LETTERS: OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS REFLECT DENIAL

Thank you for publishing two letters responding to my criticism of the Cal Thomas denial of global warming and his support for the business-as-usual position urged by many industries. The letters critical of me echoed commonly held views of those in denial.

Mr. Wille argued that he learned all he needs to know about global climate change when he was in the second grade, and any evidence that contradicts the dogmatic view he subsequently developed must be garbage. Of course, the climatologists who now recognize the hazards of global warming -- and provided the knowledge that he gained in the second grade -- are aware of what he learned. But Mr. Wille seems to feel that anyone educated beyond grade two who learns more about the issues, and who thus interprets the evidence differently from him, is an "educated fool."His argument that 1940s air pollution over St Louis has spontaneously dissipated supports my position rather than his. As he states, the improvement resulted from a change in human behavior from reliance on locally polluting energy production to reliance on electricity produced miles away. I grew up in London where exactly the same severe smog problem existed until the 1950s. This was relieved only when smokeless fuels were imposed upon London area residents, and they changed their behavior.

Mr. Wille seems to think that he is a conservative, and he appears to think that labelling those with differing opinions as liberals or leftists constitutes a persuasive argument. I don't think so. In fact, if Mr. Wille were to explore the origin of the political labels that he uses, he would find that, when it comes to human and environmental health issues and the argument for caution in protecting our future, it is the environmentalists and conservationists who are the real conservatives.

Mr. Rathburn presents another position shared by many of those in denial. He suggests that since he doesn't understand the issues, the evidence or the arguments, there must be no problem. We cannot, he seems to have decided, influence either the global atmosphere or global climate. Farmers who lived in Oklahoma before the dust bowl probably felt the same way. I would counter this position by pointing out that few of us understand the physics, engineering and technological principles and applications that allowed a human to step on the surface of the moon. However, we do not respond to this lack of understanding by denying that it occurred or suggesting that the evidence supporting it is fabricated. Sometimes folks who have been diagnosed with cancer and do not fully understand the nature of the disease respond to the enormity of the situation by denying it and refusing treatment. I can testify that this is not a wise approach. If you're going to beat it, you have to acknowledge it, understand it and address it. Seemingly, Mr. Rathburn would have us deny the condition and reject the treatment.

Mr. Rathburn further supports his denial with the argument that science has lost its credibility. His examples are questionable at best.

The argument that there is no food shortage, merely a food distribution problem, is little comfort to those dying of starvation. Famine occurs when regional population growth exceeds the capacity of the land to provide food and those in need lack the resources to purchase food that is expensive because it is in short supply. A dwindling food supply is very much part of the problem. We already have pressed into agricultural service most of the earth's surface that can be used to produce food. Without deforesting much of what is left (and losing the forest products), we cannot just increase farmland to feed the burgeoning human population. Population and food supply continue to be serious problems.

The energy crisis that was feared a couple of decades ago did not materialize largely because the nation undertook a series of energy-conservation efforts while industrial and commercial energy use efficiency both increased. This allowed continued economic success with equal or only slightly increased energy use. Furthermore, both the Gulf War and the perceived need to drill in our wildlife refuges show that there remains a widely held belief that energy resources are insufficient and remain a matter of concern. Few individuals wouldn't acknowledge that resources such as fossil fuels are finite, and their shortage poses a potential problem. As with global warming, denial of the evidence does nothing to assist a resolution of the potential problem.

In my letter, I did not argue that global warming is a fact. That word was imposed upon me editorially. With the range of human and environmental problems that we face, the question is never, "What are the facts?" or "What has science proven?" The question that we always must ask requires more intelligence, understanding and reflection: "Is the evidence sufficient to persuade a prudent society to change its behavior, or should we simply deny the problem and continue business as usual?" We must do something that economists, politicians and these correspondents seem unable to do successfully. We must think in terms of decades, centuries and future generations rather than just today, me, or the voters at the next election. ALAN JOURNET

Cape Girardeau