Reid correct on fires and global warming

To the editor:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has received some flak because of his comment that the California fires were caused in part by global warming. Some pundits accused him of “politicizing” the fires, and Sue Lowden (Nevada Republican Chair) accused him of “losing touch with reality.”

But the Review-Journal’s lead Viewpoints commentary Sunday — by Daniel Brown, an expert on California fires — stated that “an undeniable” factor in the fires is global warming. In fact, virtually all scientists who are not on the payroll of big business agree with this statement.

I don’t know what we can do to stop global warming. It seems to be a problem that defies a solution. Every day we dump more carbon into the atmosphere than the day before, and it remains in the atmosphere, warming the planet, for 100 years. Even if we stopped all carbon emissions today, we would have a continuing problem. Yet we are not even trying to formulate a solution.

In any event, it is quite clear that Sen. Reid was correct and that the only people “politicizing” the issue of global warming are those who prefer to remain in a steady state of denial. I think these are the same folks who denied that there was anything wrong with lead, asbestos, cigarette smoke and chlorofluorocarbons. Eventually they will once again be proven wrong, but at what price?

Albert G. Marquis

LAS VEGAS

To the editor:

Erin Neff’s column of Oct. 30, “The burning truth,” calls for responses.

Ms. Neff starts out talking about “global warming deniers” — though I must say I do not know any such deniers. There certainly is enough evidence to show we are in a warming trend. But where Ms. Neff goes off track is that she seems to think global warming is something we can fix.

Heating up the discussion is Al Gore, who has become the Chicken Little of global warming, freshly anointed with a Nobel Prize for clucking about global warming. Mr. Gore says the debate is over. Not so. Some eminent scientists from around the world have challenged the junk science that has caused the global warming scare.

Many politicians and environmental activists have been leading the charge to mitigate warming, and they cite the “scientific consensus” of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. My understanding is there was no consensus because most of the panelists were not scientists, and many actual scientists object to part of the U.N. report.

Further, I do not think that science works on consensus opinions. It seems like real scientific breakthroughs come from small groups (or one person) who challenge the majority view.

What Ms. Neff is missing is the most important point: How much warming is due to human activity? Science papers I have read indicate that human activity is not influencing global climate perceptibly. Geologic records indicate there are consistent 1,500-year cycles of warming and cooling that have been going on for at least 1 million years. The sun is the source of the changes in our climate.

Al Gore did not talk about the upside to global warming, which means that northern homes need less heating and northland farmers will have great harvests. Studies have shown that Russia, Canada, Mongolia and Northern Europe are big economic gainers from our warming cycle.

What Al Gore has done personally is to buy some carbon offsets to mitigate his consumption. Does anyone else see the similarity between buying carbon offsets and the indulgences sold by the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages? To me, both ideas are obscene.

If our politicians buy the junk science of man-made warming and pass climate mitigation regulations, it will be very expensive for the United States and other Western economies. Trying to change the climate has the capability of creating a worldwide depression.

We need to move slowly and carefully on the issue of global warming. It has the potential to be a worldwide economic disaster.

Richard N. Fulton

HENDERSON

Dropping out

To the editor:

During the Democrats’ presidential debate on MSNBC this week, the subject of education was brought up. Every one of the candidates suggested throwing more money at education. Not a single one of them mentioned motivation, discipline, accountability or sources for funding.

With Nevada recently listed among the states with the highest dropout rates — and with daily reports of crimes committed by young people — it seems like our society should, if we want to get our money’s worth, start emphasizing behavior and the benefits of an education while those dropouts are still in school.

TIM CANDELARIA

HENDERSON