In debt for

nonessential wants

My last letter drew some praise, ire, and even some fire; it evidently struck a nerve. The fact is the food stamp program, known as SNAP, has exponentially blossomed under Obama and is costing humble, some indignant, American taxpayers billions of dollars. Albeit my contribution is miniscule, per one reader, the money is not falling out of coconut trees; someone is paying for it!

Some took offense that I described the young Latino couple at the store making a rather large, yummy SNAP purchase. I was accused of racially profiling and passing judgment. Although my letter could have stood on its own without mentioning race, I was describing what I saw and questioning aloud what most folk are just thinking. I guess I need some sensitivity training.

Some want to make this about racial profiling, my greed, and lack of compassion. It is more about right and wrong, about values and ethics. It is about not accepting handouts forever, but becoming independent American Americans. It is about not taking advantage of your fellow Americans. When we start cloaking the truth in political and social correctness, we won't be able to fix the problems we face nor contain an obese food stamp program that doubled under Obama.

My indignation is that this country is going into debt for nonessential wants. My indignation is that most of us think carefully about our food purchases while others swipe a SNAP card for steaks and a coconut on our dime. I bemoan the lack of accountability that will eventually bring this country down. I bemoan that we will perish for lack of knowledge, awareness, and ACTION. Shame on me for drawing attention to what I saw? No, shame on those that take advantage. And shame on us if we close our eyes.

Mario diGesu Truth or Consequences

Blame environmentalists,

not global warming

Several letters to the editor have cited wildfires as global warming caused. Yet does this jive with the La Nina (ocean cooling) caused recent drought?

New Mexico wildfires occur mainly during dry spring weather when dry forests are ignited by lightning. New Mexico will always have dry springs. But why then is the intensity of these fires increasing?

Forests become more vulnerable to fire when the available water per tree is reduced. Yet environmentalist policies have blocked efforts to thin the forests, leading to unmanaged growth. Meanwhile, the spotted owls these policies were designed to protect actually prefer more open forests.

Following fires, pine bark beetles move into burned sections, killing remaining weakened trees, then exploding into nearby healthy forest sections, where the beetles prefer larger, mature trees. Beetle damaged trees then lead to further fire vulnerability.

In blocking the thinning of mature dense pine stands, environmentalists think they are doing nature, and the owls, a favor. Instead, these policies are leading to ever more destructive wildfires. But instead of admitting their own policies are intensifying these disasters, environmentalists blame global warming. Can less than one degree of warming explain such increasing fire size and extent? No. You don't need global warming when local warming (several degrees) due to thicker stands can produce an even greater effect, leading to early beetle emergence and greater evaporation. Like urban street canyons, dense tree stands retain excess heat at night, creating naturally warmer micro-climates, in which tree-killing beetles thrive, and mature trees struggle for water.

So, yes, this devastating damage to our forests is indeed human-caused, but not by global warming. It's misguided environmentalist policies that are creating ever more dangerous wildfires.

David Tofsted Las Cruces

Example of how not to do science

In his letter of Aug. 21, David Tofsted presents a perfect example of how not to do science. He does not believe that humans are the cause of global warming, and in making his point he commits two serious errors.

The first error is to invoke the supposed authority of persons who deny the reality of global warming. Mr. Tofsted offers a list of deniers, but it is well known that the overwhelming majority of these persons are neither scientists nor persons working in the field of climate science. In any case, scientific conclusions are not rendered invalid by dissenters of any ilk unless they are able to bring forth evidence to support their claim. Thus far, the preponderance of scientific evidence points directly to man-made greenhouse gases as the principal cause of global warming, while evidence to the contrary has not been found despite internal skepticism within the scientific community.

A second error is to cite evidence that does not exist. Mr. Tofsted believes that global warming is caused by the "urban heat island" effect which, deniers incessantly argue, has biased global temperature data. However, this idea has been completely refuted by the key finding that, as a global average, temperatures in rural and wilderness areas are rising just as rapidly as temperatures in urban areas.

Thus, Mr. Tofsted's letter is not about science. Instead, it is typical of many letters that go for the cheap shot, distorting science and manufacturing doubt in order to support ideology that cannot accept the reality of global warming. What needs to be understood is that the scientific debate as to the existence and cause of global warming has long been over. This leaves global warming deniers with little else to do but deceive the public about the current state of scientific knowledge.

Donald F. Neidig Las Cruces