And by “we,” I mean the turtles:

This resort town was long known for Leatherback Sea Turtle National Park, nightly turtle beach tours and even a sea turtle museum. So Kaja Michelson, a Swedish tourist, arrived with high expectations. “Of course we’re hoping to see turtles — that is part of the appeal,” she said.

But haphazard development, in tandem with warmer temperatures and rising seas that many scientists link to global warming, have vastly diminished the Pacific turtle population.

Only it turns out that warming isn’t really the issue:

Even before scientists found temperatures creeping upward over the past decade, sea turtles were threatened by beach development, drift net fishing and Costa Ricans’ penchant for eating turtle eggs, considered a delicacy here. But climate change may deal the fatal blow to an animal that has dwelled in the Pacific for 150 million years.

So let me get this straight.  You had diminishing turtle populations before any supposed warming, while warming only “may” hurt them.  Yet you run the story as “Turtles Are Casualties of Warming in Costa Rica.” Yep, that sounds like the New York Times to me.

Guess what? Climate changes throughout history.  If one location no longer suits the turtles, they’ll move somewhere else. That’s how nature works.  You cannot take a static snapshot of it and preserve it that way for all time.

If we don’t cede our sovereignty at Copenhagen, then Gordon Brown tells us we’re all gonna die:

He added: “If we do not reach a deal at this time, let us be in no doubt: once the damage from unchecked emissions growth is done, no retrospective global agreement in some future period can undo that choice.

“By then it will be irretrievably too late. So we should never allow ourselves to lose sight of the catastrophe we face if present warming trends continue.”

What warming trends? Even the BBC recently discovered that there has been no warming at all for ten years now.  In fact, Washington DC just had its coldest Oct. 16 in 138 years.