Climate debate letter draws feedback

I taught physics for 30 years after forecasting weather for the United States Air Force.

I agree with the June 5 letter to the editor that there is always a place for the skeptic in science.

I imagine the writer’s call for a balanced debate on climate change would look something like this: one moderator, one scientist for and one scientist against, debating the proposition, humans are a major factor in climate change (if indeed the climate is changing).

Equal time for both points of view seems “fair and balanced.”

However, if the debate really reflected the thinking in the scientific community, visualize 97 scientists testifying to the fact that the climate is changing and humans are a major cause and 3 scientists that aren’t sure yet.

As a skeptic, I would ask all of the scientists their funding source. If any of them reported a corporation that produced or used a great deal of fossil fuel (and made a great deal of money at it), I would suspect a conflict of interest.

In this great country you can believe that 5 is greater than 15, but that doesn’t make it true.

We delay action at our own peril.

Carl Franklin, Black Mountain

A recent writer asks some reasonable questions about news coverage of global climate change, and the apparent dominance of the opinions of only climate scientists, as opposed to judgments from other rational scientists and informed thinkers.

Perhaps I can help.

Since 2001, more than 35 regional and international societies of scientists and engineers have submitted formal statements about their positions on climate change and human contributions. (See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

In every case, the academies have discussed, voted, and published statements agreeing with the positions of the IPCC.

None (zero) of international science academies have stated opposition or disagreement to the IPCC findings.

The reason that it is so hard to find reasoned and informed opposition from qualified scientists is that there is so little to be found.

The smart money already knows where all this is headed, including most large insurance companies and the U.S. military, who must make realistic plans for future changes.

The speculations and opinions of naysayers will continue to be published, but they will play no role in the decisions made by people whose future depends on getting it right.

Glen Reese, Asheville