In his letter of Feb. 18 (“Always question science”), Scott Abramson says we should relentlessly challenge established doctrines. While it is fine to exhibit healthy skepticism and question received wisdom, in the case of climate science the truth is that few of us have the scientific credentials or expertise to delve into so technically complicated a subject, or challenge its conclusions.
We rely on the findings of scientists, using the scientific method which has been refined over several centuries, to understand the nature of physical reality. The climate science community, practicing this method, uses meticulous observation, data collection and analyses, provided in peer-reviewed publications, to describe the reality of climate change in a highly credible way. It is appropriate to rely upon the proven integrity, expertise and good faith of this community.
Mr. Abramson says we should pay equal attention to climate contrarians and outliers like the late S. Fred Singer. However, Singer’s credibility is questionable. He was affiliated with the far-right Heartland Institute (funded by the likes of Exxon and the Koch brothers), which is notorious for spreading politically-motivated climate denial propaganda. Moreover, he has made numerous statements contrary to the well-established facts of climate science, for example, “there is no convincing evidence that the global climate is actually warming.”
For my part, as I consider the future climate that my grandchildren will live in, I will take action based on the conclusions agreed to by the vast majority of climate scientists, and not those of a few politically-motivated contrarians.
Mr. Steele, you assert the far-right Heartland Institute is providing funding for Singer, but what about the vast amounts of funding that “scientists” trying to convince us of this global warming thing are receiving from governments and organizations pushing a warming narrative. What are your thoughts about the COP attendees who took over 400 jets to attend the conference, the air conditioning that was used because it was over 80 degrees outside, and the amount of meat served from those methane-producing cows? If these folks aren’t aggressively reducing their emissions, is it because they don’t believe the credibility, or scientific credentials of your experts? Perhaps they know something you don’t? BTW, other than lecturing us, what are you doing to save the planet?
Welcome to the discussion.
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.