Jeremy Conlin (Daily Bee, Sept. 22, 2019) accuses me of portraying myself as an authority on climate change. He gives the impression that I wrote the critique of C.R. Scotese that appeared in my letter of Dec. 30, 2018. In fact, it was a science journalist’s summary of a NASA climate scientist’s comments regarding the obsolescence of Scotese’s work. The comments were in quotation marks and referenced. Did Mr. Conlin really miss that attribution?
I do not claim to be an expert on climatology. I am also not a expert on geophysics. But if someone claims the Earth is hollow (see: “The Hollow Earth Theory-Geophysical Institute”), I know where to find information showing they are wrong. People do not need to be experts themselves to justifiably endorse a well-substantiated consensus of recognized experts. If a person is so inclined, they can easily access the wealth of factual information supporting the consensus on anthropogenic global warming. One can also uncover a slew of misleading information that confuses the issue. Relying on what a large majority of qualified experts have to say about a scientific topic like AGW is the most reasonable way for the layman to separate fact from fiction.
Mr. Conlin continues to peddle discredited anti-warming talking points that contradict the firmly-established scientific consensus. Is he somehow better qualified to evaluate the evidence than 95+% of the world’s practicing climate scientists? If so, would he please elaborate on what those qualifications are. Or is he just playing the role of a devil’s advocate?