Letter to the editor: Federal budget, climate change | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Federal budget, climate change

Impeachment: Am I the only one who has noticed that Congress never got around to building a budget? At least this time the continuing resolution will last the fiscal year.

Climate: Don’t sweat it. Over half of the world’s population is already short of water, essentially all of the people who live south of the equator. China is pumping 3,000-foot-deep, million-year-old water. If Saudi Arabia is still desalting water, the discarded brine has already generated a “dead zone” larger than the Dead Sea. Many of the people who will survive are already out of fish, between overfishing and microplastics from cosmetics, etc. Pollinators are dwindling due to pesticides, while native crops are polluted by worldwide clouds of glycophosate. Humans are self-limiting like all organisms, except that we aren’t waiting for a pandemic like tularemia.

Fact: The “90%” often referenced was 270 “scientists” of the 300 who returned the 2008 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change survey, while the 5,700 others are ignored, like the 119 trees “not relevant” to the “hockey stick” theory, of hundreds of Siberian samples. (Using only one tree as proof eventually cost the professor his job.) Go ahead and Gargle it (the other name is trademarked!) and put yourself on the contact list for an .org which will use your donations to tout carbon-fiber windmills, ethanol and lithium-ion cars by using jet travel to go to expensive resorts for “meetings.” All are extremely polluting industrial processes.

Don Miller

Mt. Pleasant


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.