I find it interesting that recent information from leaked e-mails from climate scientists has been ignored, buried or discounted by major media. Since the work of these scientists at the University of East Anglia led to the cap and trade bill in Congress and the upcoming Copenhagen conference on climate change, these e-mails should be examined fully. They show supposedly reputable scientists working to block requests for data that contradict theirs, blackballing dissenting scientists from meetings and grants, manipulating peer review to keep data that contradict theirs from being published, and manipulating their own data to support global warming.
Scientific fraud at its worst, this will cost all of us. The cap and trade bill will increase taxes substantially when the economy still is in recession. The Copenhagen conference's purpose is to get concessions from developed countries not only to reduce their carbon footprints, but also to pay large sums to underdeveloped countries to reduce theirs. A recent Wall Street Journal article urged us to follow the money. Who will benefit? As underdeveloped countries, China and India, of course, plus the researchers, who will billions of dollars -- all based on a corrupted premise (global warming), the data for which is skewed and fraudulent.
The research we need on climate, should be transparent, accessible, and open to opposing ideas until a true consensus is reached, not one from scientists who predetermine only one result is possible. Until this is resolved, the Copenhagen conference is a farce, a potentially expensive one.
NOELLE A. GRANGER
Chapel Hill
Liberal agenda
North Carolina citizens should not allow government punitive action against any organization partaking in legal conduct. Blue Cross and Blue Shield has a First Amendment right to use some of its profits to advise its customers on what it thinks will be the impact of the Democrat-forced, health-care-destroying, health care "reform" bill.
If our politicians really want to decrease the cost of health care -- if that's their real motivation -- then why don't they change the state law (and federal law if applicable) to allow insurance policies to be sold across state lines (thus increasing competition)? Since some politicians consider BCBS a monopoly, why don't they take this simple, honest action to break up the possible monopoly they created? Why isn't this action contained in the Democrat's version of the health care reform bill?
Politicians must keep their hands off of the private sector. The private sector made this country the greatest in the history of mankind. Throughout history the government has proven to be destructive when involved in the private sector (except for a few cases, like busting monopolies). The government's role in private enterprise must be limited to providing for vital national security and ensuring freedom of choice, both of which allow the private sector and its commensurate competition to excel. The so-called health care reform bill, the hyped "hope and change" charade and this action against BCBS are clearly aimed at limiting freedom of choice, increasing government control and preventing opposing viewpoints -- in short, the liberal agenda.
ROBERT MEDRED
Hillsborough
