The "debate" over the reality and cause of climate change stopped being scientific long ago. Today, the "debate" is nothing more than a distraction that serves a political purpose for those who would stand to lose the most by policies that would curtail the release of carbon from its restful, stable location below the surface of the earth, in the form of fossil fuels, into our environment.

The "debate" over the reality and cause of climate change stopped being scientific long ago. Today, the "debate" is nothing more than a distraction that serves a political purpose for those who would stand to lose the most by policies that would curtail the release of carbon from its restful, stable location below the surface of the earth, in the form of fossil fuels, into our environment.



One hundred percent of the current and former UMass Dartmouth scientists participating in an editorial board meeting at The Standard-Times on Tuesday agree both that climate change is occurring and that human activity — particularly the combustion of fossil fuels — has a significant impact on it.



The point was made in the meeting that it is not typical that scientists would agree so broadly. There's a reason for that: Theories aren't agreed upon in the scientific community, but facts are.



Theories are debated. Facts are facts.



The UMass scientists were invited to discuss three undeniable, provable effects that burning fossil fuels has on our oceans: acidification, warming, and sea level rise.



In a nutshell, the facts are as follows:



Acidification: Carbon from human activity of burning fossil fuels is being absorbed into and changing the pH of our oceans, thus affecting the growth of corals and the ability of mollusks to make their shells. Scientists are unclear on how ocean creatures will adapt to the rapid changes.



Ocean warming: The greenhouse gases — from a variety of sources — that prevent radiationalcooling have been raising the temperature of the atmosphere, melting glaciers and polar ice over the decades. The atmosphere warms further because there is less ice to reflect the sun, further diminishing radiational cooling. The oceans warm by absorption both of atmospheric heat and melting ice. Scientists are unclear about how new patterns of currents will affect fish populations and more energetic weather systems.



Sea level rise: The volume of water in the ocean increases because warmer water is less dense, and because more ice is melting. Scientists are not sure how rapidly the oceans will encroach on our coastal communities.



The standard assault from those who deny the existence and source of our current climate change takes the form of "facts" about previous periods of warming that ignore the context of how rapidly our current warming is taking place; use data that ignores the context of "anomalies" such as polar vortices, 16 years of cooler temperatures or localized drops in sea level; or shifts the blame to other sources, like methane as a greenhouse gas.



These arguments are not scientific. They always come from sources with significant political or economic reasons to deny climate change, and they are always debunked by legitimate science.



The Standard-Times editorial board is not opposed to the exploitation of fossil fuels: Our newspapers are delivered in vehicles burning gasoline and diesel every single day and nearly every employee commutes to and from work in a vehicle powered by fossil fuels.



We do, however, believe that our future will be dramatically affected by how rapidly our species shifts from fossil fuels to alternatives.



We see no public benefit to allowing on these pages arguments denying the fact of climate change and a warming global environment as a result of human society's recent — in geological terms — combustion of fossil fuels, any more than we would allow "debate" on whether race determines inherent intelligence or habits of personal industry. To the contrary, we see it as a disservice to truth.



As UMass coastal systems scientist Brian Howse pointed out Tuesday, beyond the how and why of climate change is the question about what we will do about it. The longer we allow the jaded political denial, the longer it will be before the public unites in calling for political action in the complex process of reacting to what is happening.



We are firmly committed to hosting a debate on these pages about whether a carbon tax is good policy, whether investment tax credits or other subsidies for alternative energy are good policy, how much should be spent on development of alternatives, whether XL Keystone is a good idea, whether the government should subsidize flood insurance or the myriad other important political decisions that must be made in response to our changing environment.



"Debate" over whether climate change is real or a hoax, however, should be confined to conspiracy websites and political blogs where truth takes a backseat to ideology.