Editor:

I am constantly amazed at how the global-warmers never let facts get in the way of a good scientific theory. Even with 10 years of climate stasis and a lack of CO2 and temperature correlation, they still insist that humans are destroying the earth. History is even pushed aside for convenience.

Mankind has always prospered in warm times and suffered in cold times, yet the global-warmers would have us believe that even the slightest variance from the late-1800s temperature is disastrous. Never mind the fact the earth was coming out of the little ice age (completely natural by the way) at the same time thermometers were coming into use.

Part of the problem in our society is the strange desire by the public to put someone who has acquired the title of "scientist" beyond reproach. I don't know how many times I have seen "Perspective" columns in the Casper Star-Tribune about climate and the author is identified as a "scientist."

The problem is that I would like to know what their discipline is. If the subject is climate, I don't care to hear the opinion of a cryobiologist above the opinion of a climatologist.

A good example is Al Gore. No one can argue the point that he is not a scientist in anything. So, like a good politician, he finds a scientist who will back him up. James Hansen is very well trained in physics, mathematics and astronomy, but I have yet to see his formal training in climatology.

The only reason I can surmise that Al Gore would not choose a climatologist is because he knows the climatologist would question the idea of man's minuscule contribution to the megatons of CO2 that nature puts into the atmosphere as being catastrophic.

Gore won't make as much money as he is now by perpetrating quite possibly the biggest scam known to man.

I wonder how Copernicus and Galileo would feel about the science being "settled." Surely they would be disheartened to know that, so many years after they suffered, there are still such closed minds in power.

PAUL J. Van HISE, Evansville