Perhaps in the time since I left the computer engineering department, they’ve decided to stop spending so much time on all this computer and circuitry stuff and focus on the really important things — like climate and the environment.

Noah Stahl (“On the day after tomorrow … Maybe we’ll get a new bunk theory,” March 8) speaks with such authority on the subject that this must be true. Only with such an understanding could anyone toss aside so confidently the volumes of studies supporting global warming. He would have us believe that global warming and the Kyoto Protocol should be “easily dismissed” because of their “economically damaging” impacts. He is overlooking any long-term effects in favor of short-term gratification. After all, wouldn’t we all rather have a little extra money in our pockets today than a hospitable climate in the future? Unfortunately, we can see effects of global warming now (or I can use the current administration’s term, “climate change,” if global warming is too scary).

Mr. Stahl tells us of a petition disputing global warming signed by 18,000 scientists. 18,000 sounds like a big number, doesn’t it? Let’s assume an estimate of 1 million scientists worldwide. That means 1.8 percent of the scientific community doesn’t support the theory of global warming. Well, if 1.8 percent disagrees with the other 98.2 percent, that’s more than enough reason for me to throw any claims of global warming out.

Maybe global warming won’t be as bad as has been predicted. Can we afford to take that chance? Mr. Stahl may be willing to, but I’m not.

Jenni Dyar

Senior

Animal ecology