Letters to the Editor

OPINION:

Oil companies stack the deck

In “Energy? Here’s the drill” (Commentary, yesterday) Donald Lambro wrote, “There’s nothing wrong with the price of gasoline that a few dozen new refineries cannot cure, but we haven’t built new refineries for several decades, and that’s why gasoline inventories have been playing a costly, precarious game of catch-up with demand.”

Why haven’t the refineries been built? I can only speculate, but I think it’s because the oil companies know they have consumers in a tight spot and the government hoodwinked. Gasoline prices have risen at a pace that cannot possibly be attributed to the real forces of supply and demand.

Prices are manipulated by the oil companies to create a perceived need for expanded oil exploration in areas that are currently off-limits. (No, I’m not a tree-hugger.) The power of free-market forces is marginalized at best when the supply side of the equation lacks visibility.

Their sole motivation is greed. By convincing legislators to open the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge and expand offshore areas to drilling, the oil companies will expand their control over the gasoline supply chain and, thereby, accelerate their record profits and executive compensation packages at consumers’ expense.

Instead of giving tax subsidies to the oil industry, the United States should build and operate publicly owned refineries. Of course, this demands a different operational model than the incompetent, if not corrupt, way the government manages most everything else, but, it can be done.

If the government (quasi-public entity?) were inserted at this value-added stage of the gasoline supply chain, the supply side of the equation would be real, not artificial. The oil companies would still own and operate the refineries that they fund from their earnings, and they would continue to operate the distribution of gasoline to consumers.

Expanded oil exploration could be a quasi-private or quasi-public venture. In an oligopolistic industry, the players need an even bigger player-referee to keep them honest. The oil industry is playing with a marked deck.

JAY STOUT

Timonium, Md.

Global warming: fake science?

Those advocating expansion of governmental power to “protect” species such as musk oxen and polar bears from the recent warming embrace either imaginary science or the theory of creationism (“Musk ox collared for study of risk from climate change,” Page 1, April 26, and “Judge orders a decision on protecting polar bears,” Nation, April 30).

Physical science relies on physical observations from which hypotheses are developed and rigorously tested against all observations. If the hypotheses are inconsistent with physical evidence, the hypotheses must be changed.

Imaginary science relies upon selective use of observations to develop theories and ignores physical evidence that contradicts these theories. Computer models are often used to make long-term projections even though the models are unreliable. Ice core borings in Greenland and extensive other physical evidence clearly show that the Northern Hemisphere was as warm as or warmer than today 1,000 years ago and considerably warmer 5,000 to 8,000 years ago. If they existed, polar bears and musk oxen survived these warm periods. The alarmists base their claims on the theories of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its latest Summary for Policymakers, which ignores the physical evidence of past warm periods.

The IPCC uses models to project considerable warming in the future, but the models cannot explain the past warm periods. Further, as demonstrated in “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate,” a summary for policymakers by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, the models cannot explain the characteristics of the recent warming from 1979 to 2004 and highly inflate the observations. Thus, projections from these models are imaginary, not physical, science.

To claim, contrary to physical evidence, that the recent warming endangers polar bears or musk oxen, one must either accept imaginary science or believe that somehow these species were created after the last warm period. Basing public policy on imaginary science or creationism is absurd.

KENNETH A. HAAPALA

Fairfax

Palestinian narratives

The column by Sherri Muzher “Palestine before and after” (Commentary, Sunday) was a refreshing example of the Palestinian narrative. Too often in any conflict, one voice is heard well over others. In the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the Israeli narrative has drowned out the voice of the rather powerless Palestinians. It takes dedication to discover both sides of the conflict, and I applaud The Times for allowing another view to be read.

JAFFER ALI

Chicago

•

Thank you immensely for publishing Sherri Muzher’s excellent column, “Palestine before and after.” Forthright and powerful, concise and honest, tastefully articulated, the plea for recognition of the humanity of the Palestinian people should be read by everyone seeking a complete picture of the lamentable situation. I especially admire the writer’s logic in demonstrating how people retain an identity despite name changes and name-calling by detractors. Instead of believing the incessantly chanted propaganda buzz phrases, we should search for the facts among the Palestinians themselves, for they do exist.

HALINA MINADEO

Grosse Pointe Park, Mich.

•

I was astonished to read Sherri Muzher asserting the existence of a Palestinian people. Is there any doubt that such a people actually exists?

Of course, whether or not their existence extends back to the Canaanites of the Bible is probably disputable. Yasser Arafat also fantasized an attachment of the Palestinians of today with various ancient peoples who inhabited the Holy Land throughout history, while denying the existence of Solomon’s Temple on Mount Moriah or much of a Jewish presence in the land of the Bible at any time. For the latter, there is abundant archaeological (as well as biblical) evidence, but facts are no obstacle to some people’s imagination.

A Jewish friend, now deceased, used to pull out his passport (he was born in pre-state Israel) and show me his designation: “Palestinian.” It seems, therefore, that anyone born or residing in that area of the world would have been called a Palestinian at that time. I wonder if these non-Arabs would be included among Ms. Muzher’s “Palestinian people.” She objects to calling Arab citizens of Israel Israeli Arabs; would she also object to the term Jewish Palestinians?

She cites revisionist historians who support her various claims of wrongdoing against the Arab inhabitants of what is now Israel. Would she be interested in the many historians who note that the arrival of large numbers Arabs in the area of Palestine took place only after the large Jewish migrations to the area resulted in a more attractive economic environment than existed before their arrival?

I’m afraid the inconvenient truth is that until the Zionists returned to their Promised Land at the turn of the 19th century, the place was pretty much a wreck. After a century of Jewish sweat labor, Israel has become one of the great national achievements in the world. The idea of turning the place over to the Arabs is out of the question. The idea of sharing it is not.

DAVID KROSS

Columbia, Md.