Plenty of scientists don't fall for global-warming myth

Editor, The Times:

Paul Krugman ["Climate-change deniers commit treason against planet," Opinion, syndicated columnist, June 30] asks the question, "How can anyone justify failing to act?"
He does not mention that earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of carbon dioxide.

There are more than 700 scientists who disagree with the United Nations -- 13 times the number who wrote the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a doctorate in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief.

Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental-physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled.

How long will The Seattle Times continue to repeat the tired mantras of global-warming believers?

While there can be no justification for opposing conservation or alternate sources of energy, there are considerable current climate and atmospheric science reasons for opposing the fraud of cap-and-trade legislation.

-- Steven Keeler, Seattle

Krugman needn't name-call to prove point

Paul Krugman lost my respect when he resorted to name-calling to discredit his opponents as well as characterize Rep. Paul Broun's statement, which, unfortunately, used "global warming" as shorthand for "man's contribution to global warming."

Krugman is obviously trying to escalate national emotion in support of the hyperbolic efforts of Al Gore ahead of a worldwide trend in rethinking man's influence on global warming, a growing movement among scientists late in being recognized here in the U.S.
The current debate can only be about mankind's contribution to global warming because beyond this mankind is only an observer.

A rising trend in scientific thought worldwide as described in Kimberly A. Strassel's June 26 opinion article in The Wall Street Journal is commended for your critical reading. Contrary to Krugman pronouncements, she states within one internal paragraph, "The collapse of the 'consensus' has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of CO2. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon."

Thank our Founding Fathers for giving us senators!

-- Jared D. Mayes, North Bend

Volunteerism, not green products, needed

If someone truly denies the Earth's climate is changing, I agree with Paul Krugman that they are scientifically wrong. However, most of those who are in dispute with the pro-climate-change studies are not in denial. It is the reason for the change they are arguing against.

It is scientifically beyond our power to have any real capability to stop some warming or climate change. To think so is egotistical. As inhabitants, we can help ourselves only by not helping the inevitable.

There is more to climate-change theory than just the scientific phenomena. It is man's greed to profit from climate-change claims. The business world and marketplace capitalism has taken advantage of fear by providing us with green products and organic growth. Selling us on their world-saving products will do little to stop climate change if not cause its intensity to increase.

If businesses are really interested in saving the planet, volunteerism is by far more effective. Recycling, renewable energy and replacement of the automobile with mass-transportation methods are more effective than dumping green products on the marketplace. This volunteerism has been going on for some time with little credit given to those who participate.

One way to look at climate change is by examining Earth's development. The Earth has gone from ice age to warming many times in the past without man's interference, and it will do the same with man's interference.

-- Jim Morris, Renton

Green manufacturers do have earth's best interests at heart

I was deeply offended by Tom Watson's assertion in the EcoConsumer column ["Don't be alarmed, but do be wary of some chemicals," YourSaturday, June 20] that "activist environmental groups may stoke consumer fears as a way to increase their own financial support."

By this logic, the American Lung Association would wish to see an increase in the number of asthma deaths from air pollution and Washington Toxins Coalition would want to see higher amounts of toxins and pesticide levels found in human subjects in order to "stoke consumer's fears" to increase their financial support.

This is a ludicrous assumption and a smear on the good work done by these organizations that act as watchdogs for the health of Washington state residents. Your apology to them is overdue.

-- D.J. Guth, Kirkland

Constantine is a green leader

Let's face it: On the issues, the Democratic candidates for King County executive are very similar. However, even though I can't yet vote, I can tell that Dow Constantine is the best candidate because of his experience and passion.

As a member of the state Legislature and the County Council, Dow Constantine has been a leader on environmental and mass transit policies, introducing the first climate-change legislation in the state and championing light-rail expansion. He was a primary supporter of last year's Sound Transit 2 expansion package.

To me, the most important thing about Constantine is that he sincerely cares about these issues. I have gotten a chance to meet some of the other candidates for county executive, but while they seemed to be in the race for political gain, it has always been clear to me that Constantine is in it for the people of King County.

As a high-school student, the decisions being made right now will affect my life far into the future, and I know he will make the right ones. I hope you join me in supporting Constantine for King County executive in the primary election Aug. 18.

-- Alex Jonlin, Seattle

Phillips' greenprint will create jobs

Hearing candidates running for King County executive say that cutting program X will solve all our problems is insulting to voters' intelligence.

