Ralph Peters articulates our reservations about global warming, cap-and-trade and the transfer of wealth which emerging nations are demanding from developed ones (“When Scientists Lie,” PostOpinion, Dec. 12).
Sending billions of our shriveling dollars to corrupt regimes cannot be expected to solve the problem.
The picture of the United States borrowing even more money from China, just to give it back as an obligatory environmental-welfare payment, reveals the absurdity of this global shakedown.
Ray Arroyo
Westwood, NJ
***
As Peters points out, there is no questioning the climate-warming diehards, regardless of the fact that there’s no evidence that man is responsible for whatever they claim is occurring.
Who needs proof? As long as they’re capitalizing on their made-up science, who is anyone to doubt their brilliance?
Chris Michaels
Morganville, NJ
***
Despite the “consensus” that our current warming is caused by human activity, where are the studies that determine that a warmer climate is disadvantageous?
Could a warming climate be an improvement over the current condition? The Medieval Warm Period (800-1300 AD), with estimated global temperatures that were warmer than today, certainly didn’t create havoc among the human populations at the time.
“Worse” is a matter of perspective. Somebody’s worse is also somebody’s better.
Barry B. Hoffman
Sacramento, Calif.
***
I have been struggling to find a way of pointing out that those who scream loudest about environmentalism are almost always those who would be least affected by the policies they espouse.
Peters’ line, “Extreme environmentalism is a rich man’s sport that rides hell-for-leather through the poor man’s fields,” is a thing of beauty, which I’ll be committing to memory.
Leonard Hamm
Point Roberts, Wash.
***
I know little about the Rube Goldberg contraption we call climate, but, like Peters, I do know a little about human behavior and the lemming-like inclination of certain academic types to follow the grant trail.
I construct the timeline as follows: Al Gore, bitterly disappointed at the loss of the presidency in 2000 and rooting around for something to do, was alerted by eco-loon friends and glommed onto the warming-alarmist bandwagon.
Gore knows as little as I do about climate change, but he knows much more about manipulating the media and maximizing sky-is-falling folderol.
With a Nobel Prize on the mantel, an Oscar as a doorstop and a cushy job at an investment bank, the possibility that his success is based on junk science is the most inconvenient truth of all.
As the globe’s leading climateer, Gore and the climatologists who have fudged the science and derided opposing voices must now feel the heat.
Paul Bloustein
Cincinnati
***
Galileo suffered under house arrest, and it was due to these circumstances that he was unable to test his theories about our universe. We can’t even imagine what he could have accomplished if his hands weren’t tied.
Today we are stuck with people like money-hungry Gore who profits financially because of his lies. What else can we expect from an ex-politician?
Richard Homer Bucco
Bloomfield, NJ
***
Assuming that mankind has an impact on the environment, there should have been a dramatic increase in temperatures, as well as carbon dioxide, during the years 1941 through 1945, which included the bombing at Pearl Harbor, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Also to be considered are US war industries during that time. That activity should have generated a huge spike in temperature as well as carbon dioxide.
If the spike does not exist, with all that pollution, then man’s ability to influence the climate is probably smoke combined with mirrors.
Roland Gagne
Anaheim, Calif.