• Climate skepticism, not conspiracy theories • Why waste time? • What accident? Climate skepticism, not conspiracy theories It’s a shame that a scientific controversy over climate change has been hijacked by right-wing conspiracy theorists. Scientific skepticism is fine. Calling
• Climate skepticism, not conspiracy theories
• Why waste time?
• What accident?
Climate skepticism, not conspiracy theories
It’s a shame that a scientific controversy over climate change has been hijacked by right-wing conspiracy theorists. Scientific skepticism is fine. Calling the whole business a giant conspiracy is plain nuts.
Scientists are convinced by evidence, not insults or whoever shouts the loudest. The evidence points to human-caused climate change occurring and getting worse through the rest of this century.
There is nothing to be gained by scientists deliberately mis-stating their conclusions. There is no credible argument that any scientist will make a lot money either way. Except, if a skeptical scientist could show that climate change isn’t happening, he or she would probably be in line for a Nobel.
In any case, we need to develop or invent processes that produce energy with a lower carbon footprint. If anyone, scientist or not, wants to make a lot of money, she or he should work on this problem. This would be good for all of us, climate change or no. And it would be great for our economy.
Robert Downs, Ha‘ena
Why waste time?
Barbara Bennett, member of the Charter Review Commission, who authored the “Report on Findings and Recommendations” presented at the November commission meeting deserves a good pat on the back.
She pleased many people including proponents of the council-manager system of government and others, like myself, who are unconvinced on the necessity for changing our current system.
The Garden Island, in its Nov. 28 editorial, was quick to express its intention to hold the commission to a commitment of expending “500 hours or roughly six months” to produce a legally viable council-manager proposal for voters to accept or reject.
But, Barbara Bennett is a smart wahine. Not so fast! Her report includes an almost unobtrusive easily overlooked yet devastatingly important condition which, if ignored, could, in my opinion, release the commission from any commitment to the advocates of a council-manager system. In the last sentence on page 4 of the report, she includes the following:
“The proponents for a county-manager system need to identify specific concerns about the current system of government they want addressed.”
For the benefit of the proponents, I emphasize the words “need” and “specific” to avoid their submission of grand sounding glittering generalities which we have had so far.
Hopefully, Mr. Glenn Mickens will share with us and the commission his “pages of problems” to fulfill compliance with this requirement.
With this list of concerns (problems) the commission can then proceed to comply with its pledge which Barbara Bennett expresses so well: “Special care must be taken when considering overall changes to the fundamental structure of our government. We must be certain that the proposed changes will provide for greater accountability, improve the essential services and address the multiple needs and desires of our community.”
In its wisdom and careful exercise of discretion, the commission reviews, evaluates and determines which of the identified specific concerns are worthy of presentation through proper and appropriate proposals to the voters for acceptance or rejection. Its tasks is simplified for now the commission can recommend: (1) Proposals as amendments to the Charter or in the event; (2) the concern (problem) is of such magnitude and a hindrance to good government and cannot be ameliorated by amendment to the Charter, then, I say, go to it Commission and find a system which will eliminate that particular problem or problems and continues to give us good government.
Assuming all the worthy concerns and problems assigned to our current system can be attended to by amendments to our Charter, why waste “500 hours and roughly six months” on an unnecessary quest for a legally viable system which will fit into the culture and environment that is Kaua‘i?
Alfred Laureta, Lihu‘e
What accident?
In response to Wednesday’s letter from Andy Johnston of Kalaheo (“Preventable Accident”).
I wonder if Andy has ever witnessed a gathering of motorcyclists riding for a great cause for underprivileged kids here on Kaua‘i or even a parade here on Kaua‘i?
I rode in this procession from start to finish and at every intersection, including the one in Kalaheo, people were waving and honking theirs horns in support of all of the riders while they patiently waited for the bikes to go by so they could then proceed on their way.
Just because there was a green light in favor of Andy Johnston’s lane does not mean that it is safe to proceed into the intersection. When any driver with a license to drive on our roadways sees other vehicles in his way, the right thing to do would be to stop and wait for the traffic to clear.
There were many local KPD officers who were on this ride and none of them had a problem with the way it was conducted. The delay that Andy Johnston had to experience was no more than a couple of minutes at the most.
I know when I see any vehicles in an intersection regardless of what color the light might be, I wait to proceed before entering the intersection, but that is just me I guess.
Merry Christmas to all the kids who will be getting these gifts next Friday.
James Gair, Kilauea
