To the editor:
A perfect example of the climate change cult was the John C. Bersia commentary, “Climate change requires quick, decisive action,” in Thursday’s Review-Journal.
He starts his piece by stating that climate change is like a monster movie, and that if left unresolved it will lead to a virtual Armageddon. Mr. Bersia then turns to environmentalist Peter Pritchard, Time magazine’s “Hero of the Planet,” for the quick, decisive actions needed to avoid climate change catastrophe.
The first action to be taken, according to Mr. Pritchard, is to continue our study of climate change, as we don’t really understand it because it is so colossal and complicated. But, even though we don’t understand the problem, we should immediately change our way of life, reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, stop development on our seacoasts and stop going to war by forming cultural and economic unions with all nations.
Climate change is a constant process that is a fact of life on our planet, and, from what I’ve read, small changes have affected life and agriculture in our recent geologic past of a couple of thousand years.
But truly drastic changes take eons to evolve, not the eye-blink represented by our latest scientific observations.
I would suggest to Mr. Bersia that, yes, the climate change hysteria, as presented to our gullible societies, is absolutely a monster movie. It is not based on science, but uses bits of science with dubious computer modeling to validate imaginations gone wild.
In my opinion, the current climate change panic is being used to support a large number of ulterior motives, most of which involve taking other people’s money or justifying the use of political power to control other people’s lives.
NORTH LAS VEGAS
Climate change flimflam
To the editor:
The University of Central Florida has “a special assistant to the president for global perspectives” in the person of John C. Bersia, a former journalist. There should be no doubt in our minds as to the scientific background of Mr. Bersia, in light of his official title, enabling him to pronounce that “Climate change requires quick, decisive action” (Thursday Review-Journal).
It is worth noting how the global cooling panic of the 1970s also required such “quick, decisive action.” When that scam petered out, we got the global warming panic of the 1990s, which, after 11 years of substantial climate cooling, is turning into a hoax. It was therefore necessary to rename that hoax the present “climate change” flimflam.
The Earth’s climate has been changing without any anthropogenic influence for some 3 billion years. Alaska’s oil fields, for example, have come about from dense tropical forests that once grew there. Prehistoric and now extinct giant animals ate prodigious quantities of vegetation while roaming the present deserts of the American West.
Some 31,794 scientists, with 9,021 doctorates among them, have signed the statement that human activities have not had and will not have in the future any influence on the Earth’s climate (search the Internet for “Global Warming Petition Project” and “Manhattan Declaration,” among other numerous documents to that effect). And none of us “deniers,” the signers of those documents, are in the pay of oil companies, contrary to the calumnies thrown at us by the proponents of this latest “climate change” farce.
Share the road
To the editor:
In response to Mark Dallas’ statement that cars speed by bicyclists on state Route 159, “honking at you like you’re in their way,” even though there are “Share the Road” signs and painted bike lanes (“Agency to release proposal for Red Rock bike trail,” Wednesday Review-Journal):
We’re not honking because you’re in the way. We are honking to alert you to the fact that we are behind you and we want to make sure you stay in the bike lane and do not cross over into the vehicle lane.
All too often when drivers travel that route, we see side-by-side bikers and we see bikers riding the vehicle lane. With oncoming traffic, this makes for a dangerous situation.
So, Mr. Dallas, try seeing it the way the drivers see it. It’s meant as an alert.
All for the children
To the editor:
When Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, the first female Speaker of the House, Democrat Nancy Pelosi of California, had her grandchildren stand next to her when she said all that we do in the future is for the children.
Why were the children absent at the swearing in of the new Congress? Was it because Speaker Pelosi didn’t have the guts to look them in the face after strapping them with trillions of dollars in new debt?
Democrats try to blame President Bush for the cost of the $700 billion bank bailout, but the Democrats control Congress, and in doing so they control the Treasury’s purse strings. They could have said no. Now we have President-elect Barack Obama wanting to spend $775 billion on yet another stimulus package. I still remember the one that didn’t help last year.
My wife recently read me a quote: “What’s the difference between Santa Claus and government? Children ask Santa for presents that are paid for by their parents, but parents ask government for presents to be paid for by their children.”
In an unrelated thought, I hope the people of Israel saw the recent poll that says only 31 percent of Democrats approve of Israel’s use of force to protect its citizens. I hope Israelis vote for someone who will protect them when President Obama and the Democratic Congress throw them under the bus.
Time to quit
To the editor:
In response to Scott Kagan’s Sunday letter to the editor, “Conservatives too tone deaf to see their own media bias”:
At first read of Mr. Kagan’s letter, I chuckled thinking he was trying to be humorous. On a second read, however, I realized he was serious, so he deserves a somewhat serious response. Perhaps even a bit of assistance in controlling his habit.
At the outset of his letter, he said it is his habit to turn to the Review-Journal editorial page on a daily basis to determine who on the conservative side is whining the loudest. He also expressed doubt that humor and conservatives can exist together.
In the interest of space and time, I will not attempt to address the other rather off-beat comments in his letter, but I would like to respond to the two indicated above.
One: I would suggest to Mr. Kagan that, considering his attitude and obvious political persuasion, his daily habit is not a good one, especially as it appears to aggravate him. As many of us at the start of the new year make resolutions to kick bad habits, I recommend he quit — cold turkey. Quit reading the Review-Journal and read the opinion/commentary in The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post. For video pleasure, watch only CNN, ABC, NBC and Keith Olbermann on MSNBC. For Internet enjoyment, MoveOn.org will do nicely. It’s a shame that Al Franken is no longer on radio. This should settle his nerves, and he probably won’t hear a lot of whining — only hatred and anger at our current president and slanderous and degrading remarks against the greatest, most generous nation on this earth.
Two: As for conservative humor, see above. Have a nice year!