In response to Mr. Hoffman: You have the honor of being the author of the most "Republicanesk" statement that I have ever read. It has the honor of being up there with the failure of this administration to take heed to the hand writing on the wall alerting us to and preventing the " 9 -11 Attack". It is similar to the mind-boggling failure of the administration in power in 1941 to take actions to prevent "Pearl Harbor." It is as laughable as the so-called "trickle down theory."
The naysayers minimized the danger of an attack on America in 1941 and again in 2001. They were wrong. They scoffed at the economists predictions of economic disaster, higher interest rates, and a record budget deficit if the "trickle down theory" was implemented. Interest rates soared; this country accumulated a record braking national debt. The "trickle down theory" never improved the economic status of the working poor. The poor got poorer, the rich got richer.
Fortunately, the ramifications of these errors were limited to the death of about SIX THOUSAND (6,000) Americans as a result of the attacks. The number of Americans, men, women and children that lost their lives as a result of the cut in Federal programs implemented with the "trickle down theory" is indeterminable. The ramifications of a minimization of the existence of, and the effects of global warming will bring an end to mankind on the planet. I find it necessary to repeat the last statement to provide emphasis in the event you were not paying attention. The ramifications of a minimization of the existence of, and the effects of global warming will bring an end to mankind on the planet.
Mankind cannot afford to blow this one.
I agree with Carol Lutz. People with attitudes like you, have destroyed, and will destroy our planet for our progeny. We have given up strip mining and the use of pesticides that have had an adverse effect on the environment. We are stead fast in our quest to end nuclear proliferation. Our technology has advanced to the point where "state of the art" changes on a daily basis. Why can't we end our dependence on fossil fuel to save the planet?
It is a possibility that the current warming is as a result of cyclical changes inherent to the earth's cycles. Then again, it is also possible and more likely that the exploitation of fossil fuel and the exploitation of the rain forests act as a catalysts for this warming condition.
If a man is informed by his doctor that he is at risk of contracting a terminable disease, and that it will be necessary for him to change his life style to avoid ill health in the future, that person will change his life style in an attempt to avoid death. The doctor could be wrong. He will not take the chance that the doctor is wrong in his prediction and continue to live the life that the doctor advised him to change. The bet that the doctor is wrong is a sucker bet. The only loser will be the patient.
Global warming is not a soothsayer's prophecy, a theory based upon ignorance or a witch doctor's proclamation of the necessity for sacrifice to the Gods to insure prosperity. It is a scientific fact.
I am not a betting man but consider this: If the scientists are wrong, we are winners if we do nothing at all. If we alter our life style, we are still winners. How were we hurt, what did we lose? We are still winners. If the scientists are right, and we did nothing to alter our life styles, we are suckers. We bet against ourselves. We lose. If the scientists are right and we altered our life styles reversing the global warming trend, we win.
We will win if we do something in three of the four scenarios. Why bet against doing nothing when the odds are against you?
Read the handwriting on the wall.
Lofton P. Holder, Esq.
Editor's note: We welcome and encourage readers to keep the dialogue going by responding to Source commentary. Letters should be e-mailed with name and place of residence to email@example.com.