This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/opinion/answering-bret-stephens-on-climate-science.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Answering Bret Stephens on Climate Science Answering Bret Stephens on Climate Science
(about 3 hours later)
Bret Stephens’s first column in The New York Times, about climate change, drew more than 550 letters, an unusually large outpouring. Here is a sampling. Bret Stephens’s first column in The New York Times, about climate change, drew more than 600 letters, an unusually large outpouring. Here is a sampling.
To the Editor:To the Editor:
Re “Climate of Complete Certainty” (column, April 29):Re “Climate of Complete Certainty” (column, April 29):
Bret Stephens does not deny the reality of climate change, but he uses a familiar strategy from the skeptical playbook: misdirection. Rather than acknowledging the role of climate change denial, he blames scientists and their allies for alleged certitude. In fact, the scientific community has taken great pains to analyze and communicate the uncertainties related to climate change.Bret Stephens does not deny the reality of climate change, but he uses a familiar strategy from the skeptical playbook: misdirection. Rather than acknowledging the role of climate change denial, he blames scientists and their allies for alleged certitude. In fact, the scientific community has taken great pains to analyze and communicate the uncertainties related to climate change.
In 2013, my colleagues and I published an analysis of scientific predictions related to climate change. We found that scientists had generally either been correct in their predictions, within error bars, or had underestimated the rate at which climate change would unfold.In 2013, my colleagues and I published an analysis of scientific predictions related to climate change. We found that scientists had generally either been correct in their predictions, within error bars, or had underestimated the rate at which climate change would unfold.
For more than two decades, scientists have been the target of attacks designed to create public uncertainty and skepticism not just about proposed solutions, but about the science itself. Polls show that these attacks have worked: Many Americans, even those who accept the reality of climate change, believe that scientists are still uncertain.For more than two decades, scientists have been the target of attacks designed to create public uncertainty and skepticism not just about proposed solutions, but about the science itself. Polls show that these attacks have worked: Many Americans, even those who accept the reality of climate change, believe that scientists are still uncertain.
Mr. Stephens would like to have a reasoned conversation about climate change. So would I, and so would every climate scientist I know. Misdirection and offering opinion as fact do not move us in that direction.Mr. Stephens would like to have a reasoned conversation about climate change. So would I, and so would every climate scientist I know. Misdirection and offering opinion as fact do not move us in that direction.
NAOMI ORESKES, CAMBRIDGE, MASS.NAOMI ORESKES, CAMBRIDGE, MASS.
The writer is a professor of the history of science at Harvard University.The writer is a professor of the history of science at Harvard University.
To the Editor:To the Editor:
Despite his sly approach to create doubt about the seriousness of climate change, Bret Stephens acknowledges, “None of this is to deny climate change or the possible severity of its consequences.”Despite his sly approach to create doubt about the seriousness of climate change, Bret Stephens acknowledges, “None of this is to deny climate change or the possible severity of its consequences.”
We see this “possible severity” happening around us every day — from year after year of record-breaking high temperatures to droughts, floods, warming oceans, melting glaciers and more.We see this “possible severity” happening around us every day — from year after year of record-breaking high temperatures to droughts, floods, warming oceans, melting glaciers and more.
At least 97 percent of the thousands of scientists worldwide who have studied this problem for decades agree that climate change is a genuine threat to our future well-being. Predictions they have made during those decades have proved mistaken only in that climate’s impact is happening much faster than they expected.At least 97 percent of the thousands of scientists worldwide who have studied this problem for decades agree that climate change is a genuine threat to our future well-being. Predictions they have made during those decades have proved mistaken only in that climate’s impact is happening much faster than they expected.
Mr. Stephens’s assertion that just 36 percent of Americans care a “great deal” about the problem is not surprising, since its ultimate impact seems far away while we all have more immediate problems pressing us in our everyday lives. But the concern is growing steadily as more evidence piles up.Mr. Stephens’s assertion that just 36 percent of Americans care a “great deal” about the problem is not surprising, since its ultimate impact seems far away while we all have more immediate problems pressing us in our everyday lives. But the concern is growing steadily as more evidence piles up.
ARLIE SCHARDT, WASHINGTONARLIE SCHARDT, WASHINGTON
The writer is chairman of Friends of the Earth.The writer is chairman of Friends of the Earth.
To the Editor:To the Editor:
After skimming the comments section of Bret Stephens’s first New York Times column, I was disappointed to see the hysterical reaction of my fellow liberals to this measured, insightful essay and its author. It seemed as though readers could not bring themselves to carefully read and consider a column about climate change written by a conservative, and therefore could not appreciate that Mr. Stephens is neither a denier nor an advocate for inaction with respect to anthropogenic climate change. I would advise them to calm down and read it again, since Mr. Stephens made some excellent points.After skimming the comments section of Bret Stephens’s first New York Times column, I was disappointed to see the hysterical reaction of my fellow liberals to this measured, insightful essay and its author. It seemed as though readers could not bring themselves to carefully read and consider a column about climate change written by a conservative, and therefore could not appreciate that Mr. Stephens is neither a denier nor an advocate for inaction with respect to anthropogenic climate change. I would advise them to calm down and read it again, since Mr. Stephens made some excellent points.
Welcome to the neighborhood, Mr. Stephens. You may encounter hostility, but some of us are glad to see a new face with fresh opinions, however often we may disagree.Welcome to the neighborhood, Mr. Stephens. You may encounter hostility, but some of us are glad to see a new face with fresh opinions, however often we may disagree.
SUSAN COVINGTON, HOUSTONSUSAN COVINGTON, HOUSTON
To the Editor:To the Editor:
Bret Stephens presents us with a false comparison when he likens the science of climate change to predictions about Hillary Clinton’s election. Political polls are obviously unscientific and prone to error. The virtually universal conclusion of climate scientists the world over is that global warming can do great harm to our earth. The only uncertainty concerns timing and magnitude.Bret Stephens presents us with a false comparison when he likens the science of climate change to predictions about Hillary Clinton’s election. Political polls are obviously unscientific and prone to error. The virtually universal conclusion of climate scientists the world over is that global warming can do great harm to our earth. The only uncertainty concerns timing and magnitude.
If we err, it must be on the side of extreme caution. We cannot correct errors in judgment about climate with another vote.If we err, it must be on the side of extreme caution. We cannot correct errors in judgment about climate with another vote.
FRED SCHLISSEL, WOODMERE, N.Y.FRED SCHLISSEL, WOODMERE, N.Y.
To the Editor:To the Editor:
Bret Stephens is right that there is some uncertainty about how bad unchecked climate change will be. However, that uncertainty cuts both ways. Scientists have been explicit that there is a small chance that global warming and its impacts will be less severe than their best estimates. However, they also report that there is a good chance that the impacts of unbridled carbon pollution will be much, much worse than their best estimates.Bret Stephens is right that there is some uncertainty about how bad unchecked climate change will be. However, that uncertainty cuts both ways. Scientists have been explicit that there is a small chance that global warming and its impacts will be less severe than their best estimates. However, they also report that there is a good chance that the impacts of unbridled carbon pollution will be much, much worse than their best estimates.
Proper risk management calls for looking at both sides of the uncertainty equation.Proper risk management calls for looking at both sides of the uncertainty equation.
HUNTER CUTTING, SAN FRANCISCOHUNTER CUTTING, SAN FRANCISCO