Perhaps next month you will consider giving equal time and space to Dr. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of the University of Virginia, or professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia, who have both published volumes debunking the specious conclusions of Mr. Gore and his minions of data miners. Or even any one of the 17,000 scientists who signed the petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine stating: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate."

The global warming farce is nothing more than a giant wealth-transfer mechanism foisted upon an uninformed public by our envious detractors designed to tax the West, limit its progress and influence, and shift resources from the private sector to government control.

James Martin
Greystone Financial Group, Troy, Mich.

Dear Editor:
At best, Douglas McWhirter’s "Hot Opportunities," featuring former VP Al Gore, was a masterful display of casuistry. At worst, "Hot Opportunities" was quotidian left-leaning demagoguery, if only for its incendiary first-page pull quote courtesy of Mr. Gore: "Exxon-Mobil spends millions of dollars per year to finance the spreading of disinformation designed to prevent the formation of rational policies on global warming."

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. A profusion of dissenting opinions exist (beyond Exxon-Mobil), which Messrs. Gore and McWhirter conveniently exclude, which would add to the formation of rational policies on global warming. For instance, a survey of more than 400 German, American and Canadian climate researchers conducted by the Meteorologisches Institut der Universitat Hamburg and the GKSS Forschungszentrum found that 67 percent of those surveyed either disagreed or were uncertain about the proposition that global warming will occur so quickly that lack of preparation could prove disastrous.

Like acid rain, global cooling, unsupportable population growth, SARS, mad cow disease and avian flu, global warming will prove to be nothing more then a much-ado-about-nothing crisis du jour. Instead of looking back on the way we handled transportation problems and marveling at how long it took to come to our senses, we will look back at Mr. Gore and marvel at his and the global warming fanatics’ fatuity.

S.P. Mauzy
Brighton, Colo.

Noncash Contributions
Dear Editor:
The article "Underperformance Anxiety" (June 2006) focuses on donations because it is aimed at the Worth reader, but there is more to nonprofit board membership.

Granted, nonprofit board members are expected to contribute. And I certainly agree that the recruiting pitch should be clear about financial expectations. But, in some cases, a board member’s contribution of his or her expertise, credentials and knowledge are as valuable as the next member’s dollars. In structuring a good board, we recommend a combination of donors (or getters), leaders in the field the nonprofit targets and skills in areas such as finance, law and marketing. Rule number one in fundraising is 100 percent participation by the board, but the amount of each donation can, and probably will, vary.

As for the two examples you present—the New York Center for Financial Studies and the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum—financial contributions don’t appear to be a contributing factor to the outcomes. Chemistry among board members, the ability of a board member to sell an idea, the politics of the board and the traditions of the organization, the CEO and perhaps limited staff resources are what probably resulted in these failures to create change.

Phyllis McGrath
Philanthropy Management, Fairfield, Conn.

Worth welcomes your comments. Please direct your letters to letters@worth.com.