Letter to the editor:
Former president Donald Trump mocks the threat posed by human-induced climate change. He once declared, “Global warming is an expensive hoax!” And Trump can find support for his views among Republican members of Congress.
To counter this misinformation, I encourage reading “The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism.” It’s available online and provides an excellent summary of the lines of evidence that have led 200 science academies throughout the world, including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, to conclude that climate change is human-caused. Consider that the Israel Academy of Sciences and the Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran agree on this issue.
If one is serious about examining the issue of human-induced climate change, the place to start is understanding why scientists believe it.
In reality, however, the climate debate isn’t about science — it’s about the role of government. Many conservatives dismiss evidence of climate risk because they fear that acceptance of this evidence will lead to greater government intrusion in our lives. Science is a proxy debate.
Ever wonder why we don’t hear scores of angry voices claiming that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS? It’s because that scientific conclusion doesn’t threaten deeply held values.
In his book, “The Constitution of Liberty,” Nobel Prize-winning economist and libertarian Friedrich Hayek writes: “Personally, I find that the most objectionable feature of the conservative attitude is its propensity to reject well-substantiated new knowledge because it dislikes some of the consequences which seem to follow from it.”
Climate change poses great threats, such as sea level rise, more intense wildfires and the ravaging of the world’s coral reefs. Conservatives would be unlikely to tolerate this level of risk with regard to national defense or financial markets.
Prudence dictates that we also hedge against the risk of disastrous climate change.
Terry Hansen
Milwaukee
File photo.
This post has already been read 787 times!
That narrative publish on Climate in your online newspaper is nothing more than political rhetoric trying to influence votes. The whole climate change drumbeat clearly doesn’t fit with the authoritative study reported in the prestigious journal Nature; (see link below.) The author’s heavily documented model demonstrates the majority of any change in the warming trend is explained by natural influences and that this foundational model clearly rebuts any interpretation that climate change as having any substantial human basis.
Have the nerve to investigate and report facts versus your biased narrative? Then dig into this study and others which don’t simply play into the political agenda you have chosen to propagate. Note the scientists are from South Korea where their government isn’t supporting academic grants that only fund studies which are structured to a predetermined outcome fitting a bias driven position.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-023-00533-w