An Emmy Winner Chimes in Regarding the F-35
I used to live in the (military) over-fly zone and very often would see two to four jets in close formation low over the city. Common sense might suggest that one plane at a time would be both safer and quieter ("Stealth but Not Silent," March 25).
Speaking of this, I quote Chris Reynolds, a former air-traffic controller and an alleged opponent of the F-35 in Tucson: "According to acoustic experts, one F-35 is very close in sound to four F-35s. ... That's the way these sound waves operate."
Really? I have an Emmy award in sound design, and unless the laws of acoustics have changed, four sound sources are four times as loud as a single source. If the plane in question is already x times louder than the current crop, it's going to be hard times for homeowners, renters and their pets in the much-larger over-fly audio zone. I'm very glad to have moved elsewhere in town.
As for the predictable bleats of, "That's the sound of FREEDOM," I always ask: Exactly where do YOU live?
Karl Moeller
What, Exactly, Is in Jonathan Hoffman's Kool-Aid?
I hope the Weekly will invite Jonathan Hoffman to write a follow-up to his Guest Commentary about climate change (March 25), because I have several questions.
Mr. Hoffman, can you tell us what scientific credentials prepared you to become this new Galileo, proving the folly of other scientists with your careful analysis of e-mails?
What other false threats have been concocted by the "scientific governmental complex"? Is cancer a myth?
What is the role of members of the international scientific community, who no doubt peer-review these falsifications? Why is it that, instead of being naysayers, other nations' scientists seem just as convinced about climate change?
How will my civil liberties be restricted if we don't speak up about these deceptions? Will I get a boot to the head for not recycling my cup after I finish my Kool-Aid?
Finally, how much LSD should I put in my Kool-Aid if I want to better understand your insights?
I eagerly await your next opinion piece!
Matt Peters
Hoffman Joins the Ranks of Conspiracy Theorists
I'll leave it to another letter-writer to debunk Jonathan Hoffman's specific assertions about climate change—all that's required is some critical- thinking skills and Google—but Tucson Weekly readers should understand that Mr. Hoffman is positing a conspiracy theory.
Put simply, "skeptics" like him believe that literally thousands of unaffiliated scientists and bureaucrats from around the world got together and made the whole thing up to fool us regular folk. Why? To take away our money and freedom, of course. To what end? World domination. What's the evidence that this massive, intricate global conspiracy is happening? Well, this one guy said "trick" and "hide the decline." What's the scientific evidence against global warming? Open your eyes, man; it snowed this winter!
If you find it easier to believe in this conspiracy than in the idea that piles of evidence and decades of research, contention and compromise among thousands of scientists and others have resulted in a probably flawed but basically reliable general consensus that the world is warming dangerously, largely because of human activities, then you'll be interested to know that a cabal of Jewish bankers controls the world's economy, the moon landing was faked, and the Bush administration knew about Sept. 11 before it happened.
John Cafiero
Hoffman's Argument Lacks, Well, an Argument
Jonathan Hoffman argues that climate scientists "promote false threats" about global warming in order to gain "increased government funding for research, and credit for saving the world." This argument overlooks the fact that any scientist who could convincingly show that global warming was not occurring, or that it was not human-caused, would rise to the pinnacle of scientific "stardom" and would widely be hailed as a hero.
Hoffman cites the case of some incorrect predictions made in the 1960s by ecologist Paul Ehrlich in The Population Bomb. However, Hoffman does not explain how increases in the human population are relevant to global warming. Is he arguing that one incorrect prediction made by one scientist invalidates all other predictions by scientists?
Hoffman argues that trickery was used by some climate scientists at the University of East Anglia in England, and that this delivered a "knockout punch" to assertions of climate change. Even if there was trickery, does it follow that the actions of a few scientists at a single university invalidate the work of numerous scientists who have made many thousands of measurements consistent enough to produce a consensus that global warming is occurring?
In sum, Mr. Hoffman's denial of global warming lacks any rational or empirical foundation.
Mike Morgan
Correction
Due to an editorial error, the photo that accompanied "Summer Comes to Pima" (City Week, April 1) was a photo for an upcoming Ballet Tucson production of A Midsummer Night's Dream, and not a photo for the Pima Community College production. We apologize for the mistake.
