Climate change isn’t settled scientifically
Climate change is in the news again as settled science. Not only isn’t it settled, it isn’t even science. There is a model, called the scientific method, which is the sole basis for arriving at valid scientific conclusions. It requires that a question be researched, resulting in a hypothesis that is then tested, and a conclusion is drawn based on data. The idea can then be published. If challenges surface, they must be tested against the data and the conclusion.
However, warming theory advocates refuse to accept challenges for testing, mocking challengers as flat-earthers and defending their conclusions with claims of scientific consensus. If the “science” of today’s global-warming vote counters was used successfully in Galileo’s day, we would still think the universe revolves around the earth.
DENNIS E. McGOWAN, SNELLVILLE
What will you do to prevent warming?
I appreciate your coverage of the Climate March in New York on Sunday (“Thousands rally over climate change,” News, Sept. 22). It’s certainly not every day we get 300,000 people marching anywhere for any issue. I wish you had included more of the effects of global warming in your story, the effects that moved 300,000 people to march, and another 300,000 around the world. The increased floods, new insects and diseases that will have a home in Georgia, and the threats to our national security, will affect us all in the future. At that time, when your children ask what you did to help prevent global warming, what will you say?
HENRY SLACK, DECATUR
Politics are holding up carbon pricing
Thank you for report on the growing demand for putting a price on carbon pollution (“Businesses and investors pressing for green policy,” News, Sept. 23). But it is misleading to say it has been difficult for leaders to agree on such a policy because “energy is so important to economic growth.” What you should have said is that economists once understood that pricing carbon pollution would hurt economic growth, but now understand the opposite is true.
Given the remarkable cost declines for renewable energy and energy-efficiency options, putting a price on carbon pollution will increase economic growth, create jobs and save lives. Buying “insurance” against the threat of human-caused climate change will have net negative cost to the economy. The real reason global leaders are having trouble agreeing to price pollution is the influence of fossil-fuel interests and certain radio talk show hosts and their minions.
BRAD ROUSE, HIAWASSEE
Blame lame ducks for nation’s malaise
In response to “Republican stands hard to support” (Readers Write, Sept. 23), it seems the writer has forgotten or does not know enough about government to know the United States has two houses of government in Congress. One house is controlled by Democrats, the other, by Republicans. To simply place the blame on the Republicans is totally inconceivable. If you want to place blame, place it on both parties. They seem to not agree on anything.
We are supposed to have a president who will lead Congress in making decisions, but Obama would rather play golf and take vacations. If we have such a weak leader, how can Congress get anything done? You can vote any way you want to. That’s your right. Don’t place the blame just on the Republicans. The Democrats are just as guilty. Lame duck president, lame duck Congress.
STEVE MALOY, COVINGTON
