I don’t know how many times Jack Wagner and others have written letters to the editor or how many editorial columns The Daily Item has published or how many times we have been lectured by Al Gore or Barack Obama or some other progressive politician about what we have to do right now about climate change but it’s been too many.
These climate change “junkies” have nobody but themselves to blame for the fact that there are skeptics or “deniers” (usually described by some derogatory adjective). We all know that less than 40 years ago climatologists were telling us that we had to prepare for a new Ice Age. We all know that less than 20 years ago we were told that by now substantial parts of New York City would be under water because of global warming if we didn’t do something, predictions that haven’t materialized.
We all know that the rich progressives like the Kennedys fight against the installation of wind farms that would spoil the view from their multi-million dollar mansions. We all know that the president contributes to the problem by flying hither and yon to go on vacation or to make what amounts to campaign speeches. We all know that people below the upper-middle class cannot afford electric cars, the installation of solar panels or most of the other things that they “have to” do. I guess all the poor folk are expected to stop heating their homes in winter and let their vehicles turn to rust while they trudge 5 to 10 miles to whatever store they need to go to. And we all know that whatever we do here in the United States will make little difference as long as emerging nations like China, India and others continue to spew pollutants into the air.
Every junkie from the President on down tells us that the climate change argument is “settled science,” a statement that is both arrogant and ignorant. It is arrogant because it suggests that we have learned so much about climate in less than 40 years that we now know everything we need to know. It is ignorant because there is no such thing as settled science. If there were, Einstein would not have given us relativity. Heisenberg, Bohr, von Neumann and others would not have developed quantum mechanics. Lemaitre would not have conceived the Big Bang Theory. Science is a constant, ongoing search that is never settled.
I agree that we ought to develop affordable alternate energy sources, but until we do the junkies need to stop pretending they know everything and stop trying to scare us by making outrageous predictions that don’t come true.
Carl R. Catherman, Mifflinburg