Global warming is guesswork

RICK NEASE MCCLATCHY NEWS SERVICE FILE

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?

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