Baker’s take on warming leaves reader cold

IF CHARLES Baker is really not smart enough to know that climate change is taking place and is caused by human activity, then he is not smart enough to be governor (“Baker ducks climate query,’’ Political Circuit, Metro, Feb. 7). Of course, when Baker claims, “I absolutely am not smart enough to believe I know the answer to that question,’’ another possibility presents itself: Perhaps Baker is smart enough after all, but lacks the courage to tell the truth to certain Republican activists.

)

So which is it: a candidate who is not smart enough or a candidate who is not honest enough?

Ben Lieberman

From the Boston Globe, February 14, 2010:http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2010/02/14/bakers_take_on_warming_leaves_reader_cold/

Ninety Seven: How can you disbelieve global warming

Why are so many Americans prepared to ignore climate change when some 97 percent of climatologists agree that human action is causing climate change? Would they ignore physicians, engineers, counter-terrorism authorities, or public health experts who brought similarly dire warnings of major threats?
1. If 97 oncologists gave you or a loved one a diagnosis of cancer and recommended treatment would you ignore them if you could find two or three who were not sure?

2. If 97 cardiologists said that you needed heart by-pass surgery would you ignore them if two or three were not sure?

3. If 97 food inspectors said that a batch of hamburger meat was tainted with e-coli bacteria would you go ahead and buy and eat the meat because two or three were not sure?

4. If 97 mechanics said the brakes on you car were shot would you gun it down the highway if you found a couple of mechanics who were not sure?

5. If 97 exterminators said that your house was in danger of collapsing from termites by a couple who were not sure would you just sit back and let the critters continue to munch away?

6. If 97 counter-terrorism officials said that terrorists were launching an imminent attack but two or three were not sure would you call for heightened security measures or would you just wait and hope for the best?

7. If 97 aircraft mechanics said that your plane was not safe to fly without deicing but two or three were not sure would you wait to deice again or would you just take off?

8. If 97 civil engineers said that a bridge in your town was on the verge of collapse would you drive a truck over it because two or three were not sure?

9. If 97 drinking water inspectors said that the water in your town was contaminated would you go ahead and give a glass of water to your kids because two or three were not certain?

10. So why is it then that when 97 percent of climate scientists who are actually active in research conclude that climate change is caused by human action do you only then call for doing nothing and attack the messenger of the bad news? (http://climaticidechronicles.org/2009/01/21/new-poll-shows-most-earth-scientists-agree-on-global-warming/)

Would you go ahead and eat tainted meat, drink contaminated water, drive a car with faulty brakes, ignore terror threats, drive over dangerous bridges, fly on an iced-up plane, let termites eat your house, and forgo cancer treatment and heart surgery because Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity told you not to worry?