Reader notes reporter criticized climate report before reading it
To the Editor:
In Friday’s KDH, page C8, there is an article titled: “Trump administration to release climate report” by Frank Kummer of the Philadelphia Enquirer. Right out of the gate, Mr. Kummer is unhappy about the timing of the report’s release: “The Trump administration will release a major report on climate change Friday afternoon, the day after Thanksgiving and one of the worst days of the year for reaching a news audience.” For the next eight or nine paragraphs he cites all misgivings about the forthcoming report.
Keep in mind that he has not laid eyes on it yet. It must be patently bad because it is being released by the dreaded troglodytes of the Trump administration.
I think he is unfair with his premature conclusions.
Indeed, today climate change is an inexact science that breeds believers and non-believers based on premature conclusions.
If it was an exact science like math or physics, there would be no such disagreement by informed people.
As for me, I am not sure.
Geological studies and research have proven that our Great Lakes were carved out by glaciers and filled with water from melting ice reportedly 14,000 years ago.
Since then, the earth has warmed to the point that the Great Lakes are now filled with sea life and aquatic plants. Considering the time man has inhabited our planet, it is only the blink of an eye in the life of the earth.
If you consider modern industrial man’s emissions, it is even less than a blink. Anyone who tells me they can determine the impact of man upon our climate with so little chronological data must be clairvoyant.
If you have ever inhaled cigarette smoke, in the first three seconds, your lungs will revolt and tell you unequivocally that cigarette smoke is not good for you.
It is intuitive that you should not pollute your lungs if you wish to survive. Along those same lines, intuition should also tell us that it is not a good idea to pollute our planet if we want to continue to survive as a human race.
I believe this is a more convincing argument to take better care of our planet than citing short-term, insufficient data as the major cause of climate change.
This is especially true if your premature conclusion of climate change is linked to political gain or power, as Mr. Kummer’s seems to be.
George Van Riper