Green Mountain,

I have to take exception with you on this. You talk of the poisoning of the oceans, and ignore the basic fact that the ocean, along with our trees and other land- based vegetation act as our carbon sink, a job which they have performed admirably for millions (yes, millions, not six thousand) of years.

But we've taken 300 million years of carbon buildup from where it was safely sequestered in the earth and at the bottom of our oceans and, within the space of 140 years, shot it into the unsuspecting sky. The ocean, like our carbon-eating vegetation, is quickly becoming overwhelmed by the thousands and thousands of tons of carbon which we are belching into the atmosphere daily. 10 billion tons from power plants alone per year. That excludes, cars, planes, etc. That excludes agriculture. 10 biillion tons from power plants alone. This is what is sickening our oceans, killing our coral reefs.

Compound this with less and less of the powerful rainforest carbon absorption, due to logging and development.

Then compound this with the sudden release of massive amounts of methane (carbon) into the atmosphere by the melting permafrost in Siberia, compound this with the exponential growth of combustion engines in industrialising countries (think China and India), wonder some more about the Thermohaline Conveyor and how much more desalinated water the Arctic Circle can dish out before the Current stumbles, and wonder when the switch will be flicked, the tipping point tipped, and gradual climate change becomes continued climate instability, where for one decade to the next you might not even know what climate you'll need to prepare for.

Compound this with a breakdown of our energy system, due to oil depletion, growing demand and added costs of recovery and delivery, making it impossible for entire regions to either heat or cool themselves with any efficiency, which will result in further and even more radical defoliation of the earth, which will of course then compound the carbon sink problem.

Compound this with the results of increased human population impacts on food and water consumption.

Compound that with resource wars, people fighting for water and food for their children as climate change interrupts dwindling supplies. Add to that the inevitable desperation of hundreds of millions of refugees forced en masse from their homes, ploughing through regions like intelligent, anarchic locusts, and the unfathomable brutalities that will become commonplace in battling and sequestering them, and you will have an indication of some of the roots of concern of the vast majority of not just scientists, but just generally people of good sense.

Just as a start, please try reading

"With Speed and Violence, Why Scientists Fear Tipping Points in Climate Change", by Freda Pearce.

And this

http://www.kelber.de/medien/doks/Pentagon- Studie%20Klimawandel.pdf

I know that you're as married to your religious doctrine as I am married to my antipathy towards same, and that there is little that either of us will be able to do to remedy this very fundamental gap. But if you do, in fact, love your grandchildren, I beg of you to familiarise yourself with the basic physics behind your position on this topic.

There are statements from the letter to the UN that leap out at me, like this one...

"The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity."

Two phrases in this sentence are telling to me. the first... "C02, a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis..."

Well, yes, C02 is essential to photosynthesis. Just as water is essential to animal life. A drink of water? A very good thing indeed, if you're thirsty. 10 million gallons of water? Not so good, particularly if you're wrapped in chains, with cement overshoes on, having been dumped off a boat by employees of Fat Tony Salerno.

That a scientist would say such a fabulously clueless thing makes me very surprised.

The other phrase that leapt out, for a different reason more relating to my political antennae than anything else was this one "... IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity...."

"Policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity." For whom, one asks? The residents of coastal regions who face rising seas? The residents of the areas affected by the slowing of the thermohaline current? (Like, for instance, just about everybody on this earth)

Other statements like "global warming has remained level since 1998", are simply untrue, easily disputed, and are just red meat for ostriches. I'm quite sure that the IPCC (and why this letter wasn't addressed to them I can't imagine) is at present drawing up a sturdy rebuttal to this letter, and I hope that you'll be open to its positions, your (probably quite justified) fear of international government aside.