Historical narrative 

After abstaining from response to Al Fonzi's previous opinion pieces —spinning his own ludicrous narratives and butchering historical context—Al Fonzi's "False narratives" (Aug. 2) was just one hypocritical step too far for this pre-Trump member of the former Republican Party and Cuesta College history major.

While Fonzi's thesis-like statement seemed to imply that society (and 99 percent of the science) is plain wrong about the effects of climate change, and therefore responsible for our failing environmental policy, his curious list of catastrophes was unable to support the underlying message that chemical and fossil-fuel-generated climate change isn't affecting the fire season and "fire experts don't agree" about climate change.

With all due respect, Al, if we want to learn anything about climate change, we will ask a scientist, an environmental expert, not a self-proclaimed fire expert who seems to reject modern science and fact in favor of yellow journalism from Fox News.

Don't believe what you see and hear, right? The East Coast isn't experiencing record flooding, the coral reef systems aren't dying, the glaciers aren't melting, the hurricane seasons aren't more severe, and our fire seasons aren't getting longer due to record droughts. These are not the droids you are looking for.

Just say it, Al, you're a climate change denier ... with zero evidence from science and zero support from your version of American history with which to refute mountains of science-based evidence from all over the world. Even NASA and the U.S. military recognize climate change as a real and serious threat to our national security, while folks like Fonzi seem impervious to the same set of facts.

While waxing on about his version of history, Fonzi forgets to identify which "tough decisions" have been neglected by our ignorant "leftist" society, and what bright minds of the fossil fuel or chemical industry can save us from our socialist selves. Which questions should we ask, Al?

Call me a crazy liberal nut, because that is what I will undoubtedly be labeled for my faith in science and distrust of corporate America, but what I find uniquely absurd is the perverse level of denial and justification needed to convince oneself that environmentalists and climate scientists are in the wrong about climate science, while profiteering obstructionists—with a First Amendment right to bribe our chosen representatives—really care about the health of the planet and the hopes of our future generations.

I say these things not to be offensive or demonize radical Republicans, but in defense of common-sense conservationism and sustainability, environmental science, basic human decency, and some goddamn respect for fellow Americans—who are every bit as patriotic as Al—who are tired of the unyielding and baseless attacks on everyone who fails to blindly embrace laissez-faire capitalism, trickle-down economics, hyper-deregulation, corporate welfare, tax cuts for the wealthy, the gutting of the EPA, and the rape of the environment.

I think it's pretty clear who is mastering the obstructionism, but you need only open your eyes and look at your yellow scenery, your dried out creeks, the plastic in the ocean, and your smoke-filled sky. Δ

Erik Huber is a Cuesta College history student from Atascadero. Send comments through the editor at [email protected] or write a letter in response for publication by emailing [email protected].