To the editor,
After reading George Gurley's column on the Sunday, July 2, opinion page, I keep returning to a basic question: What is Gurley trying to accomplish with this column? Apart from what the column's title might suggest, much of it is spent casting doubt on Al Gore's credibility, the facts, and even science itself. Gore may not be a scientist, but when a Harvard scholar studies a subject for several decades, shouldn't society grant them some level of credibility?
When Gore says there is a consensus among leading scientific experts about global warming, Gurley says, "is that the way science works - the scientists get together, vote and majority rules?" When a majority of experts in a field come to a consensus, we should use that information to base decisions and actions upon, not simply consider it an abstraction of majority rule.
Gurley tries to further his point by providing information from a group of economists stating that fighting global warming would "cost a colossal amount." I suggest Gurley take this issue up with the 43 prominent economists in California who gave a letter to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last week alleging "the most expensive thing we can do is nothing."
Gurley says, "They (people of Gore's mindset) have little faith in human ingenuity." I say human ingenuity is spurred by need, and if Gurley's goal is to eliminate, and cast doubt, on that need, I sincerely hope he fails.