WELL, WELL, WELL. Prof. Phil Jones of University of East Anglia's CRU admitted his record keeping is "not as good as it should be." He confessed his organizational skills were lacking and his office was swamped with disorganized piles of paper. The data is crucial to the famous "hockey stick graph" used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones now concedes the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now. And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no "statistically significant" warming. He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not. But he still can't explain why he shared all the data with his cronies but not public inquires under FOIA. The polar bears ate his data, that's the ticket!

But the AGWers cling with tooth and polar claw. "The winter storms are proof of global warming!" They squeal. "They brought increased storms and precipitation just as predicted." As snow? ... yeah right. Explain the worldwide cold temps will ya, unprecedented since the '60s! And snow in all 49 states. And the others show this is a repeat El Nino anomaly that occurred back in 1998.

But still the governments just dole out money for climate research. The European Commission appropriated nearly $3 billion for climate research, an amount that doesn't include grants from EU member governments. U.S. government agencies also are dishing out the dough. The House intends to spend $1.3 billion on NASA's climate efforts, $400 million on NOAA's, and another $300 million for the National Science Foundation. California, apparently not feeling bankrupt enough, devoting $600 million to their own climate initiative.

You would think that with all the recent cold and snow that our government would be spending the monies on getting more energy such a gas, coal and oil. I find it paradoxical that although Obama want's to build more nuclear reactors he won't reopen the Yucca Repository but instead want to form a climate government agency to study the "ghost" of AGW. Hilarious and frightening, smells of a come-on to me.

SCOTT BROOKS

Edgewood

Censorship Does Not Bother You?

MR. CLANCY AND I PROBABLY share a common understanding of the term "person." I was not attempting to redefine it but merely commenting on its usage. Many concepts have been twisted beyond recognition by the language of legalese and I would welcome the return of "common speak." In that vein, he does us a service by clarifying my use of the word "amoral." The opposite of moral is immoral. To be neither is to be amoral.

Of course it is the person in the corporation who speaks, not the legal construct, just as the person has the morality, not the company. Further, corporations have not be given "full citizens rights" (e.g. they cannot vote), but they do enjoy many other rights and obligations of citizenship, such as owning assets, entering contracts, suing and being sued and, most notably, paying taxes. In addition to reaping billions in profits, Exxon also pays billions in taxes. Is it then to be forbidden to defend itself against the government (another legal construct) and politicians who, after taking the money, enact policies that may adversely affect its interests? Exxon does not speak for those who buy its product, but those who hold a financial interest in it. Yes, the purpose of a for-profit corporation is to make money, as it is for the people employed by those corporations. Even the people employed by not-for-profit corporations have to pay the rent.

I agree that our elections have been reduced, in large measure, to sound-bite ad campaigns designed to sell a certain image. Also, I note that of the billions spent, roughly half is "wasted" on the losers. Pouring tons of money into a slick ad campaign is no guarantee of closing the deal. Remember New Coke? The people who do enjoy full citizen's rights still have the ballot box veto. Again, Forbes, Kerry, and Perot all failed to get elected.

As to your parting question, why do you presume that CEOs speak only for themselves and not for their employees and stockholders as well? I believe the CEOs of all corporations, wealthy or not and exercising their "second voice," ought to have the same rights as the thousands of other citizens exercising their "second voices" through their "often incredibly well funded" non-profit corporations, unions, political actions committees and now 527's (e.g. Swift Boaters). Issues that people care about tend to have plenty of funding on both sides. Tell us where the money comes from, but let the money be spent; let the voices be heard! Who knows, the rich guy may actually have a point!

To refocus on the Citizens United case, I'll ask my question again. American citizens (not Exxon), who freely associated and incorporated for the sole purpose of expressing a political opinion, were censored by the federal government! Why doesn't that bother you?

JERRY CARROLL

Sandia Park