Social agenda, bias of "warming warriors" damage credibility of their science
There's little question the Earth is a degree or so warmer than it was 100 years ago, but more specific claims from the alarmist community still invite scrutiny.
Paul Vincelli's appeal to the authority of scientists ("Listen to fact, not opinion, on global warming: Commentary's claims false," Sept. 3) strikes a nostalgic note. Americans learned long ago that scientists are as prone to bias and political passion as anyone, and some will inevitably carry the flag of scientific truth into the public arena. Paul Ehrlich is an obvious example. The Stanford University professor became a media sensation in the late 1960s by issuing crazy predictions: famines that would kill hundreds of millions, nuclear wars triggered by pesticide use, the end of animal life in the sea, etc.
By rational standards, Ehrlich should have been dismissed as a crank and forgotten. Instead, he has collected a closetful of awards from environmental and scientific groups, and remains an icon of the environmental movement. His admirers don't care about his famous blunders because he crusades tirelessly against technology, cheap energy, economic growth and the free market — all bugbears of the political left.
Premium content for only $0.99
For the most comprehensive local coverage, subscribe today.
The social agenda of the warming warriors (essentially, to defeat capitalism by starving it of energy) will always make them fair game in the political arena, regardless of how many peer-reviewed journals they employ as shields. In this cynical age, people won't hesitate to apply the Wizard of Oz test if they suspect a huckster hides behind the curtain.
You would think a clinical psychologist knows better than to use the words of one man (Todd Akin) to try to paint 38 percent of our population (those who claim to be Republican) as misogynistic. ("Akin's rape comment reflects GOP's political fundamentalism," Sept. 3.)
Just goes to show you, higher education does not always equate with common sense.
In response to the Sept. 3 article, "Something new brewing in Woodford":
My husband and I live very close to the microbrewery that will open next year, and we own land directly behind the brewery site. Those of us who are directly affected by this new business learned of this plan only by hearsay in the community. Had we known about the Woodford Fiscal Court meeting, several of us would have attended.
My husband and I do not have a problem with the microbrewery, but we do have a problem with the noise and traffic it could create in this quiet neighborhood.
As for entertainment, I for one do not want to be bothered by music that was insinuated in the article as "something fitting for the area." There is nothing wrong with bluegrass music, but a little jazz or classical would be nice, too.
Millville has always been a unique and quiet community. That is why most of us live here. Can we please keep it this way?