In his June 6 column, Bob Couch presents his views in a pleasant way (“Columnists should offer a voice, not an echo”).
There are, however, problems with his positions, and I look at one now. As he had written in a previous column, Couch is displeased with what he deems to be “climate change alarmists.”
Some of us are very alarmed about climate, with what we read coming out of the scientific community, and with what is happening in the Arctic and Antarctic and other places. As I understand it, Couch has one scientist he likes, a climatologist who is denying the near consensus in the field. This scientist may have a theology that is determining his scientific assertions. Theology matters, but science has to operate independent of theology and be subject to peer review.
If a person has cancer, one response is to avoid attending to this unpleasant and upsetting development, with a view that it isn’t nice, so it can’t be real. Unfortunately, I perceive this approach is like what Couch advocates regarding climate.
Another response is to form decisions about the cancer that are based on fear rather than on a calm, deliberate appraisal of all of the relevant facts. What is wanted, I think, for cancer and for climate breakdown, is to gather information and obtain qualified advice, and then see what is to be done in a timely manner.
Climate breakdown differs from cancer in that it affects all of us, and an effective address of the problem requires support from all. There remains a question of what each of us is willing to do for the sake of a livable world. Perhaps Couch might not be willing to do much; I suggest he could, at least, admit that in his denial he is up against a scientific near-consensus.
Meanwhile, I think I will deny the Pythagorean theorem. All those sharp corners: so unpleasant. Perhaps I might find some mathematician, somewhere, to see it my way.
Mary Hall
South Hadley