To the editor:
Your story on TuCARE's Oct. 30 Resource Summit quoted Myron Ebell's claim that predictive global warming models are "junk" and scientist are "making this stuff up."
Yet the models have not only predicted what is happening, but have underestimated the speed of change. Why would Nobel Prize winning scientists waste their time making anything up? Why would environmentalists want to destroy the economy that they depend on?
Ebell's nonsense obscures reality to protect those industries he represents. In the 1990s California demanded electric cars. They were built and tested 15 years ago, but vested interests like Ebell fought them off. Imagine the technological advantage our auto industry squandered to produce inefficient, overbuilt vehicles for short term profit, while Japan and now China are moving to create the autos of the future.
The speaker claimed California is bleeding jobs due to environmental laws. Businesses and jobs come and go but California's economy is the seventh largest in the world.
Why protect companies and processes that can't compete in a healthy environment? After all, we live in the environment we create. What kind of a person disseminates information that misleads the public in the face of a common danger?
As a grandparent I am not willing to gamble everything - my family, friends, property, and the planet's health - on a bet that science is wrong. Can we seriously question the science that took America to the moon?
We must understand the difference between science and political ideology. If you question global warming, contact any university science department and ask. We owe future generations our integrity and vigilance.
To the editor:
On Saturday, Nov. 7, a majority of the House of Representatives made history by passing H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act.
After nearly a century of false starts, this was the first time a chamber of Congress has ever passed comprehensive health insurance reform. This is a historic accomplishment.
Representatives who voted for this bill deserve thanks for resisting tremendous pressure from the insurance industry lobbyists and standing up for their constituents.
Those who did not vote for the bill have one last opportunity to reconsider and support reform when a final version of the bill returns to the House - and they should do so.
A vote for this bill is a vote to provide secure and stable coverage for Americans with insurance, expand coverage for those who do not have insurance, lower costs for families and businesses, and begin to reduce the deficit.
To the editor:
When you look at the photos and read the stories of the 13 military personnel recently killed at Ford Hood, Texas, two U.S. military problems come to mind. We are sending old people to war theaters to do the job of young people and sending psychiatry teams to treat mental patients of an over-stretched military with repeat tours in wars that few people want to fight.
Can you think of another war where military personnel needed psychiatry teams near the battlefields? Send mental patients back to the U.S. Bring back the military draft and send the young of the rich and the poor to fight battles that old men want to fight.