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

Thank you for urging responsible climate change action

Editor, Thank you for your editorial urging responsible action in confronting climate… Continue reading

Irony in Navy, civillian responses to security

Editor, Naval Air Station Whidbey Island just concluded a two-week drill which… Continue reading

Roundabout isn’t safe solution to traffic

Editor, The Washington State Department of Transportation has not put traffic counters… Continue reading

Concerned with safety of island and country

Editor, I was concerned about the Feb. 7 article “Law will allow… Continue reading

Clarifying a few seed-related facts in article

Editor, Thanks so much to The Record for helping spread the word… Continue reading

Good job county for implementing ban

Editor, I want to take a moment to express my appreciation to… Continue reading

Trump’s parade proposal is missing its mark

Editor, When I heard about Trump’s parade proposal, I was reminded of… Continue reading

Navy shouldn’t take public space for training

Editor, We are very alarmed by the potential impact of two bills… Continue reading

Thankful for Burnett’s commitment to H&H

Editor, On behalf of the South Whidbey Hearts and Hammers board, this… Continue reading

Most Read