What motivates letter writer to dispute climate change?
My dialogue in the Daily Bee with Monte Heil commenced in 2019 when I responded to letters in which he incorrectly argued that harmful concentrations of carbon dioxide cannot accumulate in the atmosphere and anthropogenic warming (AW) is “mere speculation.” Since all of his denialist arguments have been systematically refuted, he has now digressed to quibbling about the provisional nature of science. This diversionary tactic notwithstanding, climate science provides compelling evidence that AW is real and is having widespread adverse impacts. (Search “Climate Change 2021; the Physical Science Basis - IPCC”)
Mr. Heil (5/24/2022) claims my examples of scientific findings that defy common sense are “complete nonsense” and “junk science.” I provided supporting references. Ignoring them is his prerogative, but. self-imposed ignorance does not change reality. (Search also “How Much Does Time Dilate for ISS Astronauts,” “Relativistic Length Contraction – The Physics Classroom,” and “The quantum world is mind-bogglingly weird”)
Mr. Heil's misleading portrayal of John Cook as merely a “cartoonist” exemplifies the deceptiveness of his rhetoric. In fact, as previously noted, Mr. Cook has a degree in physics and operates “the most prominent knowledge-based website dealing with climate change in the world.” (“Skeptical Science – Wikipedia”) “A half-truth is the most cowardly of lies.” - Mark Twain.
Mr. Heil contends I am politically motivated. (Pot, meet kettle!) Unless corrective measures are taken, AW will eventually adversely affect everyone regardless of their political ideology. What motivates (qualifies) Mr. Heil to dispute the consensus of 97+% of the world's climate scientists?