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: Road etiquette and safety is important and serious

Editor, I complain about this all the time and I do my… Continue reading

Letter: WIN thankful for support community has shown

Editor, Whidbey Island Nourishes, or WIN, is celebrating the generosity of local… Continue reading

Letter: ‘Whidbey Wonderful’ should be a new column

Editor, My husband Marshall and I moved to Whidbey in November 2017… Continue reading

Letter: Are billionaires offering to let you join them on Mars?

Editor, As I’ve always envisioned insects far outlasting humans and chewing on… Continue reading

Letter: This time of year can be difficult for many people

Editor, I live at Brookhaven in Langley and have written the following… Continue reading

Letter: Fact is, lifestyles of Americans cannot continue indefinitely

Editor, As the American economy continues to decay, or, rather, as conditions… Continue reading

Letter: Campaign supporters like you helped Kim Schrier to win race

Editor, Whidbey Island backers of Dr. Kim Schrier’s successful bid to represent… Continue reading

Letter: People want knowledge, facts on climate change

Editor, Whatever your opinion about climate change, the report issued last Friday… Continue reading

Letter: Grateful to person who found purse, returned it

Editor, There are angels in this world, and angel(s) found and turned… Continue reading

Most Read