To the Editor:
Re “Researcher on Climate Is Cleared in Inquiry” (news article, Feb. 4):
As the cloud of confusion and speculation sparked by the stolen university e-mail messages begins to clear, it is time to return our attention to the unequivocal scientific evidence of our changing climate.
The world is warming. While the East Coast has suffered some uncomfortably cold and snowy winter weather, Seattle experienced the warmest January ever. Globally, this first decade of the 21st century was the hottest ever recorded.
Furthermore, scientific evidence points with ever-increasing certainty to fossil fuels and forest destruction as the primary causes of this warming. This is based on the sum total of scientific evidence drawn from all available sources around the world—not from just one university.
In addition, the Nature Conservancy and other science-based organizations are witnessing firsthand the impacts of climate change across the world. Coastal erosion is accelerating along the Eastern and Gulf coasts as sea level rises. Receding sea ice and melting permafrost in the Arctic is threatening both wildlife and the communities that live there. Warmer winters and drier summers are contributing to bark beetle infestations and increased fire threats across the American West.
The risk is too great to be distracted by unscientific accusation and speculation. It is time now to pay attention to the facts and to the science so that we can take the actions needed to keep our communities and natural resources strong and productive in the face of our changing climate.
Jonathan Hoekstra
Seattle, Feb. 4, 2010
The writer is managing director of the Climate Change Program at the Nature Conservancy.
Note from KBJ: Three things. (1) Science can tell us what is happening. It has nothing to say about what we should do about it, if anything. (2) All change has both good and bad effects. There is no indication in this letter that climate change has any good effects, such as the prevention of death by freezing. How can we decide what to do if we don't have the complete picture of costs and benefits? (3) Why did the letter writer refer to "stolen" e-mail messages? Is he implying that because they were stolen, they are illegitimate? Is he trying to shift the focus from the dishonest scientists to those who exposed the dishonest scientists? And why is there no mention of the dishonest scientists?
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 