ROXANA ROBINSON ("A mockingbird's cry of desperation," Op-ed, March 5) perpetuates an erroneous stereotype about people who question global warming orthodoxy. She states "there is no argument within the objective scientific community over the fact of global warming. The few voices of dissent have direct financial ties to the oil and gas industry."
In fact, Lawrence Solomon, a Canadian environmentalist and journalist, found an unexpectedly large number of scientists who were eminent in the field of climate research, and often had been senior reviewers of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports, who questioned the science being cited by global warming activists. A common thread in their position was that there may be some contribution from man-made carbon dioxide, but that the IPCC work in their field was wrong. When you get enough statements like that, you need to look further.
Richard Lindzen, a senior professor at MIT, has noted that scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves called industry stooges. By 2006 funding for research that is almost all directed to showing that man is causing global warming had reached $1.7 billion. Rather than a bias from the oil companies, there is one from the funding agencies.
Rex du Pont
ROXANA ROBINSON (Op-ed, March 5) hears a mockingbird crying in the night. "His voice," she writes, "is ragged and hoarse. He sounds desperate." Her response? "I'd like to tell him that he's not alone, that we're all in this." She cites "habitat destruction, climate change, and pollution" and blames "the Bush administration" and "the oil and gas industry."
Good heavens, woman. Instead of hanging your politics on the poor bird, why don't you put out some bird seed for him? Your blather about "the fact of global warming" isn't going to help him. At the end of a long, bad winter, he needs some food.
Karen Stenbo Sapolsky