It’s only their opinion

Nice hearing recently from Mr. Doyle Collins, Mr. Jim Lewis and Mr. Joseph Lombardi. Respectfully, I didn’t say there was “no consensus,” simply that consensus is not science. Consensus is basically opinions.

Some facts are not disputable: In time past, some really extreme climate changes have occurred naturally, without burning fossil fuels. Yes, some scientists agree that man may have contributed to some warming, which is realistically what the question asked. In a nutshell, the climate “experts” can’t prove their hypotheses (“educated guesses”).

To prove a hypothesis, one must make predictions based on the hypothesis, then conduct actual experiments to see whether the results support the predictions. That’s the scientific method. But they demand extreme and costly changes based on unproven hypotheses; even their computer models have been notoriously inaccurate. The Koch brothers’ reference is just a distraction.

Okay, then, let’s follow the money trail. What would happen to the flow of grant money if “climate change” were not such a profitable study? Green “solutions” like solar and wind power ( requiring massive tax subsidies) don’t provide steady power. Nighttime? No breeze? Solar and wind require backups. That’s still coal and nuclear. I would much rather my taxes went toward strengthening our power grid, which has proven over the years vulnerable to both natural and man- made disasters. Take your pick, a massive solar flare, hackers, or an enemy’s atom bomb.

Your children and grandchildren would have a sorry existence, much like the Stone Age, should the power grid go down. Think about it. LARRY ANDERSON Sherwood