On rational debates

On a recent day, your editorial and Voices pages contained two more global-warming pieces. To sum them up: It’s real; it’s bad; it must be fixed. Piers Sellers says “we are confident” about temperature increases being caused by carbon from fossil fuels. Shelley Buonaiuto is pushing for a carbon fee that would be “revenue-neutral,” as the “fees collected can be used to lower other taxes.”

As a thinking conservative skeptical of the entire climate-change industry, I have been called stupid, uncaring, a “flat-earther” and worse by global-warming advocates. As a non-scientist, of course, I could be wrong in my cynicism. But the tipoff for me is this: When an issue seems to be championed almost exclusively by the left, when they resort to calling doubters names, when they won’t tell you exactly what their plans would mean in dollars and lifestyle changes, I say leave me out.

If these zealots really, really believe that carbon emissions are a threat, they should immediately stop driving, heating their homes with fossil fuels, flying in airplanes, using air conditioning, and get off the backs of the rest of the country. Like most citizens, I do as much as I can to save on emissions. Most of us drive smaller, more fuel-efficient cars, try to keep the thermostat in our homes down as much as we can tolerate, recycle as much as we can, and don’t litter.

And, please, stop saying the science is settled. That cuts off intelligent debate. Instead of just telling us what you think is happening, try to show us some proof. Lastly, engage the equally qualified climate experts that do not share your prognoses. Let’s have a rational debate on this and be totally honest on what it would cost us in dollars and quality of life.