It’s one thing to say that humans have played a role, even if a small one. It’s another to say they’ve played no role at all. The former, one can discuss. The latter says that the speaker has a closed mind and that no further discussion is warranted or would even be successful.

But let’s assume the former: If science can show us that there is a large likely hood of weather disruption and flooding from the warming of the lower atmosphere and also that we can alter, slow or even eliminate that, shouldn’t we be doing it anyway? If the scientists are wrong and we spend all this time, money and effort combating something that doesn’t exist then, in the end, we’ll have weaned ourselves off fossil fuels and cleaned the atmosphere we breath.

However, if we do nothing and allow the climate to continue heating – knowing that the disruption to civilization will be dramatic – then what? Does the Supervisor then think humans and the human condition end at his front door?

To the editor:

I just read your [Andy Bazzo's] article on Global Warming [Feb. 27, p10.] How did the brain washers miss you? Every sentence is 100% dead on target–and it was very courageous of you to say it.                    

Glaciers covering entire continents have formed—and melted–throughout the history of our earth.  Massive–and small–temperature fluctuations have been the norm over the past hundreds of millions of years.  Human activity was responsible for none of it.

Solar activity and geological changes are powerful on a scale which the average person simply does not understand. Man made “Global warming” has become one of the biggest scams in world history. Suddenly we have to pay money to some group or some country because of our “carbon footprint,” etc. It could be right out of a Monty Python skit, it’s that laughable; but it isn’t funny.

Bob Tendy
Supervisor Putnam Valley