Thanks very much for the thoughtful, wonderful article and photos in the Dec. 20 Star Tribune, "The North Pole's got nothing on us"— beautiful photos celebrating our winter wonderland, and our unique Minnesota culture. Loved it!
Abby Marier, St. Paul
CLIMATE CHANGE
Letter writer who doubts the narrative was quick to twist it
Some false stories never disappear, no matter how often or how thoroughly they are debunked. Case in point: the claims that scientists used to warn of global cooling; when that didn't work, they warned of global warming, and finally, to achieve credibility, they switched to calling it climate change (Readers Write, Dec. 18).
Fact: Back in the 1970s, some popular media outlets hyped a coming ice age; at the same time, reports by climate scientists in peer-reviewed journals were already warning of global warming caused by human activity.
Fact: Global warming is dangerous, it is happening, and it is clearly caused by burning fossil fuels. The physics of greenhouse gases has been understood since the 19th century, and the evidence for warming extends back to the start of industrialization. Among reputable climate scientists, there is no question about this. The warming is changing our climate, increasing the intensity of storms, melting polar ice, killing off coral reefs and destroying ecosystems, increasing droughts in some places, flooding in others. Climate change is the result of global warming, not a term deployed to confuse the public.
As for dollars spent on climate research, the real financial bonanzas come from fossil-fuel companies paying to confuse the public and dispute the facts of global warming, not from government grants.
Joyce Denn, Woodbury
• • •
In his Dec. 15 counterpoint "We don't trust science? I do, but not all of it," Doug Shidell says that "[w]hen climate scientists first raised the alarm, there was no constituency for their findings." That's not quite true. College-aged baby boomers were chafing under their parents' authority, much of which was concentrated in industry. Without environmental issues, how could they have faulted a system that was launching the world's first mapping satellites, bringing transatlantic phone service to the masses and deploying the first helicopter ambulances? They would instead have been stuck waiting at the bottom of a seniority system, as younger generations are today. I'm sympathetic to much of their legacy, but to say that they had no ulterior motive insults the reader.
Karl Hammerschmidt, Minneapolis
Race in Minnesota
Embrace cultural differences, but don't make them an excuse
After reading Brandon Ferdig's Dec. 11 commentary about the Hmong community in Minnesota ("Little marvel on the prairie"), I'm left with many questions. While it makes perfect sense that a Hmong person might enjoy and excel in Minnesota traditions like fishing, is this type of assimilation the only acceptable way for an immigrant to behave? Why is success measured by the degree to which immigrants have assimilated to American culture, without considering the ability of the established community to welcome new members? And why, when observing cultural controversy, does the author only note Hmong traditions and beliefs that might be found unacceptable in American culture, and not the reverse? In a community with some of the worst racial disparities in the country, the subtext of this piece is clear — that there is a "right" way for an immigrant to present themselves, and that other groups are not measuring up. But we Minnesotans have to ask ourselves if we are judging success this way because it's truly the right way or because we can only accept people who are able to and interested in one way of life. Must every immigrant group "melt" into the existing community, or can we embrace cultural diversity in our community?