LETTERS: GLOBAL-WARMING FACTS ARE IGNORED

To the editor:

It has often been noted that the self-styled Christian Right frequently is neither.

In his Oct. 26 column denying global warming and arguing against the need to control greenhouse gases produced by human activity, Cal Thomas exhibits exactly the problem of dogmatic denial demonstrated by so many rightist commentators who desperately want to force a contrary world into conformity with their fantasy. When the evidence argues strongly against his position, Thomas simply denies the evidence. Then, he continues as his predecessors did several centuries ago. Thomas lumps together all those who are, quite reasonably, concerned by the evidence regarding global warming, and he brands them as political, social or moral heretics. The Christian Right label for heretics in the 1997 U.S. is "leftist."In his discovery that the scientific process has not proven a connection between greenhouse gases and global warming, Thomas has discovered nothing. As any thoughtful scientist will readily acknowledge, the process of science can prove nothing. The best that the scientific community can offer is a judgment based on the evidence. In this case, the wealth of the evidence supports the hypothesis that the human production of greenhouse gases is contributing to an increase in the global temperature, and that this is not likely at some nebulous unspecified time in the future, but is happening right now.

In the case of global warming, the consequences would probably be truly devastating not ony for the spread of human dsease, but also for the sustained production of those food and fiber resources upon which we rely for our health and wealth. The question we should ask is not the trivial and mindless "has science proven the connection?" but the more thoughtful "given the devastation that global warming might impose, is the evidence strong enough that we would be wise to take whatever action we can now to divert the hazard while we still might be able to remedy the problem, or, as we await yet more evidence, should we postpone action until it may be too late?"Because of his dogma, Thomas denies the evidence and argues inaction. We would all like to agree that the evidence argues for his conclusion. However, given an understanding of the potential consequences of global warming for life on the planet and the natural resources upon which humans rely, and an awareness of the available evidence, few rational humans would agree with Thomas. This discussion should not be defined as a conflict between right and left; such defining aids understanding of the arguments not one whit. Attempts to define the issue in such simple and mindless terms serve nothing but the irrelevant egos of the perpetrating commentators. The issue demands thoughtful analysis of the evidence, and reflective decisions about what constitutes prudent behavior. In considering these issues, we should recognize the value of conservation and the value of protecting the planet for future generations.

It is not prudent, and I would question whether it is either right or represents the best side of Christian morality, to bury our heads in the sand, as Cal Thomas argues we should. It seems that Mr. Thomas will need a dozer to run over him before he will sense any danger in our current behavior. ALAN JOURNETDepartment of BiologySoutheast Missouri State University

Cape Girardeau