Last Sunday’s Conversation examined whether government is acting responsibly in dealing with climate change, and what should governments and individuals to do combat climate change.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Don’t forfeit freedom
Re “We must understand science and recognize misinformation” (Forum, March 15): We need to set aside the argument about whether global warming is a real danger and focus on the question: Is it wise to forfeit any more of our freedom and finances to any government entity on the mere promise they could or would do anything about the weather?
Never miss a local story.
One glance at government’s track record answers that question. After spending $50 trillion on the war on poverty, guess what – poverty is still winning.
So does global warming exist? That question is irrelevant to the real question. Could government fix the climate? You’d have to be naive to believe government could affect one rainy day. It can’t even fix potholes.
James Cronin, Rancho Cordova
Science education won’t suffice
I question writer Ginny Fitzpatrick’s view that teaching critical thinking, the language of science, and statistics will overcome the resistance to the evidence of the manmade contribution to climate change.
A vast majority of the population believe in God with no scientific proof. It follows that many people will accept non-scientific evidence to deny the causes of climate change.
Yes, many scientists believe in God for the personal comfort it provides by setting aside the requirement of proof. When considering changes necessary to ensure a viable future for the human race we need more than an emphasis on science education.
David Fibush, Rocklin
Scientist’s view is circular
Ginny Fitzpatrick provides her interpretation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s findings that humans influence the climate. In effect, she states that she is a scientist who is able to think critically; that she is an accurate source of the truth; and that the truth is what she says it is.
This is circular logic, and appears to be truth because each segment proves and is proved by the other statement. This kind of critical thinking is another example of science being perceived and presented an infallible proof of what is not true.
Tana Leigh Gabriel, Carmichael
GOP would destroy science
Ginny Fitzpatrick’s op-ed was spot on. I hope the scientific community will not be destroyed by the Republicans in Congress and in state houses across this country. Republicans are like the lobbyists for Big Tobacco who claimed that smoking was no more dangerous than eating Twinkies. Now they are lobbyists for Big Oil denying that their clients’ activities have an impact on global warming.
Sen. Ted Cruz has told NASA to focus less on the Earth and more on space exploration in the hope of turning our focus away from the elephant in the room, namely evidence of global warming. Theirs is a concerted effort to deceive the American public.
David Hass, Gold River
Climate science is opinion
Ginny Fitzpatrick laments that the public did not attain the level of lifetime training to be analytical because, for many people, evidence is something they read online or heard from a “trusted source.”
Let’s think about that. Fitzpatrick based her evidence on the 2014 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but that report was a finding, a conclusion, not a fact. Opinions, conclusions and findings can be incorrect. Facts can’t be wrong.
Harlan Schmidt, Lincoln
Politics dictate climate debate
Ginny Fitzpatrick gets the science right, but not the reasons for the strong anti-climate change sentiment in this country. Regardless of evidence, science, statistics or education, climate change belief is all about attitude and political orientation, and sadly has little to do with the simple fact that a molecule of carbon has the physical propensity to absorb heat in the atmosphere due to its stereochemistry and dipole moment.
No amount of science training, critical thinking skills or statistical analysis is going to change the attitudes of Sean Hannity and the right-wing hate-radio crowd, or any of their constituents, who resent an administration they view as socialistic.
Only a strong leader they trust, who finally adopts the obvious human-derived impact of climate change, will change attitude, not a course in statistics or critical analysis.
Kirk Pocan, Elk Grove
Global warming is guesswork
Self-acclaimed scientific expert Ginny Fitzpatrick informs us that when scientists such as herself use the word theory in describing something such as Anthropogenic Global Warming, it is intended to mean virtual certainty rather than a matter still awaiting some standard of proof.
Fitzpatrick assures us she is an expert on analyzing the many facts proving Anthropogenic Global Warming, although she fails to cite a single one in nearly a page of newsprint. We probably wouldn’t understand anyway.
Further, per Fitzpatrick, ‘highly likely’, as it pertains to AGW issues, is now a term of scientific parlance that carries the meaning of 95 percent statistical probability among those in the know.
Close enough for the Common Core folks and maybe those who would approve spending $8 million on a pile of abstract colors without investigating the complete distribution of those funds.
Roger Hewitt, Fair Oaks
Kathy Allen: People have been brainwashed by Koch Brothers via partisan politics because anything that hurts Big Oil’s profits must be an “evil liberal lie.” Every day I hear or read opinions that go against evidence because people believe what their party tells them to believe. Scientists and scientific data are discarded in favor of voodoo or astrological predictions their politician quotes for them.
Laurie Lynn: OMG, this is ridiculous. The Earth is a living, breathing entity. The climate is going to change because the Earth is alive. The government had nothing to do with it. What a bill of goods they are selling you.
Jim Freeman: A reasonable discussion on climate change could be had with the extremists on the left if they didn’t deny the socio-political and economic reality of the situation. The USA alone can not solve climate change. What we are doing now is exporting pollution. The economic damage is to the U.S.; our manufacturing industries are dwindling and taking us down as an economic superpower.
James Jewell: A good article would be to show how as a county and as citizens on our own what we can do to lighten our carbon footprint. Also we should show how our excessive rules and regulation on coal (clean coal) and other power sources have made power companies move to other countries with less regulation causing an increase in emissions. We could bring that power back here with a sensible Environmental Protection Agency and lower energy costs for the country. Also let’s realize that we may have an effect on climate change, but it is such an insignificant one and one that any change we make would have a minimal result on any change in weather patterns.
Joann Landers: Follow the money. And find Al Gore laughing all the way to the bank.
Samantha Campbell: I was told by an AWESOME environmental biology professor there nothing we can do at this point, the damage is already done. We can stop adding to it, but we can’t reverse it.
Michael Marshall: It’s the pervasive onslaught on science that should worry us. To the rest of the world, Americans seem very stupid. Look, we have a known compound that is increasing in concentrations in the atmosphere, and this compound has known properties. Just which of these points can you refute? Way too many Americans think the sun revolves around the Earth. This is the kind of knowledge that needs to be corrected before the end of second grade.
John Daniels: Man-made global warming is a fraud. The warming and cooling cycles are due to solar maximum and minimum cycles. That’s why Mars warms and cools on the same cycle as Earth. The man-made fraud is designed to start a global tax scheme.
Maggie George Walker: This is a great article...unfortunately the very first comment on your page is slamming Al Gore. In my opinion, this is part of the problem. Instead of Americans caring more about what legacy and environment we are leaving our children and grandchildren, they prefer to bash the person who blew the whistle in the first place. Partisan Politics. Such a shame.
Matthew Earl Becker: Once you’re taught to think like me, you’ll see I’m right.
Doug Herr: Sen. Jeff Inhofe’s not an idiot. He knows better than to bite the hand that feeds.
Stanton Smith: Just another angle for Democrats to extort money from producers.