Letters to the editor
In response to the hysterical letter from Laura Wenzel and the rational letter from Carrie Smith, both accepting global warming, let me state global warming is debatable.
Go to the NASA website http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/ and scroll past data from 80 and 100 years ago to more recent (and presumably more reliable) monthly “Global Monthly Mean Surface Temperature Change.” Conclusions from these data include: No temperature increases since 1998 or 2002; a slight warming since 2000; global cooling since 2009.
Measuring global temperature requires many scientific assumptions, so if you want to believe the global temperature guesses from 60 and 100 years ago, go for it. Just don’t say it is happening now. These non-increases are causing concern among disciples of global warming who are burning midnight oil to come up with an explanation, so let me offer two explanations:
-- Having a liberal president since 2009 has inhibited global warming.
-- Al Gore has gained enough weight to become a significant carbon storage depot.
Water vapor is the dominant “greenhouse gas” and temperature non-increases over the past several years do not correlate with rises in atmospheric CO2 levels (approx 360 ppm in 1995 to 395 ppm now). Since global warming is a parameter that can be measured (however difficultly) but isn’t fitting in with some agendas, the slogan “climate change” opened up new vistas with which to scare people. Looking at smog in the larger Chinese cities, I support rational ways to minimize pollution. However, global warming hysteria is not necessary.
We need a better way
There is little doubt that our government in Washington is in serious trouble. Many blame the political parties or powerful individuals for the sad state of our current affairs. But I would like to offer an alternative explanation. Namely, the institution we acknowledge as sacred, democracy.
All people who have brought about this pending fiscal shambles are legitimately elected. They are proud of their success and their importance and understandably so. And yet we see that by using mere votes to achieve their goals, they well may discredit and destroy our great nation.
A better way needs to be found than “democracy,” although at the moment that seems a difficult assignment. But if our revolutionary leaders of the 18th century could do as well as they did with what they had at hand, I do not feel it is asking too much for our present crop of professionals to assume the task.
Joseph Di Bona