Personal biases may prevent acknowledgment of the facts

Monte Heil (Daily Bee, Nov. 7, 2019) contends that a scientific consensus about climate change “is not proof that an argument is sound.” In fact, more than 95% of the thousands of practicing climate scientists and every reputable scientific organization worldwide concur that human-caused climate change is a reality. The consensus is based on an abundance of confirmatory evidence. (See “Climate change: evidence and causes | Royal Society”) Experience has shown that, in the modern practice of science, such an overwhelming agreement among experts consistently provides the most reliable and time-tested explanations. If not the scientific consensus, who/what does Mr. Heil rely on to provide him with a “sound” argument about climate change? Mouthpieces bankrolled by the fossil-fuel industry?

As Mr. Heil notes, alchemy has been debunked. That’s because, unlike current climate science, it was based on guesswork and wishful thinking, not firmly established scientific principles.

Mr. Heil argues that, just because religious beliefs may “influence” a person’s thinking, they do not have any “effect whatsoever on the veracity of their statements.” That depends. Roy Spencer, an outspoken opponent of human-caused climate change, is no doubt capable of giving unbiased accurate statements about most things. However, when his religiously-motivated belief that humans cannot seriously disrupt the climate is challenged, he ignores the preponderance of conflicting evidence and adopts a contrarian position that clearly calls his veracity into question. The facts remain the same. But personal biases, religious and otherwise, often prevent a person from properly assessing and acknowledging the reality of those facts.

JACK DeBAUN

Sandpoint