Compare the risks

The letters-to-the-editor debate on climate change has been long running and contentious. The prospect of one side convincing the other seems slim. Maybe we can agree on a course of action while disagreeing.

Would each side admit that there is a least a small chance that they could be wrong?

I believe there is a powerful amount of research showing that climate change is indeed man-made (all of the most credible national science organizations are unified and alarmed). Nevertheless I am willing to say that I might be wrong. Are those on the other side of the debate willing to admit that there could be a 5 percent chance that they are wrong?

If I am wrong, the worst case would be that we might cause severe damage to the U.S. economy by supporting political measures that needlessly constrain industry and raise costs to us all. If the deniers are wrong and we do nothing, we get severe storms, draughts, fires, flooded coasts, altered ocean currents, species extinctions, mass starvations and perhaps even the collapse of civilization.

The least risky course is to support immediate vigorous political action to stop man’s possible contribution to climate change.

Scott Melville

Spokane