Global warming's hot debate.

Congratulations on a job well done with your article "The Reckoning' (feature, November/December 2003). The issue of global warming is one that cuts across all political and social boundaries. No one in the world can consider themselves immune from its potentially disastrous effects.

Alex Vagelatos, WaterFurnace International,

Fort Wayne, IN

I recently read the article "The Reckoning. While I consider myself a member of the hated "right wing," I also consider myself an environmentalist. Our family is vegetarian, and we are currently planning a home that will be solar and wind-energy powered. I recycle and turn off lights when I'm not in a room. In addition, I have been trying for over a year to convert my two F-150 trucks to burn propane exclusively, which would emit about 40 percent less carbon dioxide (CO2) than using gasoline, yet I cannot get past emissions laws to authorize the conversion. Go figure.

Having said this, I cannot alone convince the entire "right wing" that what is needed is major change. Since it is primarily those on the right who provide the jobs and investment that fuel our economy; it is essential that they see the benefit of curbing CO2 emissions. This can be done, but not with rhetoric that bashes those who own the vehicles and industries that produce these emissions. I cannot imagine that you do not already know this. Which begs the question, what is your real intent: To change the environment, or to promote a political agenda?

Your article contains some dubious and misleading statistics, such as the BBC's claim that CO2 emissions will lead to mass death of forests and a significant rise in sea level. This is hardly factual, provable or even at all likely.

In addition, you made little quips that do not tell the whole story, such as failing to state why the Bush administration opposes the Kyoto Treaty, Kyoto would have devastated our entire economy. And doing so based on a theory that mayor may not be correct would be ridiculous. If the intent is to actually help the environment, then it is clear that maintaining our economy and educating our citizens would have far greater effect.

Andy Liakos, Lawrenceville, GA

In order for there to be "global warming" isn't it necessary for there to be warming? The only warming for which I can find evidence is local and primarily due to surface changes such as urban heat island effects. The global trend in the troposphere as measured by satellites has been near zero since the 1970s (see "Corrections to the Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series," Energy & Environment Vol. 14, No 6, 2003, www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre_02.pdf).

Steve Ludwig, St. Simon's Island, GA

Jim Motavalli replies: The scientific evidence that global warming is real and happening now is too vast for me to cite here, but I refer readers to the website of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, www.ipcc.ch. Also relevant is E's new book, Feeling the Heat: Reports from the Frontlines of Climate Change (Routledge), which fully documents ongoing global warming effects. And I find ironic Mr. Liakos' speculation that implementing the Kyoto Treaty will devastate quality of life. Isn't that true of global warming itself?