Letters to the editor March 2

Fox the strongest candidate

Tim Fox is the best candidate for governor.

Leadership: As the attorney general, Tim has strengthened protection from crime in our communities — support for local law enforcement and prosecutors as well as improving state agencies and fighting for better laws. He and his attorneys have successfully defended important laws in the courts. He has developed teams to find missing and exploited persons and to fight the prescription drug crisis.

Experience: His experience inside state government has prepared him to expand his scope to all state agencies. He knows the leaders and the bureaucracy. He knows the best opportunities to improve efficiency and provide better services.

Montanan: Born, raised and educated in Montana he knows our people and our needs. As a geologist and our Attorney General he has fought for our natural resource protection and development.

Issues: We are fortunate that all three Republican candidates for governor support the rights of pre-born children and the right to bear arms and believe in growing our economy.

Political strategy: Tim is experienced in the art and science of government and uses his skills to serve the public. He understands how to develop bipartisan support. The polls show that Tim is the strongest candidate to win against the Democrats. Tim’s campaign is grassroots — please support — your dollars and your vote are important.

­—Rebecca Sturdevant, Kalispell

Economic sense

I was very disappointed to read how little alternative energy is included in NorthWestern Energy’s 20-year plan. In these times of dramatic climate change, it’s unconscionable not to take the long-term welfare of Montana citizens, our children and grandchildren into account.

It’s understandable that new natural gas plants will need to be built, but the common sense solution would include wind and solar power, so that the natural gas burners can be turned down when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing. Sun and wind energy are already cheaper than natural gas or coal, and are bound to be even less expensive in the coming years. In addition, cost effective battery solutions are being developed to store sun and wind energy so that it is available 24/7.

It’s a reckless waste of ratepayer dollars to build more fossil fuel infrastructure and sink more money into the continued operation of Colstrip, while virtually ignoring less expensive alternative energy sources.

Not only is it better for our threatened environment, but it makes economic sense to rely on wind and solar to reduce our energy costs.

—Tom Woodgerd, Helena

Physics rebuttal

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims human emissions caused all the increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1750 or above 280 ppm. This unproven IPCC claim is the foundation of all political efforts to reduce human carbon emissions.

I wrote (Inter Lake, Jan 6) that this IPCC claim fails fundamental physics. True physics shows that nature added 100 ppm to 280 ppm to bring the natural level to 380 ppm, and human carbon added 31 ppm to produce today’s level of 411 ppm.

Following my opinion letter, came the expected attack by Dr. Elwood and Dr. Korechoff (Inter Lake, Jan. 30). Their attack makes four errors as follows:

First, they think attacking the messenger is science. They addressed me eight times as “Mr. Berry.” True scientists address me as “Dr. Berry.” True scientists critique the message but are polite to the messenger.

Second, they think “authority” is science. It matters not if “the vast majority of climate scientists” support IPCC’s invalid claim or if “all IPCC reports have been subjected to extensive peer review by subject matter experts.” Consensus and votes don’t count in science. All advances in science overturn a consensus.

Third, they think they, an ecologist and an engineer, know more about my profession of theoretical climate physics than I do. They could not pass a test on my 1965 PhD thesis - that revolutionized cloud physics and is referenced in scientific papers and textbooks.

Fourth, they think their unwritten, undocumented, unspecific claim - that my two preprints contain fundamental physics errors - is science. If they were competent, they would put their claims on my website. They won’t because then I and 57,000 monthly readers would prove their claims are junk.

­—Ed Berry, Bigfork