Singer is a respected scientist

There is a reason that global-warming alarmists don’t engage in formal debate with skeptics. They lose. They lose because they have no evidence whatsoever that emissions of CO2 from all worldwide combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas have warmed the Earth one whit.
All they have is computer outputs, which are not evidence. Garbage in, Gospel out.
For all their braggadocio, the climate experts at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, many of whom served on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, all declined to present their case at a meeting of the Colorado Society of Professional Engineers.
The engineers wanted to hear both sides of the issue, and that apparently would be too much reality for the IPCC experts.
The IPCC has about 3,000 government-appointed members, of whom there are about 50 climatologists and fewer yet climate modelers. But some 19,000 scientists have signed a petition saying that the climate models are too primitive to be useful. Look up www.oism.org to see the list.
Lacking a solid case, the alarmists smear the skeptics. Recent letters in The Daily Sentinel, for example, have said that Professor S. Fred Singer is not an expert.
In truth, he has been publishing in the field of atmospheric sciences since the 1950s. The latest is in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society. He was the first head of the U.S. Satellite Weather Service, and was chosen because of his brilliance and expertise.
And, no, Fred Singer is not supported by the oil companies.
HOWARD HAYDEN
Professor Emeritus of Physics
University of Connecticut
Pueblo West, Colo.

Conservatives aretaking over both parties

It’s said that Bill Clinton and Warren G. Harding are comparable presidents. As pointed out, they were both good-looking, philandering former governors with a laissez-faire attitude about their administrations.
The consequence of these weakened presidencies is that their parties are apt to be taken over by conservative thought. Ever since World War I, conservative thinking has hijacked the Republican Party. Bill Clinton can be seen as the present-day conservative facilitator for the Democrats.
If Hillary wins the nomination, the race for presidency will be “Goldwater Girl versus Goldwater Boy.” (John McCain won former Sen. Barry Goldwater’s seat when Goldwater retired, and Clinton campaigned for Goldwater in 1964.) Conservatives, anyone?
What’s the big deal if conservatives run both parties? Well, conservatives limit their information base and are closed to ideas without a kind of pedigree. Outside input is often framed by the letter of the law, not the spirit.
The bottom line is, we need to conserve our heritage, but not at the expense of “progress.” Progress is an ever-increasing challenge that our maker has given us to incorporate the most appropriate resources for the assent of the human race. In other words: Preserve not for its own sake; make the most with what there is.
All this infighting narrows and blunts real opportunities. Hillary’s strategy is less than noble and it also degrades the two-party system.
FRED STEWART
Grand Junction

Public transportation
is proving to be a joke

In my travels on the Front Range for many years, I couldn’t help notice public buses traveling hither and yon, mostly empty most of the time. I always thought this was such a waste of fuel and obstruction of traffic.
After 10 years back in the Grand Valley I see the same thing. However, my wife decided to ride the bus to work. We live in Fruita and she works on North Avenue. She discovered that it would require her to ride three separate buses and take approximately an hour and a half.
Now we know why the public transportation system is a joke.
WALLY ORVIK
Fruita

This entry was posted on Monday, May 5th, 2008 at 1:00 am and is filed under Printed letters. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.