Global warming: I’m sticking with the 97 percent


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 ( 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 ( 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.



More in Letters to the Editor

Need to lobby legislators to keep net neutrality

Editor, Ready to send more money to your Internet service provider (ISP)?… Continue reading

Enjoyed Island Transit’s birthday celebration

Editor, I want to thank Island Transit for sharing its birthday celebration… Continue reading

Americans must show Trump that he’s wrong

Editor, It was Maya Angelou who once told us, “When someone shows… Continue reading

Happy to be back and serving the community

Editor, To our island community and beyond: Thank you! Thank you! Thank… Continue reading

South Whidbey does in fact have a public pool

Editor, I take exception to your claim that South Whidbey has no… Continue reading

Inclusive city decision far from transparent

Editor, Quite opposite to The South Whidbey Record’s front page headline on… Continue reading

Thanks for helping make dream come to fruition

Editor, As many of you know, I am the bassist with the… Continue reading

Great items to be found at local church bazaars

Editor, Thanks so much to the churches that donate their love and… Continue reading

Don’t eliminate parking spots for wider sidewalks

Editor, Regarding the parking in Langley, I was quite surprised to read… Continue reading

Hold contractors and home services companies accountable

Editor, This is an open letter to the many local contractors and… Continue reading

Gun reform is needed in America

Editor, Anticipating a reaction to The Record’s Nov. 8 editorial advocating a… Continue reading

Thank Puget Sound Energy workers for their efforts

Editor, How many people lost power the other day? Has anyone thanked… Continue reading