To the editor:

In his Dec. 17 letter, Mr. Drietz raises two points about the science of climate change.

First, he says that he has not seen “solid” evidence. I suggest that he read the references I cited in my previous letter. To summarize these citations: “97% of climate scientists agree that the climate is warming due to human activity.” Because many scientists are cautious when expressing their opinion, Mr. Drietz doubts their opinion. It is not a weakness of the science, but, rather, a weakness in the understanding of the reader.

Second, Mr. Drietz makes an ad hominum attack on science when he calls climate change “fake news.”

The phrase “fake news” is most often used to mean “news that I don’t like” or “news that disagrees with my personal beliefs.” Just because Mr. Drietz does not like a fact does not make that fact false.

The test of truth in science is “can we verify a prediction based on the observed data?” The beliefs of scientists or lay people count for nothing in assessing truth in science.

Around 1590, Gallileo predicted that a heavy object will take the same time to fall as a lighter object. You can replicate his experiment by dropping a quarter (heavy) and a dime (lighter) at the same time. You will hear a single “click” when they impact the floor at the same time.

Rather than telling us about problems with the research, Mr.Drietz takes the easier path of name calling. He then commits another ad hominum attack when he claims, without proof, that scientists are lying for money.

Mr. Drietz must detail specific errors in the data, flaws in the research methods, or scientists caught in some false statement. Otherwise, his comments are irrelevant and we should ignore them.

Harold Shuckhart

Minneota