Sunny
69°
Sunny
Hi 77° | Lo 49°

Letter: Beware climate change deniers

Re “Beware climate catastrophe charlatans” (Monitor Forum, Aug. 24):

Michael Sununu engages in an extreme case of “shoot the messenger” in his argument against climate models. When I studied experimental particle physics in the early 1980s, I made extensive use of computer models to simulate particle collisions. Climate scientists’ use of models today parallels my use of models then. In the ’80s our models could not answer all our questions about particle physics, just like climate models cannot answer all our questions about weather and climate today. They were good enough, however, and the science we conducted then has withstood the test of time, just as climate models will 30 years from now.

However, if he can’t abide computerized climate models as accurate predictors of future climate, perhaps he will accept the tried and true approach: comparisons to the past based on data collection and analysis. Such studies show that the last time atmospheric CO2 concentration was 400 ppm (as it is now), sea level was 30 feet higher, the planet was 3.6 to 5.4 F degrees warmer, and the Pacific Ocean was probably locked in a permanent El Nino. And that’s just for starters, since we show no signs of slowing CO2 emissions growth. Unfortunately for us, climate change deniers and the industries that make their money from the status quo suffer from a blindness that prevents them from accepting that our continued reliance on fossil fuels is completely and utterly unsustainable. All of mankind is suffering for it.

GARY RUCINSKI

Newton, Mass.

(The writer is Northeast regional coordinator for Citizens Climate Lobby.)

"Unfortunately for us, climate change deniers and the industries that make their money from the status quo suffer from a blindness that prevents them from accepting that our continued reliance on fossil fuels is completely and utterly unsustainable" - BUT, it is sustainable for the rest of their life. For the me, me, the universe revolves around me group, that is all that is important. They live by the old phrase, "I'll be dead and gone so it is not my problem".

Nice propaganda and we should not leave this for our children, however, to retreat into a cave and live a stark existence to have this addressed immediately is not the right approach. We ought to utilize our natural resources to leverage funding of alternative energy, etc. Instead, we are fighting amongst ourselves and not utilizing what we have to make ourselves energy independent and be a thriving economy which CAN effect climate change.

"We ought to utilize our natural resources to leverage funding of alternative energy, etc." Here's the all too visible and recurring problem. The sellers of fossil fuels resist with all their strength every effort to fund renewables until they themselves are able to monopolize them.

If you repeat a label enough, the hope is that folks will just accept it and not think about it, and basically take it as fact. If someone disputes a graft, article, or a speech someone gave on Climate, that does not necessarily equal denying. It just might be that the evidence does not hold up. The deal for me is this. We are lied to on a regular basis, now by scientists from both political parties. Whoever funds that scientist determines what the outcome will be. Big difference if Soros or Koch funds the scientist. So who do you believe? My guess is beliefs are not based on science, but on politics. If you want to convince folks of anything, pick a topic they know little about. That way they cannot determine if what you are spouting is fact. People do it all the time with math, charts etc. Truth is we do not get facts anymore, we get political agendas.

Sadly, I don't think scientific enlightenment was Sununu's goal when writing his opinion article. The more often that someone (in a position to personally gain from delayed action) raises doubts in the press, the more red meat there is for those who want to believe the writer's position. It then gets kicked around in the press and when it happens enough, people start believing that at least some of the material must be true. Public support for actions to address the (nearly consensus) scientific recommendations then wanes and since politicians want votes more than doing their jobs, will support the delay. Sununu's article was nothing more than throwing more red meat out there, and judging from the responses, it's working.

It is interesting to read Sununu's 'opinion', when compared to the 97% of meteorologists and climatologist who publish peer-reviewed papers on global warming. Makes me wonder what his credentials are??

And what are your credentials professor. Most of the posters here are not scientists and I often wonder if they stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Anyone can write anything and anyone can read it as if it is a fact. If you think that climate scientists are not trying to prolong this debate to get more funds and stay relevant, think again. Same with Cancer research. I would be willing to be that if we were able to cure it, many researchers and scientists would be out of jobs or looking for the next research grant.

Well, with degrees in Geology and Hydrology, I do consider myself a scientist. AND, I read !! Real books, by real scientists, about our Earth, and the way it will respond to society's mistreatment of it. You could to, if you went to the library !!

One doesn't need a degree to know when any Sununu is spouting self serving dialog. If their lips are moving, that's enough. Won't these idiots ever go away. With climate change you don't have the option of going "oops". Change happens very slowly. Kind of like lead paint, it won't hurt you right away, but you consume it long enough you risk becoming a denier..

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.