This is a response to Jim Bates’ recent My Turn [Oct. 3, “An alternative view on climate change”] on climate change. The most important thing I have to say is that a short list of facts such as he offers us (even if they are facts) does not prove anything, particularly about a subject as complicated as this one.
To know anything worth knowing, in a case like this, one must look at all the available evidence or at least enough of it to have a sense of what the overwhelming weight of the evidence indicates. At this point the overwhelming weight of the evidence, according to the great majority of those who have the time to do the research, is on the opposite side to that put forward by Mr. Bates.
I think it is important, especially during these times during which it is obvious that many published arguments are based on cherry-picked facts that do not accurately represent reality, that readers recognize the point I’m making. At the risk of belaboring that point Mr. Bates list should not convince you of anything.
Rather, due to its evident inadequacy as judged by any reasonable scientific standard and the surrounding insults regarding the opposition it should raise doubts in your mind about his position.
I can also add that some of what he says is simply an expression of his values. He suggests that because we as a species are now failing to do what scientists tell us is necessary to preserve a healthy planet for future generations that we shouldn’t bother at all. And then there is his suggestive (but of what?) remark that we need cheap fuel because more people die of cold than heat. Does he mean what we need is fossil fuels? Aren’t there other options if we care to use them?
John Guenther
Greenfield