Editor: 

A recent letter denying the urgency of climate change deserves a response.

The assertion that climate science relies on “dysfunctional computer models” is misleading. Climate models are grounded in well-established physics and have accurately predicted key trends, including rising global temperatures and Arctic ice loss. These models are not perfect, but they are not guesswork — they’re constantly tested against real-world data.

While it’s true that population growth and development contribute to disaster costs, that doesn’t negate the role of climate change in intensifying certain weather events. Extreme heatwaves, heavy rainfall and wildfire conditions are all increasing, not just in cost but in physical magnitude. The relatively new (20 years) attribution science allows us to measure how much more likely and severe specific events have become due to global warming.

The claim that U.S. emissions cuts are meaningless ignores our outsized role. We are the second-largest annual emitter after China and the largest historical contributor to CO₂ in the atmosphere. Leadership from high-emitting nations like us and China is essential. Clean energy investments aren’t cheap, but the economic cost of climate inaction is far higher in crop losses, disaster recovery, and health impacts.

CO₂ is essential for life, but excessive CO₂ disrupts Earth’s climate system. Slight warming may benefit some crops temporarily, but overall, climate disruption brings more harm than good, including heat stress, drought and lower agricultural productivity.

Science is not about consensus for consensus sake, rather it’s about where the evidence leads. That evidence overwhelmingly shows that climate change is real, dangerous, and driven by human activity. Minimizing that fact risks both our economy and our future.

George Myers
Venice, Fla.

Editor:

If one looks up the word “ludicrous” in the dictionary, it might be an apt term to somehow apply to the utter nonsense engulfed in a recent letter on climate change. Otherwise, we are all rendered speechless. The best analogy would be insisting we all open a robust debate between defenders of the “flat earth society” and the rest of us mere mortals.

The writer is correct to state that “climate activists have worked feverishly and largely successfully.” I couldn’t agree more since this scientific community has flexed the muscles of science, data and empirical evidence to put forth their conclusions.

1) “Consensus” is an appropriate term he cites. To employ another analogy, there is vast “consensus” that child vaccinations work (if you are alive to be reading this, you become part of the evidence) despite the protestations from a certain descendant of the mid-Cape. The writer must certainly hold several degrees in science to mock computer models as “dysfunctional.”

2) Once again, the writer is correct to state “severe weather events are becoming more frequent.” Right there he opposes his own non-sequitor assertions. “Hysterical” news coverage? I wonder how calm he would be had his children been engulfed in flames in Lahaina or swept away by a flash flood in Texas? Or living in Bangladesh only to see everything you have flushed out to sea? Crop failures in the Sahel leading to widespread famine? Perhaps for an upper-income Cape resident these things don’t matter in his bubble.

3) On what statistical basis does the writer conclude that reducing CO₂ is a “rounding error” that will have no real effect? Please sir, show us which University awarded your Ph.D. (yes, “piled higher and deeper” in this brazen case).

4) To claim CO₂ is “life-giving”...well folks, enough said? CO₂ is a greenhouse gas that warms the planet and human activity has exacerbated climate change. The 1.29 celsius increase since 1850 is not cause for alarm, but according to NOAA, the fact that the 10 hottest years on record since 1850 have all been in the last decade, well, that is cause for alarm and not “hoax debates.” 

Mark Phillips 
Grand Junction, Colo.

Editor: 

This letter questions why two of our select board members, Shareen Davis and Jeff Dykens, chose to absent themselves from the July 22 board meeting. Rumor has it they chose to attend a private fundraising party instead of serving their public as employees of the town of Chatham. During summer months, the select board meets more infrequently to allow for summer guests and family arrivals. Given that lesser load of responsibilities, one would hope that those who chose to run for town offices and are voted in to represent the town voters and paid a small stipend could attend all the meetings and participate in policy and town affairs. We understand that each member is allowed time for a vacation, but we don’t understand why two members would choose to absent themselves at the same time unless it was a medical emergency. One member, Mr. Dykens, was at the interview for potential committee volunteers held in the very same room minutes before the regular select board meeting started on July 22. Mr. Dykens opted for an evening party rather than representing those who just recently in May supported him and thought he would be respectful of those who came out to vote for him. 

