LETTERS: USE BEST ADVICE ON GLOBAL WARMING

To the editor:

We would all like to live in a world in which their are no problems, and everything goes as we wish. Unfortunately this rarely happens. Too often we, or someone we love, undergoes a medical exam to explore some minor symptoms only to be told by the physician that a life- threatening condition is suspected. At such a time, we could take a number of approaches. One response might be to say we feel great, blame the symptoms on overwork and deny the possibility that a serious condition could exist. We might also respond to the physician, "I just don't believe you, you've been wrong before." We could also respond by seeking a second opinion, several opinions or even, say, a hundred. And if, after this search, we found that 90 percent of the experts examined the evidence and concurred with the diagnosis, we'd probably decide there is good reason to act, even though doing so might be uncomfortable, uncertain or costly. If we were to listen carefully, we'd probably hear the cautious medical advice focusing not on "facts," but on what the available evidence suggests.

Another approach could be to seek an opinion from a retired physician who makes a little money on the side by telling folks what they want to hear, by telling them they're really OK and not to worry. However, this is probably not an approach that most folks would take. Even if our senses told us we didn't feel too ill, we'd probably rely on the advice that 90 percent of the physicians gave us. It is unlikely, also, that we would accuse the physicians of being "radical healthists" with a political agenda demanding that we should think we are ill when we are not.

Depressingly, the last approach seems to be the response that Leonard Wille (letter to the editor Nov. 25) is taking to the majority of the experts who advise us how the evidence suggests global warming is a serious enough probability that we should act to reduce whatever contribution human activity is making to aggravate the problem. Rather than responding with regret that maybe we should act, Mr. Willes response is based on the argument that a human contribution to global warming defies common sense. It seems that we could paraphrase the argument simply in three statements: "I know what I think. I am right. That is all I need to know."The response that Mr. Wille develops is based on his erroneous belief in "scientific facts." Science, however, is like medicine: We do not speak in terms of facts, only in terms of what the evidence suggests. A simple historic example will illustrate why relying on common sense and so-called facts can be a problem. For centuries humans were convinced that the sun rotated around Earth. Every day they tested it. They saw it rise in the east, pass overhead and descend in the west. The evidence and all their common sense combined with their religious teachings to support this worldview. If asked, they would have probably defended it as certain a proven fact as anything they knew. But, we all now know that they were wrong, though we still use the language passed down through the ages when we talk of sunrise and sunset. Was it a "false fact," or was it never a fact in the first place? The answer to the question is not important, but this history illustrates why we should only speak in terms of what the evidence suggests. The incontrovertible, immutable facts that Mr. Wille seems to want are few and far between, if they exist at all. Mr. Aldrich (letter to the editor Nov. 27) continues this misunderstanding of science when he disagrees that "science can prove nothing." Unfortunately for him, and maybe for all of us, this remains the case. The results of scientific studies are data. These data constitute evidence, which must then be interpreted in relation to some hypothesis they were collected to test. It is by humans that they are interpreted. Mr. Aldrich might call the act of interpreting data moralizing if he wishes, but it is no more than what his physician does after a medical exam, or what he does after reading the speedometer in his motor vehicle. The data must be interpreted and their implications inferred by the human analyzer. Mr. Aldrich might read the word "fact" when I write the word "evidence," or "interpretation," but maybe I select my words a little more carefully than he reads them.

We can debate eternally the incidents in the past when someone has been wrong. Of course, we can all be wrong. Scientists are no exception. The examples that have been selected so far to demonstrate lack of scientific credibility, however, simply do not do it. It was certainly not the scientists, inventors, discoverers and explorers who were wrong about human flight. It was common sense that limited human vision and the scientists who rose above it. Basically, I would ask: Who is it that challenged common sense and revealed that things beyond our imagination were possible? Was it the Mr. Willes of this world, or the scientists, inventors, discoverers and explorers? With global warming, it is possible that 90 percent of the experts are wrong and the minority is right. However, suppose that the 90 percent are correct, and we can change our behavior to divert future destruction, but we choose instead to deny the evidence and do nothing because it would be inconvenient and costly. And suppose that our planet warms up and prevents future generations from enjoying life as we know it. What, then, are we to tell our grandchildren by way of apology for our inaction in the face of the evidence available to us? When we make decisions to act or not to act upon the evidence and its interpretations, each of us is making a moral decision, whether Mr. Aldrich likes it or not. Regardless of our political leaning, it seems to me that the choice of rejection, refusal and denial is unconscionable when the evidence is so abundant, and there are clearly things we can do that might offset the problem. This should not be a political issue of right versus left. Finally, I note that it is small wonder folks in Southeast Missouri are ill-informed on global warming issues since the Southeast Missourian has chosen to publicize primarily the 10 percent minority view and fails to offer a balance. If an informed debate were sought by the newspaper, it would offer its readers features outlining the evidence and the suspected consequences of global warming. If the editorial board would like to offer this balance, there are many sources that could provide articles outlining the extensive evidence which has persuaded the scientific community to be concerned about this issue. There are also many discussions of what the consequence might be should global warming continue.

ALAN JOURNET

Cape Girardeau