Letters to the Editor, 11/15/2023

Climate change

To the Editor:

The letter from Pat Farr in The Nugget on October 11 stunned me by the lack of knowledge she possessed re: climate change. The changing climate has to do with overall averages of measured weather phenomena over extended periods of time. Temperature is the most commonly used to monitor climate, but also severity of damaging storms. Weather is what we experience on a day-to-day basis. Taken cumulatively, climate is defined by average weather measurements.

Scientists from all over the world agree that global temperatures are increasing, along with frequency and severity of storms. An article in the MIT Bulletin of August 27, 2023, explains these data clearly. It shows that an increase of average global temperatures more than 1.5 degrees compared to “preindustrial” temperatures (prior to the 20th century) when the global greenhouse gases began a precipitous rise due to burning of petroleum products like gasoline, natural gas, propane, and also coal. Scientists all over the world reported at the Paris Climate Conference that limiting the global temperature rise to less than 1.5 degrees may prevent irreversible damage to our planet. So far there has already been a rise of 1.9 degrees. It is humans, not your god, who have the power to reverse the biggest causes of global warming.

These scientific facts need to be taught in schools, clearly not all of their parents understand these urgent problems. These are not opinions, but facts. Past climate changes like ice ages were extremely slow developing over thousands of years. But these rapid changes over less than 125 years cannot be adapted to in many cases.

Sharon Booth

Sisters forests

To the Editor:

I read the opinion piece “Protecting Sisters’ Forests” (Rick Retzman, The Nugget, November 1, page 2) with interest.

Sisters Trails Alliance (STA) has come out against the scientifically based Green Ridge vegetation management project proposed by Sisters Ranger District. I find it interesting that STA doesn’t like the idea of impacting or improving forests.

In his editorial Retzman says STA values the relationship they have with the Forest Service, and values the “honor of building and maintaining trails … for 22 great years.” Does STA not consider building trails and encouraging people to hike and bike those trails, through the forest, doesn’t have an impact on the ground, resources, and wildlife?

It seems a bit contradictory, if not downright disingenuous, to say you don’t support scientifically based actions to manage forests designed to reduce wildfire impacts yet it’s fine to take action that suits your personal goals (build and use those trails, also called development). Does that mean it’s ok to act when it suits your own purpose but not act when it will serve the purpose of the forest and the whole community?

Richard Miller