Climate change truth inconveniences us all

Re: “Meteorologist threatened after coverage of climate on newscasts,” July 9 news story

“You can’t handle the truth!” shouted Jack Nicholson’s character in “A Few Good Men.” It seems much of our society, including news media, can’t handle the now-inescapable but “inconvenient” truth that global warming is fact.

Facts are not opinions. Opinions may be political and vary from one person to another. Facts are not subject to majority vote, market share, or “backlash”; they are so or they are not, independent of any opinions. Some facts are unpleasant to face; denial doesn’t change them.

Some folks say climate isn’t weather; however, the two are related. Weather is day-to-day; climate is weather over time. String enough weathers together and you’ve got climate.

Like Des Moines, Iowa, TV weatherman Chris Gloninger, I began connecting the dots and saw that formerly rare events had substantially increased in frequency. When the unusual becomes ordinary, something fundamental has shifted; the old rules no longer apply.

Earth is heating up, adding more energy to the oceans and atmosphere. That energy goes into producing more extreme weather conditions of all types — more and longer droughts combined with more and more violent storms, more and hotter heat waves, and more and colder freezes.

Moreover, 2023 looks like a “tipping point” year when climate change effects transition from subtle and distant to obvious and close.

You’d think Iowans, with their economy so dependent on agriculture — thus weather — would be keenly interested in the facts of climate-caused weather. Apparently, some aren’t, and they’re enough to drive out a fact-telling reporter. If the weather seen this year doesn’t drive home the fact of global warming, one wonders what will.

Ralph Taylor, Centennial

Re: “Floods show limits of U.S. efforts to adapt to climate change risks,” June 12 news story

I have family that has lived in Vermont and Upstate New York for years, and I’ve often thought they would be least impacted by climate change. Instead, this summer I’ve watched with sadness as my son and his family had to shelter in their home for days when their air quality index reached 400 because of the Canadian wildfires.

I checked in with my nieces to see whether their Vermont farms had been inundated by the flooding. Thankfully, they’re safe, but many beautiful parts of Vermont that I know and love are not. It’s clear there is no place in this country that is immune to the impacts of climate change. Nor really in the world.

Yes, we need to provide funding to help more areas adapt to climate change. Equally important is the need to accelerate our transition to abundant clean energy. Continuing to burn dirty and expensive fossil fuels that create heat-trapping pollution is folly. The historic Inflation Reduction Action of 2022 was a critical first step, but so much more needs to be done.

At the federal level, putting a gradually increasing price on carbon and returning revenues to American households would be a powerful next step. And revising our system for permitting clean energy projects is also key to accelerating the transition.

This summer’s heat dome over the U.S. South, the smoke from out-of-control fires in Canada, and flooding in our communities are stark reminders of the urgency to act.

Susan Secord, Boulder

The right to refuse vs. the right to be served

Re: “Colorado’s anti-discrimination case was a sham and Gorsuch fell for it,” July 9 commentary

Doug Friednash’s hit piece on Justice Neil Gorsuch is unfair in the extreme. Friednash claims that the dispute in the case is fake. But the Supreme Court, not Friednash, decides whether a real case or controversy exists. Friednash uses this device to avoid an honest discussion about the real issue here. The issue is whether a person in business can be forced to give voice to speech that she totally disagrees with on religious or other grounds.

Let’s put the shoe on the other foot. Suppose Friednash designs websites (or bakes cakes). A priest comes into his place of business and demands that he create a website (or cake) that condemns same-sex marriage.

Should Friednash be forced to do that, even though it is totally against his fundamental beliefs? Of course not. Freedom of speech includes the freedom not to be forced to say things that are totally at odds with your deeply held convictions.

Richard Stacy, Highlands Ranch

Cake and website designers are not expressing their own speech when they design products that represent the views of their clients. They are enabling their clients to express the clients’ speech. So if I believe that all marriages not sanctified by my church are invalid, then, according to the Supreme Court, I could refuse to prepare a cake commemorating any civil marriage. But the cake would not be announcing my views on civil marriage; it would represent my client’s (and, in this case, society’s) views.

If your business enables your client to present their opinions by means of the products you create for them, you need to have thick enough skin to allow you to express any view held by your client, even if it fails to comport with your religious, political or social attitudes.

If you cannot be tolerant of views you disagree with, regardless of the reason, you should choose another business.

