LTE in Daily Herald Today Needs a responsed
The reason to respond isn't to change the author's mind. Rather, it's to reduce any effect it might have on regular readers of the Opinion page who might be wavering or undecided. The author tries to wrap his views in the mantle of science, but uses it to spout the "natural change" notion that science has solidly disproven. If anybody wants to respond, it's important to do it not in a confrontative way, but to present a bigger picture than the limited one presented. Yes, science asks questions, and the questions posed by the author have in fact been investigated by climate scientists. They have used strong scientific research to answer those questions, etc.
The metaphor of the goalposts is misleading, of course. The goalposts are not being moved. Rather, time is of the essence and for 30 years, humanity has largely failed to reduce its emissions. With every passing year, the need to reduce emissions becomes more urgent. I can't think of a perfect metaphor at the moment, but a better one is a car speeding toward a wall. The closer it is to the wall, the harder we have to step on the brakes to minimize the damage when we hit it. And we are already seeing the damages of climate change.
I don't have time right now to respond. If anybody else would like to try, please Reply and let us know you're working on it.
Here's the text for those who don't subscribe:
Separating science from propaganda on climate
Science loves to search for answers to questions. Propaganda hates questions.
A lot of people have lots of questions about trying to control the climate. I wonder how we can control climate when the sun’s variability changes temperatures all over the earth as well as the variability in the earth’s orbit. I am consistently amazed at the audacity people have thinking that we mere humans can control climate.
I just read an article entitled “Cross-Examining the Climate Change Cultists” by Kurt Schlicter. He had some interesting questions in his piece:
“… what, precisely, is the climate we need to maintain? What is the “correct” temperature? Is the goal to stop all climate change? Do we need to counteract natural climate change? You do agree that climate does change naturally, right? All those Americans with those SUVs and BBQs were thousands of years from coming into being when the ice age happened, so what caused that? And what caused the subsequent global warming after it? Are those same phenomena absent today? If not, how much are they causing now?”
“… How about the constantly retreating goalposts? What is the current climate apocalypse deadline? Didn’t Al Gore tell us in the 2000s that we would be suffering a climate catastrophe right now in 2022? Florida is still above water, right? So, the scientists Al listened to were wrong, weren’t they? So, Dr. Warmingnut, you concede that scientists have to be wrong about climate? The ones in the seventies projecting another ice age in a decade were wrong, correct? So why are the scientists today right?”
If we are not allowed to ask questions and demand answers, then is “climate change” just propaganda?
John Zitkus
Mundelein
@Scott Buckley I've written a quick and short reply that doesn't name the offending author. Recognizing the need to be quick, I'm going to send it in right away. I encourage others to write as well if they have time. My response follows:
Climate change science is settled
I have a simple suggestion for anyone wondering about how “natural” the extreme droughts, floods, fires and temperatures the entire planet is experiencing are. Please read NASA’s discussion of how earth’s planet has changed throughout history at https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/. You will find that the current warming is happening at an unprecedented pace and that it is unequivocally due to human use of fossil fuels. Yes, there are natural cycles which cause ice ages and warmer periods, but these are very slow changes known as Milankovitch Cycles caused by slight variations in how much sun reaches the earth over thousands of years. Current changes in earth’s temperature are happening way faster than these cycles could possibly cause.
Don’t be misled by “changing climate goalposts” or questions such as “what is the correct temperature”. The answer is simple: the correct temperature is the lowest one that we can achieve by gradually weaning civilization off of fossil fuels. Failure to act will cost far more than actions to rein in greenhouse gas generation. Evidence of climate change and its costs are everywhere you look. Don’t close your eyes.
Thanks Tom. I think your approach makes sense.
I've been writing one in my head today in which I planned to refer to the author's LTE by name, agree that the questions are important, and so are the answers that scientists have given, etc.
But your hesitance to draw attention to the author's LTE is probably best. No sense drawing more attention to it, or risk inflaming him, or giving him the satisfaction of provoking a detailed counter-response.
Search Forums
Forum help
Select a question below
CCL Community Guidelines
- Discuss, ask and share
- Be respectful
- Respect confidentiality
- Protect privacy
CCL Blog Policy Area Categories
- Price on Carbon
- CBAM
- Clean Energy Permitting Reform
- Healthy Forests
- Building Electrification and Efficiency

