Thank you Mr. Wyman for bringing forward two members in your recent letter to the editor, “No, not all scientists agree on global warming,” of that minuscule 3 percent of world climate scientists who discard the scientific conclusions of 97 percent of the rest of said credible climate scientists ( https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/). My question to you would be, what is your point?
If your point is that it’s a disputed point whether climate change is man caused and a significant threat to life as we know it on this planet, I’d out to point that 3 percent of climate scientists is a pretty small gathering of smart folks, compared to 97 percent. In the true scientific spirit, one factual review (http://iopscience.iop.org/arti cle/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta) looked at over 12,000 published papers dealing with climate change to verify these percentages.
Being humans we’re never going to totally agree on anything, which is wonderful for a healthy diversity and the encouragement of dialogue. But the stakes are high for disrupting the overall life sustaining balance of our ecosystem by continually pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Sea levels could rise by 3 feet by the end of the century (IPCC) flooding out entire cities, a mass extinction of species is accelerated by disruptions to glaciers, ocean currents and jet streams.
Under these conditions, I’d opt to follow that scientific discipline which has advanced human nature so much in the last 2000 years and find some other drama to cast as a David and Goliath plot.
Fortunately, the world is responding to science. Car companies are abandoning internal combustion engines (Volvo in 2020), numerous countries have deadlines forbidding the sale petroleum cars (Britain, Norway, Holland, Sweden, France, Germany) in the coming years and all but three countries have signed onto the Paris Climate Accords.
Humans will survive if they learn to adapt and alter their lifestyle when that lifestyle threatens their very existence. We’re so fortunate to have developed the discipline and the scientific method to recognize when those times occur. I’m sticking with the 97 percent and their peer reviewed methodology — it’s the best we’ve got and lacks ulterior motive.