Reader's view: Go with science on moose herd's decline
The Feb. 14 letter chastising the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for linking the decline of the moose population with climate change got me thinking ("Climate change only a convenient excuse"). We need to replace the silly, antiquated ...
The Feb. 14 letter chastising the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for linking the decline of the moose population with climate change got me thinking ("Climate change only a convenient excuse"). We need to replace the silly, antiquated custom of Groundhog Day with a new custom. Instead of a groundhog sticking his head out of his hole to predict whether or not we'll have six more weeks of winter, we could have a conservative stick his head out the window, and, if his nose doesn't freeze off, he can refute global warming for six more weeks. On second thought, the groundhog thing probably is more scientific.
When it comes to the moose herd decline, I'm not sure whom to believe. On the one side are the fancy, elitist scientists and biologists with their years of data and expensive equipment. On the other is a guy recalling his perceptions of last year's weather. Since the letter writer didn't mention his own undoubtedly vast credentials on the subject, I guess I'll give a slight edge to the DNR.
Of course, the majority of the world's scientists could be wrong on climate change. Science is ever evolving and what we believe to be true today may not be true decades from now. However, here's a simple question to give the issue some perspective: If the scientists are indeed wrong, we will have spent billions of dollars cleaning up the environment, reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and creating thousands of green jobs. If, on the other hand, the far right is wrong, there will be massive destruction and millions and millions of people will die. Which is preferable?
Also, has anyone else noticed it always seems to be people promoting their own political ideologies who accuse scientists of being biased?