Dave Olsen is correct that every problem can be resolved by clearly defining its nature. He does not acknowledge that there are meaningful differences of opinions on the subject if we really have a problem and what are the causes. One side is very narrow minded in three aspects of the issue:

1. We are facing a catastrophic climate change soon.

2. It is caused by humans’ actions.

3. Governments need to take unprecedented measures to stop climate change, without any regard of the cost of it.

On the other side, many people doubt if the global warming is anything more than the regular climate fluctuations. The importance of a human factor is questioned. Lastly, if anything could or should be done, it would be done better by the private sector.

Summarizing, instead of calling into the open “to start thinking in a rational way, rather than making emotional and irrational demands,” David Olsen needs to ask climate alarmists, including many authors on Medium, as well as the Medium editors and leaders, to address the merit of arguments that people as myself bring into the debate. This includes:





Unless my arguments are not addressed, we cannot talk about logical problem solving.

Written by

Many tell us what we should think. I write to encourage my readers to think for themselves. I write to ask you to inquire. Question me. Have fun.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store