Editor,
Scott Abramson’s letter “Who are the science deniers?” misunderstands what epistemologists mean by “settled science.” Settled scientific theories consistently explain the available data, survive numerous tests to falsify their claims, have predictive power and have no serious theoretical rivals. They have nearly universal acceptance within the expert scientific community.
On this account, the basic elements of climate science are very certainly settled. Climate change is a well-observed fact; and it is well-established that burning fossil fuels is far and away the primary cause. Recognizing the settled basics of climate science allows policymakers to act more wisely.
Abramson is also wrong to claim that “climate activists” are uninterested in “new data, new theories and new ideas.” Scientists are generating petabytes of new data every day, posing and testing new theories, and constantly offering new ideas to explain more precisely how and why the climate is changing. Leading climate activists follow this science closely and are very interested in new data, new theories and new ideas. After all, devising effective responses to the climate crisis requires understanding the crisis.
Climate science deniers (so-called “skeptics”) seek to fool people into believing that scientific progress is not progress at all. Despite bedrock physical laws and overwhelming evidence, deniers continue to pretend there are reasons for doubt. Their disinformation campaigns, including letters to the editor, are often part of a fossil fuel industry con, designed to preserve their profits by delaying the actions that can save us from a world of hurt.
Alan Mattlage
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.
(6) comments
Does it seem to be typical Republican to offer strong opinion on something they know absolutely nothing about, from science and economics to “socialism” and conditions in more progressive countries?
Hey Mr. Mattlage, instead of a lecture to convince us of global warming, perhaps you can comment on what you’re actually doing to save the Earth. What are you doing to convince China, India, and other developing nations to curb their use of fossil fuels? What are your thoughts on Bill Gates, lecturing us on carbon emissions, yet flying around the world on his private jet? Hasn’t Mr. Gates heard of Microsoft Teams? Or maybe Mr. Gates is a climate science denier but he has enough money to greenwash his image? I guess that may also be true for the COP attendees taking 400+ private jets to the conference.
That the climate is changing is not proof of catastrophe climate change. But 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. 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.
Mr. Patrick Moore was not a founder of Greenpeace. Here's what Greenpeace says: "Patrick Moore has been a paid spokesman for a variety of polluting industries for more than 30 years, including the timber, mining, chemical and the aquaculture industries. Most of these industries hired Mr. Moore only after becoming the focus of a Greenpeace campaign to improve their environmental performance. Mr. Moore has now worked for polluters for far longer than he ever worked for Greenpeace."
Westy, I don’t believe Mr. Moore is noted as a founder of Greenpeace – he’s known as a co-founder. And exactly which Greenpeace are we talking about – throughout their history, I recall there are a few that have taken on the Greenpeace moniker…
Great response, Alan!
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.