The Free Press, Mankato, MN

June 20, 2014

Climate skeptics don't deny science

Challenges to climate "deniers" are misplaced

By Bob Jentges
The Mankato Free Press

---- — The May 21 Free Press editorial, “Climate deniers deflect debate,” suggested the more time we spend denying science with beliefs means less time finding solutions. Comparing the number of news articles published in The Free Press about alarmist positions (including the administration’s war on carbon) with those of skeptics one could question who is doing the deflecting and from what?

There is well documented empirical evidence climate changes in cycles over time. Few if any deny that is settled science. Without getting deep into the statistical weeds, global temperature charts indicate a temperature plateau of almost 18 years with slight cooling since 2005, according to

Because the issue with almost all skeptics is whether the cause of the cycles are natural or anthropogenic, I think it noteworthy that during the approximate same time frame carbon dioxide emissions increased significantly, relatively speaking, according to a report by the EPA found at

So based on those two simple scientific facts alone and with all due respect, I take issue with the editorial position that “Denial has no scientific basis...”. Climate science should involve a continuing search for truth by observing natural phenomena i.e. empirical evidence, formulating a hypothesis based on that evidence and modifying that hypothesis as additional empirical evidence develops.

Climate science should not involve introducing a theory based on a predetermined political goal, crafting experiments designed to prove the theory is valid, hide data that does not fit the template, pillory those with legitimate disagreements, and try to sell the theory as settled science.

Then when it seems evident their predictions for global catastrophe will not come to pass within the projected time deadline, alarmists seem to simply reload with a new label i.e. from global warming to climate change to climate disruption, claim urgency (again) and extend the time deadline.

With respect to beliefs, I suggest maybe alarmists beliefs about the controversy are predicated around their desire to raise taxes, increase government regulations, impede capitalism and reduce national sovereignty.

Maybe skeptics beliefs center around an aversion toward the federal government moving on those issues until climate science is more settled than it is now. In the meantime entrepreneurs can explore potential solutions to energy issues if the reward is worth the risk.

Bob Jentges is a retired teacher and insurance claims superintendent who lives in North Mankato.