New York Times on Global warming and Al Gore

Chicago IL Sunday, June 8, 2008 6PM

Editors, New York Times

Gentlepeople:

An Op-Ed couldn't start out more unequivocally than Charles M. Blow's Saturday, May 31 'Farewell, Fair Weather' with: "We are now firmly ensconced in the Age of Extreme Weather."

Strange, since the rest of the piece is a cornucopia of equivocations: The second sentence: "[T]here have been more than four times as many weather-related disasters in the last 30 years than in the previous 75 years." An accompanying note defines a "weather-related disaster" as fulfilling any one of four criteria: "10 or more people killed, 100 reported affected, declaration of state of emergency, call for international assistance."

Then "The United States has experienced more of those disasters than any other country." Combining that statement with the disaster definition’s 4 points, all involving people, and the fact that the US is the world's third most peopled country... what did you expect?

Mr. Blow continues: "Last year [reports were issued] concluding that 'human influences' (read greenhouse-gas emissions) have 'more likely than not” contributed to this increase. The United States is one of the biggest producers of greenhouse-gas emissions." More likely than not? Equivocation city. Since CO2 is a 'greenhouse gas', and 6 billion people breathe it out every 10 seconds, what will you do with that? The US is 'one of the'...? Equivocation number 3. Maybe you didn't hear the first time: The US is the third most populated country in the world. More equivocations: "Furthermore, a White House report about the effect of global climate change on the United States ... reaffirmed that the situation will probably get worse: In addition to temperature extremes, “precipitation is likely to be less frequent but more intense. It is also likely that future hurricanes will become more intense, with higher peak speeds and more heavy precipitation ... .”Probably, likely, likely, equivocations 4, 5, and 6.

Then an irrelevancy: “In 2005 … the estimated damage from storms in the United States was $121 billion. That is $39 billion more than the 2005 supplemental spending bill to fight the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.” Does the Times’ style book require Op-Eds make at least one reference to the war?

And: “About $3 billion has been allocated to assist farmers who suffer losses because of droughts, floods and tornadoes among other things.” The 2008 World Almanac says "Total US Government Agricultural Payments" have averaged $16 billion a year for the 4 years 2003-2006 - so what?

A final point: Have the climate change alarmists given any thought to their leader, the guy who won an Oscar, and a Nobel Prize, for his 'work' on climate change? How did he get so influential? Well, he was born into US political royalty, inheriting safe seats in both the House and Senate from his very astute politician father. How about his education? Again, he got into Harvard, but owes a good deal of that good fortune to his lineage. Advanced degrees? Zero! Since he's such a big deal in the ‘science’ of climate change, what's his science education background? Two courses, one something called ‘Man's place in Nature‘ ( he got a ‘D‘ in that.) This mope is a complete fraud, and anyone who follows him should be ashamed of themselves.

Arnold H. Nelson5056 North Marine DriveChicago IL 60640ah_nelson@yahoo.com 773-677-3010