Dear Editor,
[Re: “Questioning Accepted ‘Green’ Wisdom: Global Climate Change and Common Sense,” Messenger, Vol. 31 No. 08, April 19, 2007] David Lynch confuses the rhetoric of opportunistic politics with science. The vast resources of international research focusing upon global warming do not simply constitute data gained as he dismisses for a “consensus.” His judgment is however in line with an increasingly marginalized group at odds with a vast web of professionals who see evidence of global warming as very real. Lynch also falls into step with a fringe remnant who choose to see current data on global warming as “alarmist.”
In America (especially here in Topanga) it has been a convention (often viewed with affection), to perceive the naysayer’s opinion as somewhat heroic. In this case his opinion is stubbornly at odds with the universe of intelligence he claims we so badly need. I consider his conclusions to be not only arrogant but also dead wrong. Nonetheless Mr. Lynch is fully entitled to this necessary though dubious privilege.
Global warming is not about the cyclical consequences of our carbon inheritance from the origins of atmosphere, it is about a man-made phenomenon that is unprecedented and clearly a product of a relatively brief history defined by the impact of human culture. Global warming is transforming habitat, oceans, the atmosphere and the way we choose to exist on the limited biosphere of this planet.
The world is gathering its best minds and will continue to expend enormous resources both gathering and evaluating planetary truths that Mr. Lynch suggests do not even yet exist.
Mr. Lynch can pick his own “Golden Age,” I pick the quality and hopes for my children’s future. If Mr. Lynch is, as he claims, an “environmentalist,” he should stick to ecological romance novels with Pollyanna as his protagonist. That way I can asses his own “hype” as he calls the concerns of dedicated scientists his article characterizes as “environmental terrorists.”
—Philip Daughtry
Dear Editor,
Thank you so much for the many useful and interesting eco-themed articles in your last issue.
In response to the article by David K. Lynch (“Questioning Accepted “Green Wisdom: Global Climate Change and Common Sense”), I have to say that for someone who says he values logic and common sense, Mr. Lynch has failed to mention the glaringly obvious: even if, as he suggests, it is possible that the burning of fossil fuels is not the major cause of global warming, it is undeniably the cause of so many other huge problems—acid rain; air pollution; environmental destruction connected to mining, pumping, and transportation; and war, to name a few. Does he really think it is a good idea for us to continue fouling our planet without restraint while we wait for scientists to understand the precise mechanisms of global climate change? Should also continue to flush pharmaceuticals down the toilet and spray Round-Up and Rodeo on our weeds until all scientists agree on the precise combination of hormones, anti-depressants and pesticides that is turning fish and frogs into hermaphrodites? It may be human nature to ignore the consequences that our actions have on the world around us, but it is definitely not logical.
I encourage Mr. Lynch and everyone who is not already familiar with the “Precautionary Principle” to look it up in Wikipedia, where one can find a detailed definition. For now, I will paraphrase: If an action seems like it could cause irreversible harm, don’t do it unless and until you know that this is not the case. Instead, find an alternative that has less potential for negative effects.
How’s that for common sense?
—Ben Allanoff, Topanga resident, realtor and member of the Topanga Creek Watershed Committee
