Climate whiplash

I’ve gotten a case of cherry-picker whiplash (CPW) from trying to follow Sue Lani Madsen’s arguments in her June 3 column, “Paris ax about political science.” In the column she defends U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and her own status as a climate-change “skeptic” (or “denier,” depending on your point of view).

The CPW is the result of stumbling over the isolated (cherry-picked) facts and quotes she uses in a simplistic effort to discredit and disprove.

Does the fact that the Paris Accord can be characterized as “toothless” prove that it is not “vital to the future of humanity?” A similar argument could be used to prove that all hopeful political arrangements, not based on coercion, are pointless. Does the fact that “science is never settled” prove that we should not act on the basis of our current, imperfect state of knowledge? Such an argument could be used to prove that any level of skepticism, from any source, can legitimately block collective action.

Not only should we not go to the moon, but maybe we never did.

William Siems

Spokane