2009-07-11 / Editorials & Letters

Editor's response

The 'ravings' are the work of Editor/Publisher Charles Prince. All Beacon Letters to the Editor include the writer's name and community. Unsigned columns appearing on the editorial page are editorials written by the editor unless otherwise noted. Vickie Fogarty's letter above is a direct copy of her email up to her community identification.

She is obviously very upset with our belief that Rep. Zack Space voted to kill Ohio's economy when he sided with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco and Rep. Henry Waxman, who represents Beverly Hills, Malibu and Santa Monica, and supported HR2454. Fogarty claims the editorial states 'incorrect facts.' Ignoring that obvious oxymoron, she takes issue with only one specific statement.

Fogarty writes, "For instance, the article (Beacon editorial) states'…increasing global temperatures (so-called global warming) which haven't increased since 2001, even with CO2 concentrations up significantly.' This is just false." She then proceeds to recount data showing increasing levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) since the start of the Industrial Revolution and increasing 'at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr-1 since 2000.' No one disputes that CO2 levels have and are increasing. Our editorial stated that CO2 concentrations are up since 2001..

If we believe the global warming scaremongers, those increasing CO2 concentrations should have lead to higher temperatures. Inconveniently, temperatures since 2001 have been flat or decreased. There continues to be no demonstrated cause and effect.

Fogarty doesn't even mention temperatures. She simply ignores the increasing body of scientific evidence that fails to find a direct link between CO2 concentrations and global temperatures. That's a critical omission, particularly if we are going to impose a huge energy tax on everyone to save us from global warming. That's the goal isn't it? Or is it really just an opportunity for a power and money grab by those who believe government always knows best.

We're not sure what Fogarty's point is when she quotes the first three paragraphs from The Pew Charitable Trusts' report on the clean energy economy. Our point in the editorial was that clean energy jobs in Ohio increased just 7.3 percent over nine years and totaled 35,267 in 2007. That's less than a percent increase per year. Most importantly, those jobs represent less than SIX percent of the manufacturing jobs still left in Ohio. Even if the number of clean energy jobs doubled or even tripled in a couple of years, they still won't account for even 20 percent of the manufacturing jobs placed at real risk by cap and tax. We'll say it again. A green or clean energy job bailout is a fairy tale and Ohioans will be among the first to experience the ugly truth.

Fogarty concludes that the editorial is 'filled with junk statements and the Beacon should be ashamed.' But she has failed to list one 'junk statement' and her one specific criticism actually confirms our statement. We are not ashamed. Space is the one who should be ashamed for siding with the California liberals pushing this bill at the expense of his own district. He provided a critical vote for a bill that will ultimately cost each one one of us thousands of dollars as we pay more for just about everything we buy. It will also cost hundreds of thousands of Ohioans their jobs.

Global warming proponents have bullied skeptics for years and Fogarty continues that tradition. Calling our editorial 'garbage' without one piece of evidence demonstrates the weakness of her claims.

The final bill, filed just about 16 hours before the House vote, totals some 946 pages. It is obvious that none of our representatives read the bill before voting. Rest assured that if the U.S. Senate approves this bill, we will find the heavy hand of government deciding what kind of vehicles we drive, how many miles we drive each year, what kind of light bulbs and appliances we can buy, what jobs should be subsidized, what jobs should be sacrificed, what recreational vehicles (boats, ATV's etc.) are acceptable and so on. Like the old Prego commercial, "It's in there."

Once government controls the use and cost of energy, we'll discover that it is making many of our decisions for us.

Return to top