Scientific conclusions based on info from others, not common sense
This letter is in response to Eddie Konczal's letter to the editor titled "Global Climate Change Is Scientific Fact, Not Just Theory," which appeared in the Aug. 23 issue of your newspaper.

I'd like to point out that when people like Mr. Konczal state that "global warming is no longer just a theory but a tragic fact," with all due respect to their intelligence and genuine concern about the environment, it must be taken more as "I've heard many scientists claim this, and I believe them." I'm a moderately intelligent citizen, concerned as well, but I know that the level of expertise, experience and judgment required to make the important but extremely subtle distinction between conjecture and theory and between theory and fact in any current area of scientific research is well beyond what I possess.

I understand that the vast majority of the things, especially scientific and technological, we all think we "know," we in truth merely accept on faith from a trusted source. We use our own wisdom and grasp of human nature to distinguish not theory from fact but honesty from deception, in a never-ending effort to know who to trust.

Let me assume that Mr. Konczal, like myself, is not a involved in current climate research. He should note that while we all know that 1,600 scientists wrote the president urging preventive action against global warming, fewer are aware that 17,000 scientists then wrote him calling any such action premature. We all hear the endless stream of negatives, but do we ever in our own lives encounter something that has nothing good to say about it? If it is theorized that plant growth would be increased by global warming, why is poison ivy used as the example, rather than the wheat and rice that could feed starving millions?

As far as trust goes, yes, I distrust businessmen too, as many may corrupt science with their profits. But to think that politicians and bureaucrats, with much more money at their disposal, wouldn't do precisely the same thing in the interest of increasing their already vast influence is, in my opinion, deeply naive. All of the politically promoted solutions to every crisis in current fashion (which, by coincidence, I'm supposed to believe) propose more, never less, money and power in the hands of bureaucrats.

For you and me, Mr. Konczal, it's not a scientific judgment, but one of common sense.

John Susko East Brunswick