Those who question the validity of global warming are called "climate change deniers." The same should be said about those who cling to the expert opinions of famous scientists Al Gore and Michael Moore. They should be called "fact deniers." The letter from Steve Lyons questioning Bill Snyer makes that point. And to demonstrate his personal research, he created a false moral equivalence between tobacco and "big oil." So much for his argument. Somehow tobacco, which is primarily an individual choice, must be the same as petroleum products which are used to manufacture most of the stuff we all use.
What he didn't say is that the National Academy of Science issued the following statement regarding the Oregon petition: " ...even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. ... Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."
The key words are "considerable uncertainties" and "potential threat" and "possibility."
Yes, the sky is falling, and if we don't do something about it right now, just think how sorry we will be when it happens. And who will lose if we don't do something about it? It's those who feel we should, using others' money.
Perhaps Mr. Lyons should spend more time considering facts rather than embracing emotionally driven opinions.