Everyone must not forget that the county's unemployment rate has more than doubled since last year and people are hurting. As a local undergraduate facing the reality of a tough job market, it is refreshing to hear about King County Councilman Larry Phillips' greenprint plan ["Larry Phillips, Dow Constantine woo enviro vote," seattletimes.com, Politics Northwest, June 25], which would create good-paying green jobs that cannot be outsourced.

Phillips is talking about hiring thousands of our region's talented architects, engineers and other professionals to build on the foundation that Link Light Rail is starting and make the place we all call home a greener but still thriving county.

I am appalled at the path the debate is going and hope that those who wish to lead this county out of the mess it's in to follow Phillips' lead and start developing creative and substantive proposals instead of simple sound bites and partisan politics. Voters frankly deserve better in an election that most chose to be nonpartisan.

-- Adam Tanga, Kent

Diversifying, staying away from oil are best practices

I would say that your page one of Pacific Northwest poster boy, Larry Strunk ["Legions of 'haves' are now the 'hads,'" Pacific Northwest magazine, June 28], was more a victim of unwise investment practices than a victim of the recession.

First he was "day-trading oil stocks" in his 401(k) -- which is speculating in my book. When that didn't work, he invested all of his 401(k) in one stock, Washington Mutual. Again, he was speculating, and he was not diversifying -- a major prudent investing tenet. He is betting on one company in one industry.

If Strunk had abided by a few basic investment rules, he would not be in the fix that he now finds himself.

-- David von Wolffersdorff, Seattle

It shouldn't be hard to pick up a shovel and fight fires

Regarding your article ["Fewer inmates to fight fires due to budget," NWMonday, June 29] that because of legislative budget cuts the Department of Natural Resources will have fewer inmate work crews trained to fight fires this year: What a bunch of bureaucratic bologna this is!

Just how much training do the inmates need to wrap their hands around a shovel, rake or mattock? I don't propose placing these folks in any sort of danger where a trained firefighter should be doing the work, but there is plenty of behind the scenes tasks they could do. My wife recalls the times when, while driving in the West during the summer months, you could be taken out of your automobile and enlisted to fight fires.

What kind of training did those folks get? This is the kind of nonsense that has gotten this state in the budget nightmare in which we are all suffering.

-- John Earhart, Seattle

Life with cap-and-trade means economy will sink

Have you tried to imagine life in the event cap-and-trade becomes law ["Dealmaking climate passes emissions bill," Close Up, July 1]?

The cost of American goods and services will skyrocket, pushing us all into buying even more Chinese products of dubious value. U.S. exports will plummet, being overpriced. Gasoline prices will erupt, heading to $7 per gallon.

This is all because the dollar will lose enormous value as deficit spending continues and domestic drilling becomes politically incorrect. For lower and middle-income citizens, already struggling to make ends meet, the struggle becomes nearly futile. Discontent will grow as President Obama's heralded tax cuts prove to be nominal at best.

In the midst of our torment, politicians will try to convince us that cap-and-trade will work. But there is no way of measuring its success or failure. What index would we consult? What shaman would we call in?

Obama is in way over his head on this one. And what is the rush to pass this legislation in the midst of so many other woes anyway?

-- J. Timothy Hobbs, Enumclaw

Waxman-Markey bill would bring rising costs to homeowners

This Waxman-Markey bill claims to go after big energy consumers and polluters, but it will ultimately place the burden on consumers resulting in higher prices across the board. Low-income and middle-class working Americans will be adversely affected by this legislation as they see steep price increases in filling their gas tanks, heating their homes and buying groceries.

In addition, this bill forces all homeowners to pay for a government-rated test before selling a home. The test must pass government regulations in order for the homeowner to sell its home. If the home does not pass the test, the homeowner must fix any and all issues to comply with the test.

Clearly, this would be a huge burden and cost for the homeowner. The cap-and-trade bill will not protect our environment as it is represented.

Wake up America and see the government reaching into your wallets once again!

-- Marikay Cuthill, Bellevue

Rising energy costs will bring more unemployment

As a recent graduate from college, the prospects of an ailing economy, a broken health-care system and the growing threat of climate change not only trouble me but many like myself who are beginning a new chapter in their lives. We slowly feel as if the road ahead is not only bumpy but is congested with problems developed through an overreaching and infringing government body.

This time last summer, we saw oil and gas prices reach record highs. Homeowners across the state saw much of their income being siphoned away from their everyday needs so they could fill up their gas tank.

