Opinion: A storm of controversy over Trump’s climate science

To the editor: Thank you, L.A. Times, for connecting the dots between Donald Trump’s candidacy and economic and environmental destruction for the U.S. and all of the countries that depend on us to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

( “Trump denies climate science amid rising seas,” Sept. 18)

Among his egregious lies and ignorant statements, the most harmful is his climate science flip-flopping and denial.

I believe this dangerous pandering to the dwindling Republican minority that ignores rising seas, drought, storm flooding and fires would have an even greater effect on Americans than his bigotry and attraction to tyrants.

Thank you also for highlighting Hillary Clinton’s plans for reducing our emissions, which although they move us in the right direction, fall short of what we need: a revenue-neutral carbon tax like the one the California Legislature advocated to Congress.

Sharon Markenson, Woodland Hills

::

To the editor: Given Americans’ current distrust of government, I get that many want an outsider candidate. But one so far outside reality? And with such an outsized embrace of ignorance?

The dangers of Trump are never more evident than when he talks about climate change. And the thing is, market-based solutions are now out there — even gaining ground. Even fossil-fuel companies are getting on board.

Then there’s Trump, ignoring reality. I don’t believe that’s the legacy voters really want.

Dennis Arp, Brea

::

To the editor: Trump’s hypocrisy on climate change mirrors that displayed by the petroleum industry.

Last year, The Times revealed in an article titled “Big Oil braced for warming while it fought regulations” how some in the oil industry funded organizations that sowed doubts about global warming, while covertly hedging their bets with internal plans to mitigate its adverse effects.

I think Trump has made it clear that climate change be damned, he too champions immediate profits over concerns about the staggering price our descendants likely must pay.

Even if Trump loses the election, future generations will be utterly baffled by his improbable campaign’s sustained success — and ashamed of ancestors who backed him.

Greg Gilbert, Cool, Calif.

::

To the editor: Trump has a point: What if climate change really is a hoax, and we reduce carbon emissions, promote renewable energy and protect our environment for nothing?

Richard Mandl, Canoga Park

::

To the editor: While I recognized an overall subtle clarification of Trump’s opinions and public statements, I take exception to the statement that “Exxon, Chevron, Shell and BP all acknowledge that burning of fossil fuels causes global warming.”

Yes, knowing that public opinion is finally coming around to accepting overwhelming scientific evidence regarding the causes of global warming, the major oil companies have publicly agreed with science.

Behind the scenes, however, I believe it’s a different story. They certainly are hedging their bets by pursuing alternative fuels, but, in the meantime, like Trump’s conflicting public statements, the oil companies’ actions should be given more weight than their words.

Sharon Graham, Huntington Beach

::

To the editor: For the last five years, Trump has been associated with two bizarre ideas: that human-caused climate change is a hoax, and that Barack Obama is a native of Kenya. Trump has now disavowed the latter idea. Will he disavow the former?

And if not, will Republicans who recognize that human-caused climate change is a growing problem — and who want their party to abandon climate denialism and embrace market-based solutions to the problem of carbon pollution — disavow him?

Devone Tucker, Brockton, Mass.

::

To the editor: The headline to me is a vivid example of the misleading bias against Trump. As the article says, Trump “acknowledged that climate does change, but not as a result of human activity.”

Despite the intense efforts of the media and many in the science community, I believe there is much evidence that challenges both the theory and magnitude of their assertions.

Kip Dellinger, Santa Monica

::

To the editor: The article by Michael Finnegan makes it abundantly clear that Trump is beyond irresponsible, falling into a category of ignorance and destruction heretofore never seen in a public figure, much less a presidential candidate.

If this violence to our environment and common sense is intended as an attention-getter, it has succeeded in activating intelligent beings to defeat him at the polls.

Roselva Ungar, Santa Clarita

::

To the editor: There is a clear and present reason why Trump should acknowledge Global Warming. Because he alone can fix it.

Craig Rosen, Los Angeles

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook