Jack DeBaun (Daily Bee, Feb. 18, 2020) accused me of talking out of both sides of my mouth. But in any logical syllogism, if either of the premises is false, then the conclusion is necessarily false as well. In Jack’s letter both of his premises are false, thus making the conclusion false, too.

First of all, I never said that for information to be reliable it must come from experts. Jack should reread some of my previous letters where I’ve said that truth is true regardless of who speaks it.

And secondly, there is no “virtually unanimous agreement” or consensus among experts regarding a supposed climate crisis. It just doesn’t exist. It is a manufactured lie.

Therefore, since both of Jack’s premises are false, his conclusion must necessarily be false as well. So I was not, as he said, talking out of both sides of my mouth.

Now, if the climate crisis fanatics want to prove that there is a scientific consensus, here is what they must do:

1. Get the names of every single scientist in the world who has anything to do with climate studies;

2. Find out exactly what they believe about a supposed climate crisis;

3. Get their contact information for verification purposes. If the fanatics can’t give us this information, then they can’t prove a consensus and we have no reason to believe them. In order for there to be a real consensus the vast majority of climate scientists must agree that we are in a crisis.

MONTE HEIL

Sagle