The story of science can have two sides

In Wednesday's edition of the Coeur d'Alene Press I read several letters written by various individuals, and the My Turn written by John Ritterbach, all in response to the weekly column written by Cliff Harris that was published on Monday. While I understand that these writers may have read other studies on CO2 and climate change and obviously are in total agreement with the conclusions presented in those studies, I found it refreshing to read Professor Ian Plimer's perspective which Cliff presented. In my life, I have found that hearing or reading both sides of an issue, and reviewing a variety of data, has helped me become more knowledgeable and informed on a topic.

Considering how old our world is, the fact that CO2 levels have only been recorded since about 1958, one has to conclude that studying CO2 and its effect, if any, on the climate is a fairly new science. Historical CO2 levels are determined by examining ice cores commonly removed from polar ice caps, also a fairly recent scientific method.

I am not a scientist, but I have lived long enough to know that there have been many scientific discoveries related to other things, such as medicine and food safety, that have been changed and reversed as time goes on, more studies have been conducted, and additional data collected. In other words, "facts" are not always "facts." Anyone who has ever conducted even the most basic type of research knows there is a hypothesis, which is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon, or in other words, an educated guess or assumption about cause and effect. The experiment then is designed to prove or disprove that hypothesis.

Many research studies have been discredited because of the methods used to collect, analyze and interpret the data. If there weren't scientists who further investigated or questioned previous research methods, data and conclusions, we would not have the knowledge we have today. Thank goodness not all scientists agree with each other and that at least one newspaper is willing to publish the politically incorrect side of this scientific and political debate. Time will tell which side is correct.

I also believe it is unreasonable to ask the Coeur d'Alene Press to discontinue Cliff's column because the person does not agree with what was printed or because they believe the "facts" are wrong. This is just a silly request and one I hope the newspaper does not even consider. As for my husband and I, Cliff's weekly column is one that we look forward to reading each week. Not only do we appreciate the local statistics and weather predictions, but also the information on nationwide records, and yes, his perspective and information on climate change. In my opinion, it is unfortunate his column is not printed in other newspapers across the country.

Climate change is just one of so many issues that people disagree about. I have no problem with people disagreeing with each other, and I believe we all have the right to our own opinions based on our "facts," experience, values and other variables but I do have an issue when people attack someone who presents an opposing view. For those who do not like what they read and are incapable of presenting their information and opinions in a respectful way, I suggest they exercise their right to not read that particular column.

Judy Wolniakowski is a Coeur d'Alene resident.