It’s hard to decide what to dislike the most about Gary Varvel’s piece about climate change. Is it that he admits he hasn’t taken the time to understand climate change science, but nevertheless refers to the scientists as “alarmists”? Is it that he accuses scientists of overstating the health impacts of air pollution, when in fact the reason the impacts were less is that businesses, individuals and governments acted decisively to curtail pollution? Is it that he asserts that the only solutions proposed for climate change are ones that increase the regulatory powers of the state, when in fact the solutions to climate change mostly depend on choices business, industry and communities make about our energy-dependent lifestyles and economy? Is it that he cites Rush Limbaugh as his main source on climate change? Is it that he gratuitously includes the price former President Obama paid for a vacation home? It’s hard to see how that is relevant.
I respect Varvel’s faith and his right to speak his own opinion. But it is his opinion, entirely disconnected from facts. The scientific evidence is growing stronger and more compelling each day. I recommend climate scientist and evangelical Christian Katharine Hayhoe as a better source than Limbaugh. Changes to the way of life we are used to are inevitable and will range from potentially beneficial to inconvenient to absolutely devastating. We can mitigate the worst of those changes if we transition to non-polluting renewable energy.
__________
Janet McCabe
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.