Dear Editor:
Surprisingly, the climate change debate has survived enthusiastically for months. As one of those who believe 97 percent of climate scientists, I would categorize the arguments of those discrediting the fact of the change as either absurd or sorely lacking in sufficient credible sources.
The absurd finds its best example in the suggestion in these pages that we might globally need the warming should the Yellowstone caldera explode. To clarify, verified releases by the Yellowstone volcano have buried in ash the current states of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas almost completely, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and major portions of California and Nevada. Since the contributor seemed to indicate the possibility that the 97 percent might be right, that contributor might want to rethink the value of accepting climate change in trade for the devastation caused by a Yellowstone release.
Anyone denying climate change must rely upon a diminishing number of marginal scientists or alternatively claims enunciated by fringe media, i.e. the Daily Caller or Breitbart. There remains that reliable 3 percent who for whatever reason including carbon sponsorship will argue the error of the 97 percent. Should the debate in these pages continue, I would predict all 3 percent will be cited.
Of course there is also the ability to selectively edit reports from sources normally used to support the reality of climate change. The science is settled. Those who would deny it may argue the meaning of "consensus," but that inherently betrays weakness. The recent U.N. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has issued a stinging warning and an article in the April 1 News Tribune repeatedly noted that Exxon-Mobil recognized the "reality" of climate change, though Exxon's response is how to delay any action to prevent the probable. It is done. Only the recalcitrant remain.
There is understandable desperation in attempts to resist the reality. Once we accept the conclusions of 97 percent, that acceptance will fundamentally require us to re-examine our choices, our priorities and critical industrial and transportation issues. That conversion will require us to realize that the old way of powering things is just that, the old way. Cars replaced horses and we can largely replace both coal and oil.