Science vs. politics
Good grief, Charlie Brown! Just what we need, the Pinnacle
newspaper providing its sports editor a forum for expressing his
personal views on global warming. (The Global Lie, Feb. 9) If the
Pinnacle wanted to present
”
the other side of the global warming story
”
it should have asked someone with
”
real
”
knowledge on the subject rather than someone spouting radio talk
show misinformation.
More disturbing still is Mr. Bagley’s paranoia regarding
scientists. If you believe Mr. Bagley, international scientists
studying global climate change are a bunch of politically motivated
hacks of questionable intelligence who only pay attention to the
data that supports their ideologically driven theories and ignore
important data like snowy weather in Texas.
More nefarious still, Mr. Bagley would have you believe that
scientists are part of a fanatical terrorist cartel bent on
destroying the American economy. I guess Mr. Bagley doesn’t hang
with many scientists. The concept of global warming is neither a
liberal or conservative one, it is a SCIENTIFIC one. What to do
about it is POLITICAL. Let’s keep the distinction clear.
David Reikowski
Paicines
Science vs. politics
Good grief, Charlie Brown! Just what we need, the Pinnacle newspaper providing its sports editor a forum for expressing his personal views on global warming. (The Global Lie, Feb. 9) If the Pinnacle wanted to present “the other side of the global warming story” it should have asked someone with “real” knowledge on the subject rather than someone spouting radio talk show misinformation.
More disturbing still is Mr. Bagley’s paranoia regarding scientists. If you believe Mr. Bagley, international scientists studying global climate change are a bunch of politically motivated hacks of questionable intelligence who only pay attention to the data that supports their ideologically driven theories and ignore important data like snowy weather in Texas.
More nefarious still, Mr. Bagley would have you believe that scientists are part of a fanatical terrorist cartel bent on destroying the American economy. I guess Mr. Bagley doesn’t hang with many scientists. The concept of global warming is neither a liberal or conservative one, it is a SCIENTIFIC one. What to do about it is POLITICAL. Let’s keep the distinction clear.
David Reikowski
Paicines
Global warming: wait and see
Thanks to the Pinnacle for printing John Bagley’s column on global warming. John’s point of there being little history on global temperatures is correct. Without a baseline to tell where you have been, it is hard to say where you are going.
There are some historical observations that can suggest a baseline of sorts.
About 3,500 years ago, a man was trapped in the snow in the Alps. He was covered with ice and snow until 20+ years ago when the ice pack receded to today’s level and the “Ice Man” was found. That is, 3,500 years ago, the global temperature, as indicated by the snow pack in the Alps, was near what it is today.
When the Romans occupied southern England during the First Century, the climate was warm enough to support growing wine grapes. As recently as 600 years ago, wine grapes could be grown in England and northern Europe. Then there was the “Little Ice Age” that lasted until the early 1800s. It was about 1816, more or less, when there was “the year without a summer.”
The earth has been warming since then. If it continues to warm, in a few more decades, it may be warm enough again to grow wine grapes in England.
Is the current cycle of global warming due to carbon dioxide? Maybe, maybe not. Trees have been observed to be growing at more northern latitudes over the last 40 years, an indication of warmer temperatures. Tree growth consumes a tremendous amount of carbon dioxide producing oxygen as a byproduct. Melting of ice packs provides more water to adsorb carbon dioxide, which will not dissolve in ice. Mother Nature provides methods to keep carbon dioxide concentration near balanced.
Possibly in 200 or 300 years, the question of the impact of industrial development and the burning of fossil fuels on global warming can be answered. There may be other factors in play as John Bagley suggested. Al Gore does not have the answer now.
Marvin L. Jones
Hollister
Everyone deserves a second chance
I am one of the people that Sally Leiber is supposed to represent, I even voted for her; but if we were voting today I would not. I oppose her bill AB261, ending the statute of limitations on sex crimes. Sex crimes covers a lot of things, from the seriously deranged offender, to the 18-year-old teen having relations with a 17-year-old partner, or even oral sex which many do not consider a crime at all.
Extension of the statute will not do anything positive and may result in more false imprisonment and add to all the bad law we already have in California regarding sex crimes.
I strongly object to her fear mongering on the subject. People who are fear mongers have nothing to say of any value so they try to scare and intimidate people to get their way under the guise of watching out for the defenseless among us. In my opinion that’s what Assemblywoman Leiber is attempting to do.
What we really need in California are well written, fair and just laws so that when someone has served out time in prison they have the opportunity to try and turn their life around, rebuild and become contributing members of our community once again
Sandy Port
Sunnyvale
Calculating an appalling loss
I just read some statistics that are staggering to the mind and should be a reason for all of us to consider the consequences of such a loss of potential members of our society.
Last year 1.3 million babies were aborted – that is 3,562 each day (more than those who perished on 9/11), or 148 per hour or nearly 2.5 per minute.
That is an appalling loss in this generation. Maybe that is an indication of why we have the loss of value of human life in our society.
Harriet Brin
Hollister
