Dear Editor:

The letter of the 1/15/25 issue of this paper, “Consensus is Not Science,” is a study of misdirection and straw-man argument. To suggest that consensus among climate experts is not science, it is nonsense.

But it is a valid question as to how dire the situation is and might become. Let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, the premise that climate change might not be as catastrophic as many models predict, is true.

Does that mean we should throw caution to the wind in the face of a potential threat? A wise sailor might batten down the hatches and steer clear of a storm on the horizon rather than rely on hope that that storm simply passes. Better safe than sorry.

The climate science deniers would have us gamble everything that the preponderance of verified evidence might be wrong. This is like betting the farm against gaining very little.

To look at it another way, suppose your doctor tells you that you have cancer. Prudently you would go and get a second opinion. If the two opinions concur, you would go ahead with treatment. If they do not you might poll a third doctor for their opinion to see if there is an agreement between two of the doctors.

Consensus alone is not science but being able to verify the findings of scientists is integral to the scientific process. In the face of a consensus among climate scientists, the fossil fuel industry has spent billions trying to protect their profits by casting doubt on the scientific research and turning the question from one of science to one of rhetoric and political corruption.

Are the profits of the fossil fuel industry so important that we should forego a safer and more prudent course and develop alternatives? Why should we put our eggs all in one energy basket? Why should we hitch our wagon to a single and limited non-renewable energy source? What is wrong with insisting that we be efficient in our energy usage and diverse in our energy sources?

Fred W. Nehring

Boothbay