David Wolf, Lakewood

Mr. Friednash’s Sunday column about the 303 Creative website designer case is based on, first, the unsupported idea the Colorado anti-discrimination case should have never been heard. The second wrong premise is that a statutory “right” (legislated privilege) of class should trump the constitutional rights set forth in the First Amendment.

If the underlying facts were false, good defense lawyering would have made it obvious while still in the trial court. Instead of pressing the plaintiff through discovery and pretrial motions to assure a fact basis existed, the Attorney General decided facts could be stipulated. Is this because, as reported in other media, this case was brought as an allowed and commonly used pre-emptive strike challenging a law? If you can show a court that a law could require a violation of rights (no easy task), your challenge can be heard.

Next, the question of factual basis was correctly in front of the trial court by 303 Creative’s affidavit that “Stewart” had inquired about services.  As noted in the column, plaintiff put the matter before the trial court several times. Either the AG did not make an appropriate challenge, or the AG lost on the point. Others reporting on the case noted the appellate court recognized the Stewart request was made, and that both lower courts understood the case could be heard without a request for services or a violation.

As to the second faulty premise, many citizens understand, and all lawyers should know, that the constitution, state or federal, is the supreme law, which cannot be altered by statutory enactment. If all persons clutching pearls over this ruling want a different outcome, they can start by elevating their lengthy list of protected classes to the level of a right in the Constitution of the United States. Until then, 303 Creative is correctly decided.

Alan N Hassler, Kremmling,

Colorado again made it into the headlines about individuals protecting their religious beliefs. Recently, a future website designer won the right to post on her site that she does not create websites for those whose beliefs are at odds with her religious beliefs, in her case, those who believe in gay marriage.

It was not made clear if she would also decline to make sites for Wiccans, Muslims, Jews, etc. I don’t know on what religious text her belief is founded.

For me, the question is this. Should a person whose beliefs prevent them from serving others be required to post that policy? It is certainly against my particular spiritual beliefs to patronize businesses that discriminate against customers or employees based on the owners’ religious beliefs. I want to be informed upfront of their reservations. I know that some businesses that don’t discriminate use the symbol of an open hand to signify that all are welcome. Perhaps businesses that cannot in good conscience serve all be required to inform potential customers.

Might I suggest that they post a closed fist on websites, front windows or printed advertising? No confrontations, no lawsuits. Customers can choose up front where they take their business.

Lynn Buschhoff, Denver

Noise pollution rains down on us

Re: “Busy metro airspace — ‘It’s ridiculous’,” July 9 news story

I can definitely sympathize with the homeowners in today’s story. Unfortunately, it’s just the tip of the iceberg. In August of 2021, the airlines and the FAA unilaterally and surreptitiously changed the flight patterns in and out of DIA.

Today in my southeast Denver neighborhood, the planes fly noisily over every 2 minutes. The worst is that all the mountain parks I’ve hiked for more than 40 years have been desecrated by the constant drone of jet engines. All so the whining airlines could make more money. Sad.

Michael Sinclair, Denver

Rep. Marshall defends lawsuit on Open Meetings Law

Re: “Devastating allegations of violations in the General Assembly,” July 16 commentary

I have deep respect for former Colorado House Speaker Terrance Carroll. But his opinion piece claiming Colorado’s Open Meetings Law needs “clarity” for legislators is absurd. The law is clear. The legislature chose to ignore it. And his description of how he conducted caucus meetings while serving as a speaker simply confirms that violations of Colorado’s Open Meetings laws have been long-standing practices for years.

But Carroll, at least, is an apologist, not unrepentant. After filing the lawsuit, former State Sen. Don Coram called Colorado’s Open Meetings law requirements: “plain bull—-.“ That is the opinion of a former legislator about a law Colorado’s voters enacted for transparency in government. And which was immediately challenged as unconstitutional by a legislator but upheld by the Colorado Supreme Court. Coram also is quoted as saying that my colleague and I need to “grow up” and “learn what it takes to be a legislator.”

It is this attitude among many past and present legislators that demonstrates the institutional arrogance against which my colleague and I are fighting. And why we filed the suit after months of trying to resolve the issue internally. Many taxpayers find tax law requirements “plain bull—.” But they pay their taxes. Many motorists find traffic laws inconvenient. But they follow them. Many businesses find regulations onerous. But we enforce them.

