LETTERS: GLOBAL-WARMING DIALOGUE CONTINUES

To the editor:

I am a bit reluctant to respond to Alan Journet's last two letters, for he has a very bad habit of not carefully reading what others have written and twisting their words as he belittles them. My letter will be shorter and easier to read and to understand than his lengthy diatribes have been.

I did not interpret Cal Thomas' column as a denial of global warming. I read it as an exposure of junk science, the distortion of facts and the chicanery of the present administration as they threaten Armageddon. Read Cal Thomas' column again. It is a masterpiece. He even gives Mr. Clinton a bit of credit for his "more modest objectives than he has previously called for."

I have also read Mr. Wille's and Mr. Rathburn's letters again. My, how Mr. Journet has changed the meaning of what they said. When I consider his response, I think he is pretty darn clever. Mr. Journet is certain that not many readers will go back and read the letters again, so he simply redefines what was actually said in the letters. He is being very true to form with verbal attacks upon anyone who does not agree with his dogma. This is one of the greatest dangers of the global-warming fiasco. There is to be no discussion of the problems, no presentation of facts pro or con. Mr. Journet is saying we need "more intelligence and understanding." Understanding of what? The evidence as presented to us only from the environmentalists and conservationists?

There was a time when Mr. Journet bombarded us with scientific "facts" as he presented his evidence. Now he says "the process of science can prove nothing." Is this not a defeatist attitude? But there is more to this denial than meets the eye. Read on. He suggests that since science can no longer be depended upon, we "as a prudent society change its behavior." Come now. A moralistic approach to the problem of global warming? Maybe Mr. Gore thinks we can be prepared and all work together and beat El Nino. But will this work for global warming? Come to think of it, I understand that La Nina is building up right behind El Nino. Maybe he did part the waters.

As I remember, it was in the early 1970s and pollution had become a tremendous problem. It was decided that the problem of pollution could not be solved by taking a moralistic approach. It was then decided to make pollution an economic problem. Set up a controlling board with power, set standards and make the polluter pay until he reaches these standards. When he reaches the standards, make the rules more stringent until he has to pay again. This was to become the basis for our present Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Journet now wants us to return to the old idea of a moralistic solution.

I will disagree with Mr. Journet's statement that "science can prove nothing." If we cannot depend upon science, then who can we rely on -- the moralists? No. Any form of legislation (and believe me, there will be legislation) based upon a moralistic ideal is to be feared. Remember Jesse Helm's "let's save our elders" and his catastrophic medical care bill? It would have been a disaster. You should remember the clean rivers bill, a well-intended bill. No one wants dirty rivers, but the legislation within the bill was horrendous. I would rather place my reliance upon science, the same science Mr. Journet is now rejecting. It is not the scientific "facts" we have to fear, but it is the misuse of these facts we must fear. There have been many instances of the gross misuse of scientific data. The twisting of scientific facts to achieve a political goal is a terrible thing.

There has been some interesting reading in the news. The Nov. 17 issue of Time magazine included a Viewpoint by Charles Krauthammer, "El Nino and us: Is bad weather really caused by sin?" Fred Singer, an environmentalist at the University of Virginia has a very interesting article, "Sky isn't falling and ocean isn't rising." We seem to have forgotten about the Little Ice Age. This was a global event from 1400 until the beginning of the 19th century. Much evidence from ice cores taken in the Arctic and the Antarctic suggest we may still be under the influence of the Little Ice Age. A recent Associated Press release says "Little Ice Age could cool global warming."

The latest ploy of the environmentalists and the present administration is a trick to get across the idea of supporting the upcoming global climatic treaty. It is a perfect example of how they will do anything to achieve their questionable goals. The idea of "thinking of the consequences of a global warming" is not just Mr. Journet's idea. It is appearing in many newspapers. This idea worked for Robert Preston in "The Music Man." Remember his "think music"? But does anyone really think it will work in reality for global warming? Mr. Journet also says we must think in terms of "decades, centuries and future generations." If you can show me a politician who feels for any future other than his own, I'll show you a hypocrite.

Wasn't it just recently I read about the hazards of mixing and confusing opinions and facts? Is this new moralistic viewpoint one of fact or opinion?

The scientific community is not in agreement on global warming. Unfortunately, the environmentalists have distorted their evidence so much that they realize it is not reliable. Consequently, they have resorted to a new tactic: a moralistic viewpoint. They have become the tool of a political party that will stop at nothing to win. I do not categorize all environmentalists, for many are honest and sincere and have a deep respect for the earth and its future. It is a shame that a few extremists have given the environmentalists a bad name.

KENNETH E. ALDRICH

Cape Girardeau