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

Letter: Life isn’t free; it’s time for community to teach that

Editor, Suppose your car was giving you trouble. You put it in… Continue reading

Letter: Quoting Scripture proves nothing about immigration

Editor, Re: Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions quoting the Bible to support separating… Continue reading

Letter: Clinton beach AccessMats make beach accessible for everyone

Editor, Now that the winter weather is past, Island Beach Access has… Continue reading

Letter: Trump’s immigration policy violates human rights

Editor, Trump’s new immigration policy is even worse than previously thought. Since… Continue reading

Letter: Island Transit fares should do no harm, minimize impact

Editor, Tom Walker, in a letter to the editor in the June… Continue reading

Letter: America should treat immigrants and children humanely

Editor, Trump’s immigration policy is treating it as a criminal problem in… Continue reading

Letter: Rather than berate newspaper staff, why not educate others?

Editor, In reply to Captn Blynd: I was never even aware of… Continue reading

Letter: Wrong production company cited in Record news article

Editor, I was sorry to hear of the passing of Gerry Woolery.… Continue reading

Letter: Thanking restaurant for supporting Relay for Life

Editor, I would like to send out a special thanks to the… Continue reading

Letter: Hearts and Hammers works to help build our community

Editor, Hearts and Hammers is one of a number of South Whidbey… Continue reading

Letter: There should be no fares charged to ride Island Transit buses

Editor, I do not agree that Island Transit should charge a fare.… Continue reading

Letter: There should be no bus fares

Editor, I’ve been an Island County resident for 28 years, and I… Continue reading