I LOVE reading Camille. I am not part of the "Limbaugh Brigade," but I am a religious, social conservative. Camille is obviously an independent thinker, and that is exactly what infuriates so many of her detractors. She deviates from the party line they subscribe to, even though they fancy themselves as intelligent thinkers. Camille is the real thing. Her insights are simple yet profound. Her reasoning is logical and seems to be founded in an inner decency and quest for deeper truth. She is a breath of fresh air in a society of narrow, shallow, unprincipled, amoral and party-driven pundits.

Camille is a beautiful, thoughtful woman. Her frank and reasoned articulations are truly refreshing.

If I wanted to read this sort of crap, I'd be reading the trolls in the letters section.

Perhaps you are so suffocated by the CO2 spewing from Al Gore's mouth, you are incapable of appreciating a JOKE? Not sure about you, but I actually READ scientific articles about such things as equatorial glaciers and sediment layers. The evidence against "anthropogenic global warming" (as described in Pravda--a publication sure to meet with your approval) is mounting and only Leftist ideologues such as yourself are unable to recognize that Al Gore's Nobel should be repossessed. Hey! Don't let that advancing glacier run you over, fella!

I, too, am a fellow doubter of global warming -- simply because I've lived through too many doomsday predictions.

In the 70's, "Global Cooling" was supposed to user in a new Ice Age by right about now. The oceans were supposed to be lifeless by 2010, and Africa's population was supposed to be cut in half by now. AIDS was supposed to crossover and decimate the heterosexual community by about 2000. Harmonic Convergence was supposed to pull the planets out of alignment. Comet Kahoutek was supposed to be 500 times brighter than it was.

All of these things had "scientists" who had allegedly done their homework. None of them happened.

As for Global Warming: Why do people talk about "carbon footprints" when the leading greenhouse gas (by 95% or so) is Water Vapor? The current variation in weather is better explained by undersea volcanic activity and solar activity than by anything man has done.

Why is it that Conservatives like Palin and Phylis Schlafly, Lynn Chaney, (with their gay children) etc. can never tolerate any criticism of (or even questions about) THEIR FAMILIES, but are always ready to dish out criticism of others' families??

“pin the tail on the oppressor” Effing brilliant! Thank you, Camille!

As a conservative I was pleased to see that you have questions about Global Warming.

For certain we need to clean up the planet, but to change the world to make money on Fear instead of facts is criminal.

The fact that the earth has had many climates is in no way an argument that humans can't change our current climate in a way that we won't like.

To give a simple example, imagine a bathtub sitting out in the middle of a field. The bathtub fills with water when it rains, heats up when the sun shines on it, and freezes when it gets too cold. It does all this without human intervention.

Then, along comes a human who proceeds to pour boiling water into the bathtub. Is the temperature going to remain the same in the bathtub, or get hotter? Does the fact that the bathtub has been outside for years have anything at all to do with it?

The answer is clearly no, and if you were to make an argument that the bathtub would be just as hot anyway, without the boiling water, you would rightly be called an idiot.

The debate rages on as to the cause(s) of homosexuality. I lean in the direction of early environmental influence because so many sets of identical twins have one twin who turns out to be gay and the other straight. If the DNA is identical, as I understand it is, then it would seem to cast real doubt that a homosexual is born that way...unless there is an in utero influence.

My own theory based on much research for my book on FAMILY ESTRANGEMENTS is that something quite unforeseen and accidental happens in early childhood that causes a child to identify more with one parent than another with a corresponding attraction to their own sex or to the opposite sex. Admittedly, there is no conclusive evidence for this theory anymore than for any other theory. So it is still an open question.

What I don't understand is the gay community's insistence that gays are "born that way." What I do understand is that it is not a choice. No one can ever truly say when they chose to be a heterosexual, anymore than when a gay person can say he or she chose to be homosexual.

If you don't know anything about science, please don't spew your "beliefs" as facts or truths.

There has been a lot of research on the neurological origin of homosexuality. It's probably not genes, but it is still congenital. Most biological evidence uncovered so far points to the sex hormonal level (most likely testosterone levels) a fetus is exposed to as the most influential factor in the sexual orientation of the child when he or she grows up. This maternal hormone level is correlated with how many boys she has previously given birth to. The more older brothers a male fetus has, the higher his chance of becoming gay.

Look it up in Scientific American and other scientific magazines.

Freud was wrong about many things, including Oedipus complex and childhood sexuality, because he had no data! His conclusions were based on anecdotes not systematic observation and data collection. When you're wrong, you're wrong, no matter how many people like the sound of your theories.

Again, look it up. There is a ton of research in psychology and behavioral science that proves Freud plain wrong.

Please stick to political opinions and avoid scientific topics. You sound ignorant and clueless.

About your "bathtub in the desert" analogy: Are you being serious, or just a troll? Honestly, that is a pretty lame analogy.

There are 4 questions that we need to ask and answer about global warming:

1.) Is it actually happening (as a long-term trend, rather than a shorter, decade-long variation in temperatures)?

2.) If it is longer-term, is it simply part of the natural cycle of things, or is it being "caused" by some external factor?

3.) If it is being caused by external factors, is that cause man, or might it be solar activity, undersea volcanic activity, or some other factor?

4.) And, if indeed it is happening, is it necessarily a bad thing?

In my view, we are still on Question #1.

You can say I'm wrong. But, as I said in my previous letter, I've lived through about 7 "Chicken Little" scares -- all of which had their acolytes.