Opinion: Emphasizing uncertainty about climate change is the new form of denialism

To the editor: Jonah Goldberg delights in the fact that his fellow conservative writer Bret Stephens has “trolled” liberals in his inaugural column at the New York Times. Stephens’ position can be summed up as such: Yes, humans are causing global temperatures to rise, but the range of estimates includes numbers that are not so bad. (“Bret Stephens just trolled the left with his supposed climate change denialism,” Opinion, May 1)

Stephens fails to mention that, besides the range of values scientists feel is most likely, the probability region opposite to the one he focuses on is one that would be absolutely catastrophic. Both Stephens and Goldberg are engaging in the same tactic: distraction from the core debate.

Instead of climate science denial, this is climate science action denial. To those of us concerned about the future habitability of the planet, this is a distinction without a difference, and there’s nothing humorous about it.

Richard Olmstead, Van Nuys

..

To the editor: Goldberg’s snarking column, comprising primarily the work of others, is more about reactionaries laughing through their noses than any substance on the issue of climate change.

Keeping with his football metaphor of liberals jumping offside over Stephens’ column in the New York Times, conservative ideologues have lost the game 97-3. The deniers occupy a corner of the world as isolated from reality as the flat-Earthers.

Michael J. McGuire, Palm Desert

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook