Thank you for reading the MtDemocrat.com digital edition. In order to continue reading this story please choose one of the following options.
If you are a current subscriber and wish to obtain access to MtDemocrat.com, please select the Subscriber Verification option below. If you already have a login, please select "Login" at the lower right corner of this box.
Special Introductory Offer
For a short time we will be offering a discount to those who call us in order to obtain access to MtDemocrat.com and start your print subscription. Our customer support team will be standing by Monday through Friday, 8am to 5pm to assist you.
If you are not a current subscriber and wish not to take advantage of our special introductory offer, please select the $12 monthly option below to obtain access to MtDemocrat.com and start your online subscription
Major blocks of ice are breaking off the ice cap at the South Pole, receding permafrost is happening at the other end of the world as well as major melts in the extreme north and at Greenland. In Larry Weitzman’s column, he makes several good points that we should conserve our resources and not waste. I also agree we should not limit our development of conventional resources. Let’s become energy independent. That will be a boom to our economy and might even provide relief in our entanglements in the mideast.
But why not vigorously develop alternate energy resources simultaneously? Doing that should also help our economy and in the long term will also be able to replace conventional energy sources. It might even help climate change if mankind is contributing it (there is much evidence that it is).
In spite of what Weitzman claims, the scientific community almost universally accepts the evidence of global temperatures rising. When using scientific studies to support his opinion, such as Dr. Roy Spencer, he doesn’t bother to mention that Dr. Spencer is tied in with BP. Weitzman seems obsessive about “global warming” being a liberal conspiracy. That is hardly the case. Most studies go under peer scrutiny and some are shown to be faulty. His claims of lies and quasi-scientific studies (some probably are) seem to also apply to the evidence he uses to support his claims.