Climate change: Politics vs. science
To the Editor:
Deborah Baron may be right in her letter of Sept. 10 saying that 2012 was the hottest year on record. It probably was — in some remote spot in the U.S. But according to all major scientific agencies including NOAA and the United Nations, global temperatures have been falling and there has been no warming in the last 17 to 20 years.
This has global warming alarmists scratching their heads trying to explain the lack of warming.
Baron states that The National Organization for Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced a rise in serious hurricanes.
She also makes the same mistake President Obama did by stating that 97 percent of top climate scientists agree that man made pollution is warming our planet. The original study shows that 97 percent of the scientists agree that the earth is warming but only 30 percent of the total blame man made CO2. Her statement, as well as the president’s, are not exactly true.
I maintain that this whole subject is less about “science” and mythical environmental control than it is about politics. Those who promote this climate hoax are only interested in passing laws like cap and trade, the bartering of “carbon credits,” and the redistribution of wealth from industrial nations to third world countries.
Green initiatives require sacrifice
To the Editor:
President Nixon signed the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1973. It is a law which, like so many of our laws, reflects the ethics of our nation. Without laws like the ESA we all know that the selfish and unethical will keep doing the things that yield profit and recreational enjoyment even as the effects prove unsustainable for the health and beauty of the public lands we all share and bequeath to the future. The biologists who seek to implement laws including the ESA do so with extensive and continuous public inputs. The law and their professional creed requires that the adjustments they propose for the restoration of a threatened or endangered species (yellow-legged frog and Yosemite toad in this instance) be the minimum necessary to get the job done.
This means, for example, that if amphibian populations can be restored in a given area by installing a riparian fence or by removing cows entirely from that area, the fence with it’s smaller impact on existing human use will be recommended. You can be certain that the rumors of massive closure are extreme exaggeration. People, of course you need to provide your input to the managers of your public lands, but do so with a commitment to supporting the idea that we are all working together to adjust how we use our shared public lands so that their health and beauty can be restored and preserved into the future. As a fisherman, am I disappointed when I clamber up to a high mountain lake which once yielded a stringer of trout only to find that it is now fishless? Of course I am...but, I strive to get over it and appreciate that my sacrifice yields more important and lasting benefits to all....How about the rest of you?