Companies saw rising costs as transportation and delivery expenses soared. The money that went to pay this energy bill could have easily been used to fill the pockets of workers enhancing growth in consumer spending -- a driving force of economic prosperity -- but it didn't.

The U.S. House has passed another troublesome bill that not only threatens the growth of the economy but job security for low-income and middle-class workers across the nation. With HB 2454, Congress hopes to again go after the wallet of Americans in the name of climate change; effectively taxing both families and companies for their energy use without regard for the effects on families around the country.

Last summer, companies sent workers home because they could not afford the costs of labor due to soaring energy costs. If our senators want to truly stand up for those who need it most, if they want to show empathy to those who have the chips stacked against them, I urge them to vote against this bill.

It will only help give us the feared 10 percent unemployment rate. Washington voters asked for change. By change, we did not mean from employed to unemployed.

-- Michael F. Sherman, Seattle

Kentridge Bible club harmless to religious minorities

Editor, The Times,

As an atheist, I'm quite leery of intrusions of religion into government-funded schooling, like mandatory prayer. However, it's clear that banning an extracurricular Bible club is taking the wall of separation between church and state a little too far ["High court won't hear Kent schools Bible-club case," NWTuesday, June 30].

We must be wary of condoning social pressure on nonbelievers and other members of religious minorities to toe the line, especially in the less religiously diverse areas of the country, but we must also be sure that we're not infringing on the religious liberty of the majority.

Since the club would receive no school funding and hence, no government funding, since it is an optional extracurricular activity and since it seems unlikely to present undue social pressure (as a "moment of silence" in place of a moment of prayer would do), the club is harmless to religious minorities.

Banning the club, however, harms every person, Christian or not, who values religious liberty in public schools.

-- James Vonder Haar, Chicago, Ill

Religion has no place in schools

Wow, it's hard to know where to start regarding the arrogance of the people proposing a Bible-study group called Truth at Kentridge High. They propose to ban from the group anyone who doesn't sign an affidavit of Christianity -- yet they are complaining about being discriminated against on religious grounds. Does that not strike them as a tad contradictory?

The notion is especially specious that one can compare limiting group members' philosophy -- clearly a personal issue -- to the limits imposed on clubs for girls and for boys. I'm sure they are in to evangelizing to potential new members, so why would they want to prohibit someone who might want to actually learn something and simply "preach to the choir." I forgot, they would rather just blast to the unsuspecting and possibly unwilling over the intercom.

Does it not occur to them that such broadcasting itself is pretty discriminatory to the rights of non-Christian students and faculty, of whom there must be at least a few? It's one thing to allow Bibles in classrooms for those desperate enough to need a hit of scripture during the school day, but there's no need to proselytize on the school loudspeakers.

Are people teaching reading, writing and calculus in church these days? Unless you're going to a church school, religion has no place in the classroom.

-- Sean Bentley, Bellevue

Here's an idea: Let's not give our jobs to foreigners

After reading "State schools reach overseas for teachers," I've heard it all [NWSunday, June 28].

Now we're bringing in foreign teachers! First, it was only farm workers, then landscapers and maids and now we've gone to importing nurses, engineers and finally teachers. The way Washington is going there won't be any jobs left for Americans. Maybe we can import some politicians who really represent the people who elected them and not their own agenda.

This country has got to start thinking about our citizens and their plight. In the news every day, more and more people are losing their jobs, their retirements and their 401(k)s and return to work just to survive.

Yet we have 12 visa programs to bring in foreigners. We let 1 million people come here legally each year. We have 20 million people who have stayed here when their visas expired or who were smuggled into the country. Politicians cry about illegal immigrants and their sad stories while they storm our streets and demand rights. Many of them have broken our laws, have forged identities and use our services that were meant for our citizens.

Since when were cheaters, stealers and liars held in such regard?

-- Kathleen E Bukoskey, Everett

Greedy employers hiring immigrants for cheap while ousting citizens

As an out-of-work U.S. citizen who has been employed as an instructor, I find this employer practice to be outrageous. It is another example of how immigration benefits are privatized and employers pay less while costs are socialized, with increased unemployment in a depressed economy. There is no shortage of teachers, only a shortage of teaching positions that pay a middle-class wage.

This program was invented by greedy employers in 1990. You may learn more about the corruption that is inherent in this program by reading online, "The Greedy Gates Immigration Gambit."

Then, apply pressure to end the practice of reserving high-skill positions for young immigrants -- and displacing experienced American citizens. You may help to save your own job and stop this race to the bottom.

