After reading my good friend Brian Vella's article last month "A Skeptical View" I feel the need as a scientist to respond on a point by point basis.

Brian states there is a "consensus" among scientists about climate change. It is more than a consensus. Both solid physical models and observations have shown that we do have climate change and that it is mostly caused by human activity. The rate has been observed to increase significantly since approximately 1950, and physical models have given us insight as to why.

We, as scientists, are constantly questioning and checking the results. Deniers are those who just say I don't believe the results, and yes there are some scientists in that category; they have not produced credible results to back up their claims.

Brian claims that climate change is the "orthodoxy" of the left. Science is not left or right, it is just results, facts. If there is any political advantage to this issue it is on the side of deniers, who have the backing of the coal and oil industries.

He then goes on to discuss the 1960s Club of Rome discussions about overpopulation and doomsday. The prediction was that "In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs…." The other side of the argument was that technology, read scientists, will save the day. And Scientists were, indeed, able to save the day by developing better food production and distribution capabilities. (I do need to point out that conflicts in Africa are related to population growth outstripping food production.) The point I want to make is that society recognized the problem and reacted to it positively, finding solutions. The solutions to that problem worked for the most part. My point here is that we need to accept that there is a problem and find a solution, not deny it.

Noting that Greenland Jakobshavn glacier is growing as an example of the "failure" of science is also not appropriate. One can always cherry-pick data to find a case that backs up one's beliefs. Appropriate science looks at the whole picture. For example, look at the whole Arctic Ocean and note the indisputable fact that one can now sail through the Northwest Passage.

Climate change can be very counter-intuitive. For example, computer models predict a warmer Boston, which you would think would lead to less snow, but the models actually predict more snow for Boston. The reason, as I understand it, has to do with a warmer ocean putting more water into the atmosphere, which then results in more snow for Boston. So, the science says that a warmer Boston is a snowier Boston.

On a global scale, the world is getting warmer. The artic has less ice each year. El Salvadorian coffee farmers are abandoning their farms because of climate change. From what I have read, rapid climate change is real and is generally a problem.

In my view, to ignore the experts is to invite calamity. Calamity frequently leads to loss of freedoms (look at the freedoms we lost when 9/11 happened). So, my conclusion is that we may lose less by believing and reacting to human-induced climate change. While I do not agree with all the suggestions put forward on containing the problem, I do support the concept of reducing risk. As I've said before, this would involve the collaboration of statesmen, economists, social scientists, physical scientists, and others. It is not something to be denied.