Trivializing climate change
The writer of the letter about climate change trivialized the issue by referring to such events as the Thames River freezing over at London in 1963 (“Where to Agree on Climate Change,” Dec. 1 Eagle). The only things he and I can agree on are that there was an ice age 10,000 years ago and that the sun is our only source of energy.
In November of this year, the journal Nature published an editorial based on the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. The editorial concludes that “Keeping global temperature to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels is an enormous task that requires the complimentary efforts of scientists from across the biological, physical, and social sciences”.
The scientific community has largely moved beyond discussions of the cause and effects of climate change. The emphasis is now on what can be done to mitigate those effects on the biosphere. The Nature editorial adds, “Nor should we waste time squabbling over which aspects of the environmental challenge are most important.” Instead, our country was the only one to not reaffirm the Paris Climate Accord at the recent G-20 meeting in Argentina.
William Skaer, Wichita
Food on the table
Many Wichitans are searching for holiday light displays to check out over the upcoming weeks (Dec. 1 Eagle). Some displays, like The Arc’s Lights, are embracing the spirit of the season and collecting donations for charities. These charity efforts are critical, but to help our community in the most effective way, we have to attack the root causes of poverty.
That’s why federal anti-poverty programs like SNAP (formerly food stamps) are so important. SNAP helps more than 40 million people put food on the table, but it’s been under near constant political threat. Right now, there’s even a proposed rule that would punish legally residing immigrants for receiving SNAP or other basic assistance.
We must speak out to support policies that help millions of families put food on the table. I’m calling on our Kansas representatives to protect SNAP and other food assistance programs for all families in our community.
Emma Hahn, Wichita
Patti Davis’ tribute to “Bush 41” in the Dec. 4 Eagle was a very touching and heartfelt piece of journalism until about the last quarter of it. She felt the need to use the very same raw attacks and underhanded rhetoric that she blames the current administration for using. How does that make her any better? She puts her ax out there and grinds it for all to see.
Yes, President Trump is very thin skinned. He is not going to let one piece of negative press aimed in his direction go unanswered. He will respond in a most aggressive manner and hold back nothing in retaliation. That is just how he handles criticism.
That being said, his foray into politics was never his intended goal. It just happened out of necessity at this time in our history. We were in need of a change in how we do things. We were in need of exactly what he is trying to provide.
What does Ms. Davis expect to gain from that few paragraphs of administration bashing? You cannot fault someone for inflicting hurtful personal attacks on others by using hurtful personal attacks on the attacker.
A sugary tribute to former President George H.W. Bush is fitting at this time, Ms. Davis, but please don’t salt it with your distaste for the current administration. If your aim was to gain the respect of others, you failed.
Wayne Jarmer, Cunningham