You don't have to be an expert to know the facts

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?

JACK DeBAUN

Sandpoint