Here is a letter I sent today to the County Council on this matter:
Dear County Council:
Re: Climate Action Plan
I am writing to suggest that the Council approve the Climate Action Plan, but only with the proviso that in the next six months the County completes an Action Plan concerning the health effects of climate change in Los Alamos County and how they can be addressed in doable, sustainable, cost-effective, and fair ways.
Climate change is here and will continue, despite what Los Alamos does to mitigate it. Climate change will lead, among other things, to:
• More extreme weather
• More days of high heat
• More fires
In the US last year, for example, more than 2,300 people died of heat-related injuries and the number expected to die of heat-related causes this year is likely to be higher than last year.
At a minimum, the County needs to ensure that its Climate Action Plan has:
• A local heat-health warning system
• Health actors that are organized to combat heat-related conditions in high-quality, well-coordinated, and resilient ways.
Without such a plan, the County might take steps to help address climate change – in the long run – while leaving its citizens exposed to potentially great harm in the short and medium run.
In addition, the prospects that the state Department of Health will carry out these measures for Los Alamos or any other county are probably zero.
Once again "science consensus" reigns on The Hill. So disappointing, but not unanticipated. Can't express how glad I am to not live on The Hill any more. Maybe the council and their "science" advisers should investigate the Schwarzschild equation. Here's a primer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6M7y6G6ZZM
It's not that complicated. Human knowledge is a collective endeavor. Science is a collective endeavor. Knowledge moves forward by a collective consensus.
I wasn't going to respond, but I have to. According to Merriam-Webster, consensus is: "group solidarity in sentiment and belief." The word consensus originated from Latin consentīre - "to join in feeling, be in agreement, concur in opinion". Sorry kids, but that is not science. Science is not a belief system. It is openly criticizing and re-evaluating. It is thinking outside the box. It is disruption of the status quo. Without disruption of the consensus, the world would have never had enlightenment like from Copernicus and Einstein. So, if LANL and Los Alamos inhabitants believe that consensus is science, then you are hopelessly lost.
Here is a letter I sent today to the County Council on this matter:
Dear County Council:
Re: Climate Action Plan
I am writing to suggest that the Council approve the Climate Action Plan, but only with the proviso that in the next six months the County completes an Action Plan concerning the health effects of climate change in Los Alamos County and how they can be addressed in doable, sustainable, cost-effective, and fair ways.
Climate change is here and will continue, despite what Los Alamos does to mitigate it. Climate change will lead, among other things, to:
• More extreme weather
• More days of high heat
• More fires
In the US last year, for example, more than 2,300 people died of heat-related injuries and the number expected to die of heat-related causes this year is likely to be higher than last year.
At a minimum, the County needs to ensure that its Climate Action Plan has:
• A local heat-health warning system
• Health actors that are organized to combat heat-related conditions in high-quality, well-coordinated, and resilient ways.
Without such a plan, the County might take steps to help address climate change – in the long run – while leaving its citizens exposed to potentially great harm in the short and medium run.
In addition, the prospects that the state Department of Health will carry out these measures for Los Alamos or any other county are probably zero.
Thank you for your attention to this matter,
Richard Skolnik
Once again "science consensus" reigns on The Hill. So disappointing, but not unanticipated. Can't express how glad I am to not live on The Hill any more. Maybe the council and their "science" advisers should investigate the Schwarzschild equation. Here's a primer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6M7y6G6ZZM
Yes, scientific consensus usually does reign at scientific labs.
And where in the scientific method does it say "consensus"?
It doesn't. That's simply how the process works.
???
It's not that complicated. Human knowledge is a collective endeavor. Science is a collective endeavor. Knowledge moves forward by a collective consensus.
I wasn't going to respond, but I have to. According to Merriam-Webster, consensus is: "group solidarity in sentiment and belief." The word consensus originated from Latin consentīre - "to join in feeling, be in agreement, concur in opinion". Sorry kids, but that is not science. Science is not a belief system. It is openly criticizing and re-evaluating. It is thinking outside the box. It is disruption of the status quo. Without disruption of the consensus, the world would have never had enlightenment like from Copernicus and Einstein. So, if LANL and Los Alamos inhabitants believe that consensus is science, then you are hopelessly lost.
Thank you for your thoughtful, in-depth reporting on such an important issue.