BRATTLEBORO — The June 9 issue of The Commons included a commentary by Les Kozaczek expressing doubts about human-induced (anthropogenic) global warming (AGW). As a climate scientist, I took issue with his statements and tone in a commentary published on Sept. 15; Mr. Kozaczek responded in a letter published Oct. 6.
The Commons has offered me the last word. I thank The Commons for this chance to end the discussion on some level of accuracy and decorum. I agree with the paper's statement that prolonging these exchanges would not be useful. I have no further appetite for seeing my colleagues unfairly maligned and my statements distorted almost beyond recognition, and I will not dignify Mr. Kozaczek's invective with further notice.
Let me first address two points Mr. Kozaczek made on Oct. 6.
1. I take him at his word that he is not an anti-intellectual. Still, anyone so inclined can read my commentary, brand me an “intellectual,” and regard that as a pejorative. I wasn't singling out any individual and still consider my general concern to be valid. Aside from that, the first six sentences of my commentary were self-effacing irony that I'd thought would be obvious. Mr. Kozaczek either missed this, or he declined to acknowledge it.
2. I did not insinuate that he “presumably” gets his information from right-wing sources. He can presume whatever he jolly well pleases, but my words were, “talk-show hosts and advocacy groups, on whichever end of whichever political or environmental spectrum” (italics added). To restate the obvious, I assiduously refrained from speculating on the political bent of his sources.
More importantly, he then presumes – and I use the word advisedly – to inflate those points into “foundational claims” for my entire piece. That's ludicrous. My primary thrust, clearly stated, was to defend the scientific basis for the consensus view that AGW is real.
He further states that my piece “unambiguously affirms every one of” the claims in his original piece. Again, not true. In fact, unambiguously false. By “affirms,” he left unclear whether he was claiming that I agreed with him on the substance, that he felt supported in his low opinion of “warmists,” or both. He did say, however, that he was open to being corrected. Allow me to do so, at the risk of restating even more of the obvious:
• I contested his assertion that the Earth's climate “is not warming, and it hasn't been for a while.” Further, I supported my position from both a scientific and a statistical perspective.
• I pointed out that, contrary to his statements, the change in scientific consensus (not, I repeat not, “assumption”) from global cooling to global warming showed that we climate scientists do, in fact, change our minds when given sufficient evidence. Also, I summarized why carbon dioxide is widely regarded as the primary driver of this warming.
• I also pointed out that the science on AGW comes from oceans of data from thousands of independent researchers going back over a century. No individual or organization has anything like a “monopoly” on the evidence or the theoretical basis for AGW. Climate scientists spend years training to understand the intricacies of the Earth's climate. They also learn the rules by which scientific and statistical studies must be carried out. Why wouldn't I think they have the best perspective?
• Did I “arbitrarily decontextualize,” as he claimed? Judge for yourself. My original submission included five links and two terms for the reader to Google. The Commons posted most of these separately, as clearly mentioned in the sidebar to my piece. I invite the reader to decide how much context or attribution Mr. Kozaczek provided.
If by “affirms” he means that my piece makes him feel supported in his negative views of “warmists,” he will, of course, go on believing what he chooses. I did and do flatly disagree, however, that scientists who accept the consensus on AGW are closed-minded or that AGW is anything but solid science.
And just to be clear, I said absolutely nothing about the “dangers of alleged AGW,” or what, if anything, should be done about them. Anyone who feels able to divine my thoughts on those issues might be in for a surprise.
Lastly, I'd like to mention that I have a colleague at Keene State who holds doubts about AGW. We've discussed the science involved several times, perfectly pleasantly and with mutual respect.
I'm pretty sure we each came away with new information, and I think we both enjoyed the exchanges. I sincerely regret that such a measured discourse wasn't possible in The Commons. As one last exercise for the reader, I ask: Why wasn't it?