Heed warnings about the climate

For 40 years climate scientists have released dire warnings of human-induced global warming. The latest: we have as few as 12 years to avoid very dangerous temperature increases above 1.5 C.

Nearly half of the world’s population is now in even greater danger of rising sea levels because Greenland’s massive ice sheet is melting faster than scientists thought. Moreover, in the absence of effective decarbonization, the climate may force a 30 percent drop in U.S. economic output by 2100.

Don’t like warnings? Attack scientists. That’s standard fare for the GOP leadership, Mr. Trump, and his Cabinet appointees. Trump’s pick for the Feds, Stephen Moore, recently drew well-deserved public ire for wanting to ban women from college basketball’s biggest stage, March Madness. Scientists, however, are attacked with such regularity that Moore’s comments as a CNN “analyst” have gone without notice: the latest IPCC Report he calls “Chicken Little” and scientists are cogs in a “massive climate industrial complex” where they are “getting really, really rich off the climate change industry.”

If there were a kernel of truth in the attacks on climate scientists, such opinions would foster legitimate public debate; yet there isn’t a smidgen of truth. Government’s funding of climate research amounts to less than 3% of the research budget. No research grant money goes into scientists’ pockets. Grants cover basic costs: a graduate student’s salary ($23,000-$28,000), lab equipment, and publishing expenses. Typically, U.S. climate scientists are employed in U.S. universities that are the envy of the world. University salaries for climatologists are comparable to colleagues’ in other “hard sciences,” but less than their colleagues in business, law, and economics.

Any scientific community values new scientific knowledge. Climate scientists are awarded with additional funding or higher university salaries when they break new ground and not when they merely confirm what their colleagues already know.

The U.S. government sponsors climate science and so does the oil industry. A study of Exxon-sponsored climate research from 1977-2014 found that 83 percent of the peer reviewed, published research came to the same conclusion as their university colleagues: climate change is alarmingly real and caused by humans.

In a previous letter on this page, the writer likened climate lies to a “firehose of falsehoods” that turns us against one another, undermines trust in our institutions, and weakens democracy. We must do better. Teach your children well. Call your representatives. Act now.

Diann Brown


Hold scientists accountable for predictions

Great news! In 1989, Noel Brown (then the director of the New York office of the United Nation Environment Program, UNEP) said that if the global warming trend is not reversed by 2000, entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels. The Great, fantastic news is that entire nations have not been wiped off the face of the Earth! And, we are a long way past the year 2000. Therefore, we can assume that the global warming trend has been reversed.

If the scientists are to be believed, we must believe that their 1989 statement was accurate and since their dire prediction was avoided, we, consequently must believe that their suggested action happened in order to avoid the dire prediction. In other words, we must believe that the global warming trend was reversed (by the year 2000) because if it had not been, entire nations would have been wiped off the face of the Earth!

I think it is hilarious that climate change alarmists insist that scientists know what they are talking about when they make dire predictions and then fail to give them credit for solving the problem when the dire predictions fail to come true! Seems they only believe the so-called scientists when they make dire predictions. Why not give the scientists or the government (or God) credit when dire predictions fail to come true?

Also in the late 1980s, Al Gore was promoting the abandonment of carbon based fuels and the internal combustion engine. Isn’t it ironic that left-leaning Democrats are pushing that idea again with the Green New Deal. This just goes to prove that Democrats have no new ideas. Doing away with fossil fuels was a bad idea in the 1980s and it’s a bad idea now.

Now that we know the global warming problem was essentially solved nearly 20 years ago (because the dire predictions did not occur and because there has been very negligible temperature rise since 1998) how long will it be until we are warned about the next Ice Age? Like we were in the 1950s and 1960s? These things go in cycles and Democrats can be counted on to make a power grab with each cycle change by trying to scare our children and gullible voters.

Randall Peabody

rural Defiance

Union leaders making bad decisions

With the Democrats calling for the single-payer Medicare system and the removal of independent insurance agencies nationwide, I say “no way.” Yes, this would remove all corporate healthcare plans. These are not just plans used for the upper management, but for union and non-union workers.

I get my healthcare through the UAW/GM benefits trust. To destroy this for GM workers is so stupid on so many levels. Other unions’ members and retirees would also be affected. What kind of union leader would support this kind of stupidity? This was the keystone of our struggle during collective bargaining with the corporate America business community.

We gave up wage increases to get these benefits. The questions will become, will these labor leaders allow the destruction of these benefits for their long-term goal of a socialistic agenda?

David Dodt


Think before you speak

On April 20, Ed Singer had s good letter. Lies destroy relationships in our community and institutions.

Each and every one of us should think it out before we speak.

Remember God always stands besides us.

Rose Anne Kunesh


Load comments