This town has many challenges ahead and we need all our board members present to make important decisions and set policy. They can party after the meeting has concluded. 

Anne Timpson
Chatham

Editor:

I’m a woman who, along with my husband, has been residing in Harwich for 15 years. We love it! Although the summer gets busy, we appreciate and enjoy the smiles, joy and beach time.

In the midst of the waves, my husband dropped his Apple Watch at Red River Beach. Lo and behold, a great Samaritan turned it into the Harwich Community Center. 

To whoever you are, we are a happy set of seniors, retired and so grateful you turned it in. It makes us smile in these crazy times.

Bob and Kathy Lombardi
Harwich

Editor: 

While I've always enjoyed the sports coverage in The Chronicle, a special shout-out to the recent addition to your sports staff, Erez Ben-Akiva. He writes knowledgeably about all the CCBL, scholastic and recreational sports in The Chronicle's catchment area and has brought himself up to speed quickly to the point where his articles and stories never exhibit the unfamiliarity of a newby. I am looking forward to more of his output in the coming seasons. 

Martin Berliner
Greenwood Village, Colo.

Editor:

There is a mattress on the roof of the used battery shack at the transfer station. It was put there by the crew to keep a bird’s nest inside the shack cooler.

My goodness, you all deserve a gold medal for your kindness.

Betsy Abreu
Chatham

Editor:

In their July 31 letter “Invites Dialogue With Climate Critic,” the Chatham Climate Action Network misstates my views and includes a particularly egregious falsehood. The committee’s letter states, “It’s ironic that the writer declined the opportunity some time ago to engage in a debate over these matters with the chair of the energy and climate action committee.” This statement is blatantly untrue. 

Here’s the real story. In January 2023, I applied for a position on the Chatham Energy and Climate Action Committee. The select board considered my application that month and invited the committee chair to participate in the discussion. At that meeting, he challenged me to a debate on climate issues. I immediately accepted the challenge, even though the board subsequently rejected my application. The chair and I spoke over the next several months regarding timing and structure for such a debate. In August 2023 I met with Jill Goldsmith, our town manager, to discuss possible venues. Ms. Goldsmith advised me that the chair no longer wished to debate, and she showed no interest in discussing alternative arrangements. The chair then confirmed to me in an Aug. 7 email that he would not do the debate. 

This is a critical issue for the town, and I have long pushed for an open debate. It must, however, be one-on-one in a neutral venue, not as a side show in a Chatham Climate Action Network publicity event. 

Bruce M. Everett 
North Chatham

Editor:

"Good news, bad news" — Chatham's very own "Shakespeare in the Park" in its fourth season once again brought the bard to Kate Gould Park for evenings of culture and fun. And...it is free to everyone, although supported by donations! While I celebrated this opportunity to experience live theater under the leadership of Alan Rust, I again felt the loss of the Monomoy Theatre, whose program Mr. Rust had also directed and participated in for nearly 50 years. Monomoy Theatre enriched our community with brilliant performances since the late ‘50s and is greatly missed. 

Linda Simonitsch
Chatham

Editor:

In response to the letter that suggests we are wasting taxpayer money on carbon reduction, these are the realities: rising sea levels; beaches closing due to bacteria and rising water temperatures; melting glaciers; record fires; climate-related disasters like hurricanes, flooding and tornados. Please don't minimize a climate crisis that is having a devastating effect on lives. It's only going to become worse, but if we want to put our heads in the sand and pretend we don't have a direct impact on climate change, go ahead. I'd rather do my part and support any effort to reduce "our" carbon impact. 

Juliet Brown
West Harwich

Editor:

Thank you for the write-up about Murphy's General Store in last week's Chronicle. I've interacted with Jay and Heather a gazillion times and they are doing an amazing job providing merchandise that covers so many bases — T-shirts, cards, books, records, jewelry — you name it, they sell it. And they are so friendly, so ready for a quick chat (unless they're really busy).

And thanks for Tom Jahnke's weekly columns about town bands and music. He is a skilled conductor who covers at least two bases during "the season" and extends his reach into the holiday season. And, by the way, he also sings with the Outer Cape Chorale at their wonderful concerts.

Rosanne Shapiro
Harwich