Debate should be about what to do

Published 12:01 am Monday, November 16, 2009

Regarding the Friday letter “Alarmists don’t have all the facts”:

It is really a shame that individuals such as the writer choose to politicize or debunk global warming without citing any concrete references: scientific or otherwise.

If science is not of interest, it might prove very educational if the writer took a brief drive into the North Cascades, or around Mount Rainier, and noted how many glaciers have retreated and/or disappeared over the past 45 years (the time I have spend hiking and climbing in this range).

He may want to spend some time SCUBA diving in Puget Sound and note that the water temperature has slowly risen to a point where species like the Humboldt Squid, once rare visitors, are now permanent residents.

He may want to fly over the North Pole, as my flight two weeks ago from Dubai to San Francisco did, and see the polar ice cap ruptured by polinyas and fissures of open water several hundred yards wide in November.

This isn’t a Republican vs. Democrat issue, a talk show vs. science debate, or an alarmist vs. head-in-the-sand discussion. It is a reality, and painfully easy to see if you choose to spend time either in, or observing, our natural world. The debate should be over what steps should we take, and at what cost, to address the issue: not whether or not the world is warming up.

Dan Clements
Everett