To start the New Year, we have letters to the editor from Robert Goodrich and George Thompson (Herald, Jan. 3) spewing their anti-intellectual view of climate change. No possibility of correcting the craziness in 350 words or less, but I highly recommend that readers seek scientifically validated and correct information.

Goodrich wrote that global warming is not a science, and I would agree. It is a hypothesis that our planet is warming and that the root cause is our unmitigated burning of fossil fuels, adding billions of tons of carbon dioxide to our atmosphere each year. He thinks there are meteorologists who weigh in on both sides of the issue. True, and there are doctors, lawyers, tinkers and tailors on both sides of the issue. Who cares?

The important question is where do climate and atmospheric scientists – the professionals who study and understand our atmosphere – weigh in. Ninety-seven percent of climate-science papers (in refereed science journals) find that human activities are the primary contributor to global warming.

Meanwhile, Thompson states that conservatives do not deny global warming; and, in fact, they are grateful for the warming that has taken place since about 1850. He finds great benefit in the higher levels of carbon dioxide. The warming he speaks of has certainly contracted snow-covered areas, increased thawing of permafrost regions, decreased sea-ice extent and increased sea levels. It has very likely increased the frequency of hot extremes and heavy precipitation – especially at high latitudes. Likewise, it has decreased precipitation in sub-tropical regions. The warming has disrupted ecosystems and is forcing the extinction of species that cannot adapt.

This is science – but if you wish to be a skeptic, please just disregard. Thompson proceeds on a whim and needs no science to substantiate his claim that the atmosphere has no carbon-dioxide sensitivity. He clearly shows no understanding of the carbon-dioxide molecule, of how it enters, exits and accumulates in our atmosphere and of its important radiative properties. Thompson believes he speaks for most conservatives. Really?

Gary Rottman

Durango