Dear Editor:
RE: Climate doomsday, Feb. 28.
Jane Vandervliet rightly lauds the science behind the growing concern over the accumulation of micro plastics contamination of the food chain, which has led to the conclusion that we are indeed “eating our own garbage”.
We should indeed be concerned and get the government to do something about it, as she suggests. This conclusion was formed out of the labour of data collection, hypothesis testing, modelling, extrapolation and validation with new experimental testing, by hundreds of individual peer-reviewed studies and the integration of their conclusions. This is known as the scientific process.
However, Vandervliet dismisses the conclusions and consensus of the science of climate change, which was arrived at by the exact same process, incorporating a great many more individual studies and vastly more data. Should we accept the science that shows lung cancer to be largely caused by tobacco smoking, but dismiss the science that allows air travel or space flight? Do we accept the science that powers a laser pointer cat toy, but deny the science that connects relatives by DNA analysis?
The fact is, we cannot accept some science as valid, and other science as invalid, when all are the product of exactly the same scientific process.
Ian Martin,
Aboyne