LETTERS: Man-made global warming hardly settled science

Regarding Doug Nusbaum's letter ("GOP on climate change," July 11 Review-Journal) and the general argument that those against anthropogenic (man-made) global warming are anti-science: Contrary to the accusation that we do not understand statistics, upper-division physics or partial differential equations, many of us do.

I am a scientist who has studied the current AGW issue extensively. Here is what I have found: First, it is not true that 97 percent of all scientists subscribe to the AGW mantra. Further, not even 97 percent of climatologists subscribe to this idea. Assertions in this regard are patently false.

Second, the notion that global climate is tracking with carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere is the result of murky computer modeling that has not been permitted peer review until recently. We now know that processes in that model are unsupported by science and the model is wrong in reproducing past global climates (e.g., the Medieval Warm Period), and does not reproduce current climate trends. The so-called "hockey stick" pattern resulting from that model is now known to be scientifically incorrect.

Third, global climate has not been warming for at least the last decade. Although the Western U.S. climate has been warming, the average global temperature has been flat for some time. This finding is contrary to the AGW picture.

Fourth, the AGW mantra suggests fossil fuels are harmful and that their use must be reduced to protect the future. The truth is that fossil fuels have resulted in increased human health and prosperity and have extended human life in every nation where they have been used plentifully.

Arguments against AGW can hardly be considered anti-science.

Larry Rickertsen

Henderson

Second Amendment

After reading your editorial on the home invasion, I felt so sad for the family who might be traumatized not only today, but for some time in the future ("Second Amendment saves family from intruders," July 11 Review-Journal). I thought the editorial was using that tragic event to make a point — bad guys will always find ways to get guns, so prepare accordingly. (Maybe go out and purchase a gun?)

However, the editorial did not even bring up a more important question: Where and how do the bad guys get guns? To say that we really need to "prepare accordingly" because bad guys will always find ways to get weapons is about as useless as a rowboat without oars. And to sanctify the Second Amendment as "saving" the family is really too far-fetched. The Second Amendment did not save the two cops who were shot while having breakfast or the 2-year-old child in Chicago who was shot in the head or the woman who was shot in San Francisco.

The editorial's proposed solution seems to be, "Get a gun and you're safe." The solution is to stop the bad guys from getting the guns. That means the U.S. needs good and enforceable laws to stop guns from getting into the hands of criminals and to protect the lives of people. It means we need the politicians not to bend to the will of the National Rifle Association, but rather to have the guts to do justice in protecting their constituents.

Alan Syslo

Henderson

Confederate flag

Kathy Espin's letter provided us with a very thoughtful and heartfelt opinion about the Confederate flag, concluding that she feels we could do better than to just target a flag in our attempts to heal the wounds of slavery ("Confederate flag," July 16 Review-Journal). She is right.

But I believe she also sees that for the ancestors of those slaves, the flag symbolizes a continued attempt by some to subjugate others. Her analysis makes no mention of the use of this flag from the 1950s through the 1970s, and even up to today, by some who do not accept the worth of black citizens in this country. For this reason, the Confederate flag must come down.

Richard L. Strickland

North Las Vegas