I’m shocked, SHOCKED that the Portland Press Herald would publish such a petty, puerile letter as the one by Bill Holly (Sept. 13), which stated that politicians who doubt “science” should give up high-tech devices. No wonder nobody buys newspapers anymore. Is this what passes for rational discourse now?

The author offers no reasonable arguments, only false fallacy and sarcasm, both a refuge for a weak mind.

Sure, the Earth has a climate. And yes, it’s always changing. On that much we can agree. But the two questions that follow are where the paths diverge:

Is human activity, specifically man-made emissions of CO2 and other so-called greenhouse gases (I won’t use the word “pollutant” since carbon dioxide is not one – it is inert, innocuous and necessary for plant life), causing warming?

 Can and should we do anything about it?

The second question is the trickiest. Should we cripple our economy? Should we give $100 billion to the Paris summit? Or should we invest in research to improve our energy usage?

Fracking is a great example (and strangely hated by the left). Natural gas is three times cleaner than coal – we are already seeing benefits in cost and cleanliness. Someone will invent a car that runs on seawater. He needs fossil fuels to work toward that goal, however.

The problem is that political money has invaded science. Thus, we get junk science. President Dwight Eisenhower, on the subject of scientists getting federal grants, astutely warned, “Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.”

I will debate Bill Holly, Bill Nye, the Creepy Bow Tie and anyone in between in a public forum of his choosing on the issue of “Climate Change.”™

Gregory Hayes

Scarborough