To the editor:

In his recent letter, Mr. Phil Drietz attacks the science of climate change and those who have spent lifetimes studying the world’s climate.

I, too, have spent my life working in science as a high school science teacher. I earned a bachelor’s of science degree (physics), a bachelor’s of science (mathematics), and a master’s degree in education (science education).

During my 37-year teaching career, I encouraged my students to be concerned about the environment and to be willing to make the hard choices to improve the environment to leave a better world for the future.

I know many people do not care about the future. They may see a short term personal gain from trashing the world. They may think it is the responsibility of others. They may find hard choices uncomfortable and prefer an easier path.

Whatever the reason, they tend to take the same approach: attack the messenger and deny the message. The attacks tend to be personal and the denials tend to be broad and unsupported. Mr. Drietz does both; generally vague and unsubstantiated claims or accusations.

Mr. Drietz has not, in his recent letters, said why he is opposed to the idea of global warming or how he would benefit from avoiding action to make a better, cleaner world for future generations.

And, yes, that is an ad hominem attack on my part. Mea culpa.

In the long run, knowing the reason for particular position can be useful, but it may distract from determining the validity of the position.

To judge that validity, we need to look at the data, not read the source-less opinions of persons whose credentials are unknown.

What are your credentials Mr. Drietz? What is the source of your data? How did you use that data to arrive at your conclusions? Who else, with credentials, agrees with you? What is your agenda?

Harold Shuckhart

Minneota