Letter to the editor: Censorship & disingenuous global warming report | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Censorship & disingenuous global warming report

On March 4, Apple removed Westmore­land author Greg Wrightstone’s Inconvenient Facts smartphone app from its App Store. The preferred view is that extreme weather is surging.

We are spun and told a partial truth in regards to global warming data. The impacts are exaggerated and the costs of fixing it are underestimated. Global warming data uses the mid-1800s as a starting point but fails to tell you that 1850 was the end of a 500-year mini ice age and natural start to a warming period. Temperatures were 2 degrees warmer during the Viking period 1,000 years ago and 4 degrees warmer during the Roman period 2,000 years ago.

Carbon levels have doubled since 1950, yet temperatures have raised only 1.2 degrees. Carbon is not the driving factor for warming; humidity is. Alarms about the sea level rising many feet have been dialed back to a mere 12 inches because glaciers have already displaced the water they float on.

Of greater concern is the left’s 1930s fascist censorship of conservative viewpoints by liberal tech companies. Since President Trump’s election, it seems they have been engineering the flow of information.

It took a little over 200 years to recover from the 500-year mini ice age. Trump is smart to tout our greatest resource, natural energy. Pennsylvania is No. 5 in the U.S. in oil and gas jobs, which pay $99,000 on average. Trump is the smart business choice.

John Ventre

Hempfield


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.