To the Editor:
In an apparent bow to political diversity on the issue of global warming, the Shelburne News Dec. 27 edition included an article by libertarian political commentator John McClaughry in order, I presume, to balance the more laudable op-eds by Sandra Levine and Noah Tamas-Parris.
It’s not as if McClaughry was adding some fresh commentary to this issue. He simply regurgitated disproved narratives like “Climate change debatable.” It may be debatable for everyday political discussions, but within the science community, after over 30 years of peer reviewed papers by climatologists and physicists, it is now settled into a verifiable science theory accepted by over 97 percent of expert scientists within the field.
That places climatologist Judith Curry, mentioned by McClaughry in his article, in a small and shrinking group of scientists. That doesn’t necessarily mean that she is wrong, but for non-scientists to agree with Curry (and a few other like-minded scientists) requires, I believe, a substantial leap of faith.
When someone discusses other accepted scientific theories like gravitation, evolution or relativity, we don’t need an alternative view. Why then does Shelburne News seemingly require that discussions of the global warming have an alternative view?