Letters to the Editor

Published April 1, 2002

Dear Mr. Taylor:

I have just read your editorial [“When proselytizing goes to far,” Environment & Climate News, February 2002] and I suggest that where you went wrong was to allow such drivel to be espoused without immediate challenge! Public condemnation, in their faces, is the only way that your children will understand your passion for truth. I would be at the principal’s office demanding the immediate termination of the teacher that you cited in your editorial. Then I would next present myself to the superintendent of schools and similarly demand the termination of the teacher and the principal for not controlling the curriculum. What is unconscionable is that both instances you mentioned went unchallenged when they occurred. Bluntness is a virtue. Use it. History is full of instances where “reasonable people” had a chance to stop atrocities by speaking up and remained silent out of “politeness.”


Chuck Patten

Dear Environment & Climate News:

Thank you! You are a bright and honorable voice from the darkness. Please, keep up the excellent articles so desperately needed.

Jeannine Gay

Dear Mr. Taylor:

Your editorial in the February 2002 edition of Environment & Climate News was a cogent reminder of the mis-education (nay, indoctrination) that is epidemic in today’s society, particularly among the extremists and their proselytes in the environmental movement. What was disappointing to me was your lack of a proper response to the obvious errors by the young guide. Indeed, your children may come home to you and tell you they are ashamed of their father. Could you blame them if YOU failed to correct those who feed them misinformation?

A few years ago, a young woman was demonstrating various wild animals at a breeding zoo in Arizona. She was exhibiting a small alligator, and in her talk said that we should refrain from buying anything made from their hides. With my children, I confronted her and explained that what she had said could contribute to their demise. I explained that those animals lacking any benefit to human beings are far less likely to be protected than those that have value. I pointed out that the whitetail deer in Pennsylvania were essentially wiped out at the turn of the 20th century, and were brought back by sportsmen who were interested in their value for recreational hunting. I cited other game species across this nation as other examples. I said that she could make that point by buying some alligator shoes and a handbag before she gives the same talk! She was quite receptive, and did not dispute my reasoning.

Mr. Taylor, you and your friend cited in your article erred by failing to confront those who preach the extreme environmental gospel. Had your friend met with the teacher and the principal, and showed the note from his son, and DEMANDED an apology and retraction in front of the class the following day, his son would have viewed his father in a different light. The real threat of a lawsuit for slander shapes up those in public education (I taught Chemistry for 30 years).

In closing, we cannot allow the extremists carte blanche in environmental matters, or the war is lost. Attack where appropriate!

Sincerely yours,

Gordon F. Santee

(Taylor notes: My friend had indeed visited his son’s school after the incident and called the teacher and the principal onto the carpet for the teacher’s behavior. I, on the other hand, missed an opportunity to set the nature-walk guide straight.)

Dear Editor:

I would like to thank you for giving the scientific truth to your readers. I have been an activist since 1995 when I realized the agendas of the people who falsify information to push their agendas. Your publication is the best source of information available. About two years ago I distributed copies of your publication to friends to alert them to the truth. Thank you very much and keep up the good work.

William G. Waters

Mr. Taylor:

Don’t you think your presentation of ideas is a little skewed toward the conservative/Republican Party? The Republican Party has had their share of out-dated ideas not based in logic or science, but your paper never presents them. If a Democrat has a proposal, you seem to only quote the people who are against it. If your objective is to preach the mantra of the energy (oil, coal, and nuclear) and biotech lobby then you’re doing a great job. However, if your objective is to sway public opinion by citing ALL the facts of an argument, you’re doing a really poor job. If you’re going to claim that The Heartland Institute is “nonpartisan” it would be good to start presenting the facts and history that is conveniently left out of most of your articles.

Victor Rodriguez

(Taylor replies: Mr. Rodriguez, thank you for your comments. E&CN is committed to sound science governing environmental policy, rather than the interests of any particular political party or lobbyist group. If politicians from one party or another tend to side with sound science regarding environment issues, all the more power to them. Oh, and by the way, I’m not a Republican.)

Dear Heartland Institute:

I have enjoyed receiving and reading Environment & Climate News for some time now.

I am interested in the environment, but am sick and tired of the psuedo-science wackos and the outright false information and lies they spiel.


M.D. Schap