The Explorer has been one of our favorite publications for a long time. One thing we’ve always appreciated was its sensible approach to controversial issues.
With that in mind, I wrote the editor and asked why the Explorer was doing a very one-sided series on the possible impact of anthropogenic global warming hypothesis (AGW). He responded that the Explorer is covering what scientists are researching and what they are concluding.
If that is your rationale, then I would expect a series that reports on over 1,300 peer-reviewed studies that question so-called “climate change” (see, for example, http://www.tinyurl.com/y9jrjaf).
The editor cited NASA as saying there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is real. That sounds nice, but the reality is that NASA is a government organization whose positions are based on whatever is currently politically expedient. Still, there is considerable dispute within NASA on this matter (http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4).
Some say we should defer to what “97 percent of scientists” say. To use a scientific term, that is malarkey, as there is no survey of scientists regarding the scientific validity of the AGW hypothesis. Even if there were, science is never based on consensus.
In my opinion, the Explorer is a well-intentioned publication that is being duped into supporting an anti-American agenda, as that is what is really going on. Watch the trailer for Agenda: Grinding America Down to get an eye-opening perspective.
I’d respectfully recommend that any reporting on this topic make it abundantly clear that AGW is a hypothesis — an unproven theory. That is the most important factual scientific statement that can be said about AGW.
John Droz, Jr., Brantingham Lake, NY