Usually I view this type of commentary as one person expressing an opinion that the person has every legal right to do, wrong though I may think the conclusion. But Al Fonzi's June 8 opinion piece ("Hypocrisy and climate hysteria") has gone beyond the pale.
First off, the author paints all of those who believe in climate change as "acting with the zealotry of new converts in the climate-change religion, which tolerates no dissent." Since the author is referring, ultimately, to many scientifically proven laws, it boggles the mind that he believes there needs to be dissent. I'll use the law of gravity as an example. Now, I may believe sincerely that this law in inaccurate, and in dissent, instead of placing a drinking glass on the shelf, I place it 18 inches above the sink in mid air, believing that to adhere to a law I don't believe in is somehow infringing on my freedoms as a non-law of gravity believer. Oops! Experience may lead me to understand that the law of gravity is real. And to be careful when I clean the broken glass out of my sink.
Then, the author goes on to say that we do not need to believe in climate change because some of the most vocal supporters are wealthy, fly around to conferences in jet airplanes, and lecture us socially lower mortals on the dangers of climate change. All of which may be true, but what does it have to do with the science of climate change? He mentions that President Donald Trump flies around as well, but doesn't lecture us so that is OK. Is the lesson here that it is OK to recognize the validity of climate change, so long as one drives to conferences, and then assumes a groveling method of presentation? The author does not address the content of what these proponents are saying, only their method of travel and presentation, which have nothing to do with the science of climate change.
The author brings up the outrage over Trump's taking the United States out of the Paris climate accord. Trump represents the United States, and by removing us from the accords, he signals to rest of the world that the United States is anti-knowledge, doesn't believe in the laws of science, and presents the United States as a know-nothing country. Fortunately, there has been enough of an uproar within the United States by cities, counties, and states that our reputation of excellence has only been tarnished, not obliterated.
Mixed into the middle of this jumble are some cherry-picked so-called facts supposedly to prove that facts do not exist to support climate change. But here is where the author goes really off point. There are considerable immutable scientific laws upon which the theory of climate change is based. These laws have withstood the tests of experience and data acquisition over time, much as the law of gravity. As with my glass, it is possible to assert that one does not want to believe in these laws, to dissent, but also, as with my glass, we must be prepared to take responsibility for the havoc wreaked.
Shirley Bianchi - Cambria