In regards to the Opinion Column “Finding Meaning: A Higher Source of Guidance”: I too agree that a higher source of guidance is often needed, as discussed in the recent editorial piece by Skip Hellewell. I was initially impressed at the start of his article, but then his opinion fizzled into some extraordinarily naive conclusion. The author declares “I’m not a scientist… but read what’s published” and question the validity of global warming due to human activity. After a recent review of thousands of peer-reviewed studies done on global warming, it was found there is a 99% consensus by climate scientists that global warming is due to human activity. Did the author read those papers, and if not, what did he read and by whom? Global warming is not just an “unknowable” theory, it is a scientific reality.
This scientific reality threatens all life on our planet. It is irresponsible for a columnist to be spouting unscientific conclusions in an area that is very well understood, especially since this area directly impacts us human’s ability to survive. It would be beneficial for the author to attend to areas of his expertise rather than espouse a dangerous unscientific mindset.
Lawrence Allison, Laguna Beach
