wealth redistribution under the guise of climate change has come to a predictable close.

"Experts" trotted out disputed "science" to buttress predictions of climate cataclysms. Notes British columnist Christopher Booker in The Telegraph, the same United Kingdom National Weather Service computer that predicted a four-degree rise in global temperatures over the next 50 years also "has consistently got every one of its winter and summer forecasts hopelessly wrong" over the past three years.

Climate cluckers couldn't come to terms on arbitrary emissions cuts. But they did come up with a "Green Climate Fund" to shuffle $100 billion in aid by 2020 to poor nations. No details yet on how deeply the duly concerned intend to reach into Uncle Sam's wallet.

What unfolded over two weeks was more of a circus than any meaningful scientific consensus on complex global weather patterns. The direction was set with an opening prayer to Ixchel, the Mayan mood goddess.

And how strange that no one mentioned the "carbon footprint" left by thousands of pampered delegates, who didn't get to Cancun by paddling canoes.

From this nonsense Mr. Booker derives a fitting conclusion. "The global warming scare may have been fun for the children while it lasted, but the time has come for the joke to be declared well and truly over."

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.