Great article

It was wonderful to read such a great article on the front page of the (May 13) Register concerning one of humankind’s biggest problems—global warming.  I hope we can look forward to similar treatment of other social, political, economic and environmental issues in the future besides the usual, singular focus on abortion. 
Matt Bergles
Denver

Global warming not proven
In your (May 13) issue you featured an article on global warming.  I would like to point out that there are many unheard scientists who do not believe that man causes global warming and that the planet goes through cycles where it is warmer for a period and then colder for the next.  These scientists believe the flight of the Earth around the sun has more effect on the temperature of our planet than do actions or inactions of humans. This does not mean that we should be wasteful of our planet or pollute it, but these scientists believe that there is nothing that we can do to change this cycle.
A big problem is that those vocal global warming advocates use this issue to promote abortion and other anti-life issues.  They publicly state that there are too many people and population control is mandated.  In England, one vocal legislator pronounced that the British Isles must reduce its population to 30 million.  I’m not sure if he suggests we kill millions of Britons.
I believe we must get beyond the rhetoric of global warming and address the issues of life. We need to openly listen to both sides of this issue, not just block-off anyone who has a contrary position. 
We should control pollution but only God can control the natural cycles of this planet.
Kennan Glaser
Denver

The progressive environmentalists
The front page article “Who’s under your carbon footprint” in the May 13 issue of the DCR is very controversial and fraught with misleading conclusions.
While it is important that we all should be good stewards of the planet, we should be careful not to promote ideas, especially in a religious context, that may be contrary to sound evidence or fact.  The article states we should take responsibility for our contribution to climate change, and to leave it in the hands of groups like the Catholic Coalition on Climate Change to be advocates for those who will be left out of the public policy debate, namely the poor.  As a matter of fact, there is no public debate because certain self-declared expert leaders and the liberal media have closed the debate long ago for anyone who does not agree with the conclusions of whoever the “scientists” are. 
It is the belief of many conservative thinkers that the present direction of the progressive environmental movement will create more poor by reducing the opportunities for meaningful productive work because of environmental taxation and over-regulation.  
The progressive environmental movement has become a sort of religion, teaching that man’s use of God-given resources is bad, and that man is the enemy of the environment, elevating the environment above the importance of human life.  Man does not belong to “mother” earth.  Man belongs to God.  
There are several adverse drivers behind the progressive environmental movement: (1) population reduction; (2) tremendous profit for a few in control by taxing each human; (3) global government, and (4) lack of faith in God’s providence.
Joe Stano
Lakewood

The truth on climate change
Regarding the May 13 article in the Denver Catholic Register “ Who’s under your carbon footprint?” As a skeptic, I can hardly wait for the Catholic Coalition on Climate Change to come to my parish to tell all of us uneducated Catholics to take responsibility for global warming, save the planet, and save the poor.
The basic issue of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is not related to Catholic theology, faith or morals,  AGW, contrary to the pop-culture media it is not a settled issue, there is no “consensus” in the international scientific community, and the basic scientific debate continues today.
Last year, for example, over 650 international scientists submitted a detailed report to the U.S. Senate highlighting numerous scientific problems and basic errors made in IPCC’s (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) computer model (100 year) projections used to support AGW. Keep in mind, current meteorological science has a difficult time in predicting weather more than 36 hours in advance.
The truth of AGW will not be determined by the Catholic Church, it will be resolved by scientific methodology and open debate.
Michael Bessler
Lakewood