Dick Riethmiller correctly states that good science includes dissenting views (Herald, May 2).
He says that all earth scientists and chemists should have a voice on the subject of climate change. If one cares to look, they can find that such scientists have already spoken.
For example: “The Geological Society of America concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s.”
Similar statements have been made by the American Geophysical Union and the American Chemical Society.
It is true that there are natural causes of climate change, but it is the unprecedented rate of increase in temperature that is alarming. There is uncertainty regarding the level of negative impacts from climate change – rising sea levels, extreme weather events, health impacts, etc. However, there is essentially no uncertainty that there will be negative impacts.
We take out insurance on much less likely events, like our house burning down. Don’t we it owe it to those who come after us, including our children and grandchildren, to act now to preserve the health of our planet?
A good market-based approach, like carbon fee and dividend can provide motivation to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Isaac Turiel
Durango
