I occasionally get some teasing from friends when I tell them we have a Fashion Issue. “A Santa Cruz fashion issue? So it’s about worst fashion?” “Does it hurt your eyes?” “Can’t you just make it about tie-dye every year?” Oh yeah, I’ve heard it all. But look at the local fashion stories we’ve covered this week. First, FashionART continues to blur the line between clothing design and high art. Take a look at the pieces featured in these pages—some of them are simply meant to push the boundaries of what is considered possible in fashion (which is interesting enough in itself), but some are much more practical, genuinely wearable great looks. And there’s also Georgia Johnson’s profile of Santa Cruz’s Vicki Noble, who I love for being unapologetically old-school Santa Cruz while at the same time making a huge impact in the world of high fashion with the tarot designs that have been picked up by Dior for their 2018 line. So take that, people who say Santa Cruz has no fashion sense. Now, let’s see, do these Ugg boots go with my bike shorts? Oh, hell yes!
STEVE PALOPOLI | EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
Letters to the Editor
In your Aug. 30 issue, by asking “What should we do with historical statues that some people find offensive?” Matthew Cole Scott implicitly endorsed the Trump administration’s framing of the issue as overly sensitive people trying to erase history. In fact, the statues in question across the U.S. were not erected to commemorate history, but rather as symbols of white supremacy, intended to intimidate non-white community members. This is demonstrated by examining when the statues were built, which was not after the Civil War, but rather in the 1910s and 1920s when states were erecting Jim Crow laws, and in the 1950s and 1960s to oppose the Civil Rights movement. They aren’t much more historical than a swastika spray-painted on an overpass, and they mean about the same thing. A more accurate wording of the question would have been, “Should we remove statues built by segregationists to commemorate the Confederacy?”
I’d like to provide some balance regarding Gary Griggs’ fear-mongering interview in “Crisis Points” (GT, 8.23) by Maria Grusauskas. Her loaded questions were more like pro-climate change/global warming statements as she threw softball after slow-pitch softballs at him. (I’m sure he got the questions in advance.)
I know of no credible scientific evidence proving climate change is man-made, but is influenced mostly by changes in sunspot activity and volcanic activity, way beyond all of our control. The British “scientists” were busted red-handed in an email investigation fudging data to create the infamous hockey stick graph, disproving future temperature rises. Apparently, we are actually in a 17-year-cooling trend at this time according to a very comprehensive article recently published by a rival local publication.
Greg begins at least two responses with “our best projections.” All computer models are designed by flawed humans with an agenda in mind and are therefore, only biased guesses, and are usually proven wrong. He clearly has his agenda working for him. He should be honest and place a margin of error on any crystal ball prediction as any serious scientist would do. I recall a Time magazine or similar publication not too long ago with the front cover falsely claiming “The upcoming Ice Age!” Why does he think they’re right now? A political poll right before the last presidential election stated that Hillary had a 97 percent chance of winning. How did that work out for y’all?
There were some interesting facts in there, but everything falls apart when the future predictions are tossed up into the ether.
Though we received some interesting and nuanced critiques of our cover story on climate change … this was not one of them. In running this letter, it only seems responsible to point out that the worldwide scientific consensus on man-made climate change is running at about 97 percent. — Editor
Unfortunately, Richard Nolthenius (Letters, 9/13) is quite correct about Gary Griggs’ understatement of the pace and extent of sea level rise. Though Griggs is rightly concerned about the problem, he is not using the very latest estimates. But there’s a further disconnect that Nolthenius doesn’t mention. Climate scientists’ projections are created using computer models, which are highly sensitive to the input data. This is why the predictions have such a wide range of variation and high level of uncertainty. However, many paleontologists and paleoclimatologists have been warning us of the severity of the problem. Why? Because their evidence shows that the last time Earth’s atmosphere had the same concentrations of CO2 that we see today, sea level was 100 feet higher! Well over a billion people live within a hundred feet of sea level. The devastation will be global and catastrophic. And unless we implement an effective carbon tax ASAP, things will get even worse. I certainly wish this was the hyperbolic hysteria that climate change deniers think it is, but sadly there’s far too much science to back it up.
Mordecai Shapiro | Santa Cruz