Editor,
A recent letter to the editor, “Who are the science deniers?” (Feb. 8) requires a response. Is climate science merely dogma to which activists demand that everyone submit unquestioningly? Not at all.
Editor,
A recent letter to the editor, “Who are the science deniers?” (Feb. 8) requires a response. Is climate science merely dogma to which activists demand that everyone submit unquestioningly? Not at all.
The climate is a matter of life and death — everyone should care enough to be skeptical, understand basic concepts and even read peer-reviewed literature (The basic effect is simple enough — if you understand why a blanket keeps you warm, you can understand that infrared-absorbing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere makes Earth hotter). But while skepticism is good, the bad-faith approach of climate deniers is a mockery of science — instead of seeking truth by examining all evidence, it cherry-picks some facts and ignores others, recycles debunked claims and works backward from a preordained conclusion (A conclusion that just happens to benefit petroleum companies, who have poured money into supporting climate denial for decades).
Most climate activists would be overjoyed to wake up one morning and find that all the world’s thermometers had been miscalibrated, all the people watching glaciers disappear and wildfires worsen had been hallucinating, that tens of thousands of the world’s smartest scientists had simply missed something basic about the climate system.
But while nothing is ever 100% certain in science, some things, like an apple falling due to gravity or the planet heating up due to greenhouse gases, are close enough that we can accept them as true; move on and make progress on the urgent business of stopping the planet from becoming uninhabitable.
James Higbie
San Mateo
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.
Already a subscriber? Login Here
Sorry, an error occurred.
Already Subscribed!
Cancel anytime
Thank you .
Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in.
Check your email for details.
Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.
An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account.
No promotional rates found.
Secure & Encrypted
Thank you.
Your gift purchase was successful! Your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in.
| Rate: | |
| Begins: | |
| Transaction ID: |
A receipt was sent to your email.
(3) comments
You are right - climate is a matter of life and death. We did experience catastrophic climate change in the Little Ice 500 years ago when CO2 levels in the air dropped so low that plants couldn’t grow and many people starved to death in Europe. As Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore said, we are lucky to have a safety margin in CO2 levels today. The greening of our planet as seen from space since the 1960’s is undeniable.
That the climate is changing is not proof of catastrophe climate change. UN models lack the inputs to make climate predictions and can not distinguish between natural variation and man’s influence.
But for a number of practical reasons the world is already developing tomorrows energy which will be green and far less expensive than fossil fuels. Private industry and governments are investing billions to develop hydrogen based energy to tide us over until fusion energy (the basis of the Sun’ energy) comes into use in about 30 years.
Here we go again… A lecture from Mr. Higbie about so-called global warming and why we should believe there is such a thing, yet nothing related to what he is doing to save the Earth. And another accusation of cherry-picking when he’s ignoring that previously, the Earth had higher carbon levels and temperatures and yet, the Earth hasn’t turned into a fiery ball… Actually, how many Ice Ages has the Earth experienced - but none at the opposite end of the spectrum?
Great response, James
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.