-- Gene A. Nelson, Arlington, Va.

For those in need, subsidize health care

Editor, The Times:

I hope many of your subscribers read Kyung Song's excellent article ["Even the insured are going broke," page one, June 28] regarding health insurance. The article implies that third-party payment of medical insurance by either private employers or the government is a contributing factor of the high cost of health care, and I agree. Slightly more than 90 percent of those who have medical insurance are partially or totally subsidized by their employers. Human nature will predictably overuse something that is free.

Additionally, to characterize private insurers offering their insurance policies in a free market is false. Song's article showed what happened in our state in 1993 when government regulations dictated what the market could or could not do when providing medical insurance. The result was that the market almost disappeared. Government regulations, particularly mandated coverage, does not make for a free market and significantly limits choice. Obama, Paul Krugman and The Times don't comprehend this.
The solution to this very important issue is to make individuals directly responsible for their relationships with medical providers and insurers. This can be accomplished with a universal medical-savings account system wherein employees could still be subsidized by their employers and those in financial need could be subsidized by the government. This would also serve as the long-term solution of the Medicare financial crises.

-- Bob Dorse, Seattle

Government plans have low overhead, no need for private giveaways

Richard Ralston's letter to the editor ["No real competition in public-option insurance," seattletimes.com, Northwest Voices, June 28] is outrageous. There is private competition to Medicare --the private Medicare Advantage plans. And get this: Our federal government gives the private insurers 12 percent to 19 percent more per patient than what they spend on each patient who has traditional government Medicare.

This was a giveaway to the private insurers who can't compete. In fact, this year half of United Healthcare profits were from Medicare Advantage plans.

Traditional government Medicare, our one-payer public plan for those older than 65, has an operating overhead of just 3 percent.

Private insurers have to pay huge CEO salaries, pay dividends, advertising, underwriting and more. Their overhead is between 10 percent and 40 percent.

Ralston's Web site has nothing to do with free choice.

I am 57, and I pay $20,000 for health insurance in North Carolina. I would love to buy into Medicare! I have no choice. In fact, the only reason I have any insurance is because I am self-employed. I have a business policy, and by law my provider has to sell me coverage.

If I tried to apply as an individual I would be denied. Some free choice!

-- Dr. Jim Matthews, Fort Mill, S.C.

HMOs exist but aren't the solution

Sen. Kent Conrad's proposal for a public health insurance co-op option B is a ruse. It is simply a means to maintain things as they are and prevent any movement that could lead to national single-payer health insurance.

Such co-ops already exist in several parts of the country. They are called HMOs. Examples like Kaiser Permanente and Group Health in Seattle have taken decades to achieve economies of scale, which yield optimal care at contained costs. Physicians must be hired or contracted and hospitals and clinics paid.

This requires substantial initial investment. Co-op startups in small communities are doomed because inadequate income from limited enrollees prevents the containment of costs and the gaining of traction. Even in larger communities, initial smaller scales of enrollment will prevent any real competition with larger existing insurers. It is the nationwide scale and the backing of our government that makes the real public option competitive and eventually capable of bringing health-care costs under control.

-- James Maynard, Sammamish

Tort reform another way to fix health coverage

Here we go again, another large rate increase from my insurance provider. As much as I hate more government interference in our lives, something has to be done about affordable health care.

Little oversight of these companies is akin to the banking meltdown. My wife was paying less than $270 a month with a high deductible for her coverage two years ago, but it will be $489 a month starting in August. These rampant increases must stop.

Tort reform is a good start; maybe doctors won't feel the need for so many unnecessary tests in order to keep their malpractice insurance from escalating (notice, another insurance company involved).

Insurance companies are part of the problem, but even more, we are pawns to attorney's games, plain and simple. To make it worse, so many of our politicians are attorneys, protecting their next job back in the private sector. It's a sorry situation at best.

-- Richard Eirich, Kirkland

Insurance execs follow anti-golden rule

Martha Koester nailed the insurance executives who told our lawmakers that they have no plans to rescind their present policies concerning health-care claims ["Private insurers afraid," Opinion, Northwest Voices, June 26]. Their business plan reminds me of a recent article published in The Seattle Times' religion pages about the golden rule, which said, "The anti-golden rule is the morality of Capitalism."

Some of our most powerful businesses in American history fit that statement. This is not the morality of our Founding Fathers. We need to send a message to our leaders in Washington, D.C., that we demand health care for all Americans now.

-- John Guevarra, Seattle