Nearly 400 years before the birth of the Savior, Aristotle and the Greeks established the rules of debate to solve a problem or come to the truth of a matter. This discourse is called logic and is based on known facts and reasoning. These facts are used as a premise of an argument with a conclusion derived from sound judgment and good sense.
In Heinz Lycklama’a letter to the editor on Thursday, “Alarmists deny scientific fact;” a list of facts are presented as conclusive evidence even though they are merely the premise of his argument. Among other facts, he asserts that the atmosphere contains CO2 at only .04 percent of the total, implying that is a safe amount. Really? If that amount is safe, then what amount is not safe? Climatologists use the term 400 parts per million for .04 percent. Climatologists in fact would tell you that amount is unsafe and that CO2 needs to be reduced to a minimum of .03 percent. Reciting a list of facts without supporting data does not support his conclusion that climate change is not a real or significant threat.
Our friend, Heinz Lycklama, doctorate in physics, for some strange reason feels the need to repeat almost word for word the tired and worn “facts” published by the fossil fuel industry to repudiate the conclusions of climatologists from around the world. A simple Internet search reveals this. Those who quote the oil industry are almost always in their pay or oddly enough, creationists. If Dr. Lycklama is trying to pass off his doctorate in physics as his qualification as an expert in climatology then he is committing the logical fallacy of false authority; being an expert with dubious credentials.
Nelson Linnabary
Everett
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
