Dear Editor

Concerning the "My Turn" editorial in the March 19, 2020 edition of the Appeal:

In Mr. Fredrick's column titled "Changing Minds in a Crisis", it seems he is trying to dance around his main point--to make a statement without saying it out loud--by implying that anyone who doesn't "believe our scientists" about man-made climate change is less scientifically illiterate than those who do; and therefore, that it's questionable whether these non-believers will be able to "change their minds" enough to follow science-based recommendations about how to behave during the Covid-19 epidemic.

My question to him would be, "How much correlation is there, between being a 'believer in man-made climate change' and scientific literacy--about Covid-19 or anything else?" The answer: zero.

Think of all those college students who went on spring break in Florida in masses despite strong government urging not to associate in large gatherings. If you polled them, the majority would say they "believe in man-made climate change". Yet there were all those students--those colossal giants of scientific literacy--all bunched up together on the beach, ignoring the science Mr. Fredrick speaks of. (Most have been indoctrinated with an environmental crisis mentality since grade school, and denied exposure to data and ideas which detract from that politically fashionable view. So instead of an opinion based on a broad view of the science involved, many have an unquestioning knee-jerk "belief" about climate change--more like a pop-culture religion than a scientific understanding.)

Another example? Many Democrats in the House of Representatives are professed "believers" in climate change (to be fair, most have to be; as a condition of employment), yet they apparently don't believe the available science surrounding the seriousness of the pandemic or its likely economic consequences. If they did, they would not have delayed passage of the recent special-purpose stimulus bills for days by trying to sneak things into them which had *nothing to do with* either economic stimulus or Covid-19...like special tax credits for solar and wind energy companies, new emissions standards for the airlines, expanding OSHA regulations (a wish list item wanted by some unions; had nothing to do with the coronavirus outbreak), forcing small businesses to pay for mandated amounts of family leave and sick leave (*permanently*, not just during the current epidemic), and an end-run around the Hyde amendment, which would have allowed federal funds to be used for abortions unless other legislation got passed later to change the bill's language.

As for what Mr. Fredrick implies about climate change non-believers, making black-and-white comparisons about differing opinions in the climate change debate is short-sighted and naive. The *scientific* discussion surrounding climate change is a lot more nuanced than that, and intelligent people disagree about what data is relevant, how to interpret it, whether mankind is chiefly a cause or not, what effect humans can have on the problem, and so on. The sciences don't make progress by some pop-culture idea of "scientific concensus" (or as Mr. Fredrick puts it, "the overwhelming reports of our scientists"); but rather, by open public disagreement and debate about data and ideas.

Unfortunately, the misinformed idea that a scientific concencus exists is often used these days to hobble scientific progress; to cut off debate, and to ruin the careers of good scientists who dare to publish research findings which don't support current politically fashionable ideas. The problem of doing anything about climate change or even having a rational discussion about it is that, as commentator Jordan Peterson says, "it's impossible to separate the science from the politics". The reliability of science as an institution in our society--the science that cured polio and other diseases, and landed men on the moon--seems to be drifting off into political activism, to the point where much of it has become less reliable for making public policy decisions than it used to be.

Finally, on a lighter note, I want to say that reading the "My Turn" column over the years has often been good for a chuckle or two. It's interesting to watch someone nearly twist himself into a pretzel shape by claiming to be a conservative while at the same time feeling the need to support ideas and politicians who continually drift ever farther to the left. I don't envy him that job. But I take comfort in realizing that if lawyering and editorial-writing ever fall through for him, he can likely find immediate employment in the circus, where I hear contortionists are in short supply. (I hope Mr. Fredrick can take a joke.)

Mark Wilsdorf

Middle Grove

Mr. Frederick's "My Turn" original that Mark is referring to: TO OVER REACT IS SAFER
For those of us old enough to remember Pearl Harbor or even 9-11 attacks on our Country, we all know who our enemies were that were responsible. We knew where to find them and in general we had an idea of what they looked like. Our reactions then was anger and a desire to come together and take action. And now, in reaction to the coronavirus pandemic, many of us can have the same reaction and resolve to take whatever action is required to control and defeat it.
But we cannot recognize this invisible enemy nor people who have been infected and our natural desire to come together physically in response can be exactly what we are advised not to do. The best current advise seems to be to act as if we each are infected and should not want to pass the disease along to those we contact or bring it home. Those of us who are going along day to day as usual and the leaders of the States like Missouri, who are taking no real protective action for their citizens at this time may be taking risks that are unwise and dangerous. The unintended result may be patients that hospitals cannot handle and a longer period of catch-up for States that are delaying positive action. To over react is a lot safer than failure to act and a lot easier to defend later.

Richard J. Fredrick