Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

Here.

Here.

To the Editor:

“Science Teachers Lag on Climate Change” (news article, Feb. 12) reports on a survey indicating that science teachers in American high schools and middle schools spend only one to two hours on average per year teaching about climate change, and that 30 percent of them tell students that recent global warming “is likely due to natural causes.”

This sounds serious; in fact, it is catastrophic. The fate of the world literally depends on the education of the American public and its understanding of the impending crisis.

DAN BLOOM

Chiayi City, Taiwan The writer, an American expatriate, is a frequent blogger about climate change and climate fiction.

Note from KBJ: Make the following changes in the second paragraph and read it again: (1) replace "the world" with "progressivism"; (2) replace "education" with "indoctrination."

Into the Gap (2008).

Here.

Here.

Future historians will have a field day explaining the social mania that is Global Warming. See here. Key paragraphs:

[T]here is a major failure of science going on.

The failure is the lack of transparency and honesty about how feeble these models are and how much we should stake on their all-too-fallible forecasts. Thus the same problem continues: climate science has once again botched a prediction that its models were underequipped to make.

It seems that there can be no moderate and honest discussion of this issue. Skeptics are singled out in creepy enemies lists. Actually, we're now supposed to call them deniers, as though they were disputing the existence of HIV or the holocaust. Numerous scientists, as well as senators, anti-vaccination Kennedys, and clickbait purveyors have even called for the imprisonment and legal prosecution of those who disagree with them.

Climate science acts like it is fighting a holy war. There are only those who are just and those who must be silenced and stopped at all costs. Anyone who mounts reasonable logical, empirical, or skeptical challenges to the orthodoxy must be ruined, not by counterfactual evidence, but by vicious attack.

Weekly, we're bombarded with doom-and-gloom future scenarios spit out of these models. The public is supposed to quiver in fear and to disregard and forget the many times that these predictions have failed.

Bingo. This man should expect to be vilified, haranged, and excommunicated from the Church of Climate Science.

Do you want to elect this? Hillary Clinton is not well, mentally or physically.

To the Editor:

Re “Senate Republicans Dig In Over Naming Next Justice” (front page, Feb. 15):

Senator Ted Cruz and Republicans who support him in a call for a delay in appointing a Supreme Court justice to replace Antonin Scalia insist on loyalty to the letter of the law as written in the Constitution—until it doesn’t suit them to do so.

Under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, the president has the power to nominate, and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint a Supreme Court justice. It was President George W. Bush’s privilege to propose John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr. for appointment to the highest court, and now it is President Obama’s right to put forward someone of his choice.

Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate majority leader, says the American people are entitled to be part of this choice. They have been. They elected President Obama—twice.

I am a Republican and would love for my party to win every round in the boxing match that is today’s politics, but I have no wish to win by cheating. To try to delay the process until after the election may be politics as usual, but it is still a shabby move. Congressional Republicans should focus on the right they do have, and that is to put the nominee through his or her paces during the approval process.

In anticipation of Democrats’ automatically crying foul over the vigor of their questioning, I remind them of the ruthless grilling that Judge Alito endured at the hands of Senator Charles E. Schumer in 2006.

MARGARET McGIRR

Greenwich, Conn.