If Albert Einstein were alive today, would he be a global warming skeptic?
Re: “Would Albert Einstein be a global warming skeptic?” March 18 point-counterpoint columns.
I am dismayed that The Denver Post would devote so much space to a notorious climate-change denier, Will Happer, whose misleading claims have been widely debunked.
Happer (“YES: His long career was filled with pithy, skeptical quotes”) cherry-picks facts out of context and is flat-out wrong about the rest. He asserts without evidence that Albert Einstein would have been a climatechange skeptic. What is more disappointing is that the counterpoint article (“NO: Absorbed in his work, he would have dodged the debate, by Whitt Flora”) did not address the flaws in Happer’s argument, instead merely asserting (also without evidence) that Einstein would have been uninterested in the debate. Neither author can know what Einstein would have thought.
The Earth’s climate has certainly changed greatly over the past 4 billion years, but most of that time, it was inhospitable to human life. The historical and archaeological record shows that even small climate changes can cause devastating effects to settled people and to the ecosystem. The human species may or may not survive the dramatic climate change we are inflicting on the world, but our civilization will be profoundly changed, and not for the better.
Stan Sunderwirth, Roxborough
After years of condemning anyone denying man-made global warming, The Denver Post finally printed a reasoned opposition column.
Will Happer says Albert Einstein would not accept current claims that human events cause global warming. He exposes several examples of global warming activists making statements Einstein would not accept as factual. Happer could have presented some examples by credible sources, like the American Chemical Society, that question current beliefs. The article could have restated the fact that CO2 and all other non-water vapor sources make up less than 1/2 percent of atmospheric gas.
Good job. I hope The Post will continue print articles that question conventional beliefs.
Stephen H. Cohn, Northglenn
Of course Albert Einstein would be skeptical about climate change. Why? Because skepticism defines science. The null hypothesis is stated in the negative. Scientists use data to test their assumptions; that’s why they’re scientists. Climate scientists are no different, even if demonized by conservatives, much as evolutionary biologists are demonized by fundamentalists.
Science is not based on the rhetorical artifice demonstrated by Will Happer. That would not make Einstein happy. Scientists test their assumptions, including climate. I encourage Happer to be skeptical about all scientific theories, but his rhetoric is of little interest.
Mr. Happer, let’s see your peer-reviewed research. Then you can add to science. Who knows, you may change some minds. But if your research supports the findings of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists, roll up your sleeves and help solve the challenge.
Merrill Glustrom, Boulder
What would Albert Einstein say about this or about that? Like shadows on the wall of the cave, the answer depends on the viewer projecting his interpretation onto the image. One viewer projects his denial of climate change. Another projects his belief that the mundane fate of a warming planet can be left to lesser minds. Once again, shadows on the wall of the cave fail us. It is now time to leave the cave, observe the outcomes of our warming planet, and act rather than conjecture what someone else might have thought.
Phil Nelson, Golden