For lawmakers to disregard Colorado’s Sunshine Laws, which voters imposed through a citizen initiative that passed by a 20-point margin, is the definition of arbitrary and capricious government. It is antithetical to why our nation was founded (i.e., a government of laws, not men). So while Sen. Coram thinks I should “grow up” and learn to become a legislator like him, I’d prefer to stay as Peter Pan and continue believing a fantasy world exists with fairies and pirates … and where lawmakers obey transparency laws.

Bob Marshall, Highlands Ranch

Editor’s note: Marshall represents House District 43 in Douglas County.

The consequences of being wrongfully accused

Re: “Lawyer arrested after tossing old license plate in the trash,” July 17 news story

“The Wrong Man,” a lesser-known Alfred Hitchcock film, has always disturbed me far more than those featuring graphic violence. Based on a true story similar to Manuel Diego Soza’s, a musician played by Henry Fonda is wrongly accused of holding up a life insurance company.

By the time Christopher Emmanuel Balestrero is exonerated in the movie, his wife has suffered a mental health crisis over his arrest.

Mr. Soza sounds like a level-headed man who, for whatever reasons, followed in the footsteps of thousands of others who have been wrongly accused. The fact that Westminster continued to pursue him long after it was obvious that they, too, had the wrong man is particularly upsetting.

Walking out the door these days is fraught with peril, from lunatic neighbors, road rage drivers, snipers, mass shootings, and old license plates tossed in the trash.

Craig Marshall Smith, Highlands Ranch

An iconic sports venue in a picturesque setting

Re: “Bandimere Speedway: 8th wonder of the world,” July 14 sports story

What a dramatic photo accompanying the story about Bandimere Speedway closing until a new racetrack is built near the Denver International Airport. While I am not a race fan, Bandimere Speedway has been a good neighbor for the 32 years we have lived nearby in Littleton. And we enjoyed the Christmas drive-through light and music extravaganza, which the Speedway created each holiday season.

Once, I drove by Bandimere Speedway while it was hosting the Mile High Nationals event on my way to the airport for a business trip to Chicago. While flipping through the channels in my hotel room, I was delighted to watch ESPN’s coverage with the familiar Hogback showcased during the telecast. And, what a masterpiece, a true work of art, your photographer captured in his photograph with the track in shade, Green Mountain in the fading sunlight, and the fire coming out of the two race cars before they barreled down the track at over 200 miles per hour. Good luck to the Bandimeres and a speedy recovery!

Tom Ryan, Littleton

The playbook for a power grab

Re: “Trump, allies are working to increase office’s power,” July 17 news story

Seeking reelection, our former president overtly proposes to change the presidency into an autocracy. He wants to bring independent agencies like the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Trade Commission under his control, to give the president the power to refuse to spend money Congress has allocated or to divert it to his whims, and to remove people within the State Department or intelligence agencies he considers disloyal to him.

Is this the same GOP that was furious with Obama for “abusing executive privilege” by legalizing DACA recipients, or who piled on President Joe Biden for seeking to help young people whose student loans are keeping them from moving into society?

If the presidency devolves into a dictatorship, it will be the end of American democracy. Do we want to elect Mussolini?

Kathy Taylor, Louisville

The article on Former President Donald Trump and his associates that outlines their desire and plan for power is not only scary but probably unconstitutional. Such power would bring us another step closer to becoming an autocracy. (Putin?)

This is not what our Founding Fathers had in mind as they revolted against the British monarchy.

Such a power grab from the right is no different than the elite left’s desires for the power of control (picking economic winners and “woke” social causes) because they, like Trump, know what’s best for the country.

Regretfully, a lot of this power grab comes from the current governmental void that exists in the balance of power between the three branches of government today. This is especially true for Congress and its unwillingness to legislate. Taking this responsibility back would leave the administrative branch to properly carry out the wishes of Congress. When that is in doubt or conflict, the “Supremes” will determine the constitutionality of the laws resulting in balance.

The proposed power grab is a threat to our republic. One solution to give Congress a backbone is for “We the People” to control government at the ballot box. If our elected representatives do not represent us, then vote the bums out of office and vote in some legislators who just may.
The coming election’s leading presidential candidates both want more power.

So, save this republic, people.

John Tobin, Evergreen

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.