What climate change writer didn’t tell you



Dear Editor:

Mr. [Tom] Rolfes [“Time to chill out on the issue of climate change: it’s old news“, July 5] is entitled to disagree with my views on Maine energy policy. He is not entitled to distortions or selective claims about those he cites in rebuttal.

Referencing Thomas Wysmuller is like using rhetoric attributed to Satan to argue the foolishness of the Sermon on the Mount. Rolfes identifies Wysmuller as a “NASA meteorologist (retired)” without saying anything of his affiliations with the Cornwall Alliance (which claims the “unfounded or undue concerns of destructive manmade global warming, overpopulation and rampant species loss”), the Heartland Institute (“The left supports [ending fossil fuels use] because global warming is a handy justification for massive redistribution of wealth, population control and other key elements of its political agenda.”) and organized support for appointment of the thankfully departed Scott Pruitt; readers not familiar with these can check the web!

Rolfes stands on Vaclav Smil’s shoulders as if Smil were speaking to the science of climate change instead of addressing the likelihood that humanity would act in time to prevent the radical alteration of our world. Rolfes performs a disservice to Smil, cherry-picking his arguments to suit Rolfes’ own purposes, and while appearing to counter my own, actually has nothing at all to do with the degree of warrant for the conclusion that climate change is owing to the burning of fossil fuels by humankind.

Any readers concerned about their grandkids’ futures and willing to undertake two hours of thought and exposure to data and science on these matters should watch NOVA’s “Decoding the Weather Machine” (April 2018).

Hendrik Gideonse

Brooklin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.