The World of Philosophy

Wendy Lynn Lee is professor of philosophy at Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania. She wrote an article for ‘Philosophy Now’,  a well-established magazine  based in London.  Wendy Lynn Lee goes one step further and suggests that ‘climate deniers’ not only ‘deny’ the greenhouse gas theory, but also assert that the climate does not and is not changing: and therefore such people should be termed “climate deniers squared”.


Wendy Lynn Lee muddles and conflates many different topics, in particular:


(a) ‘Climate’ (meaning - the global average temperature) and


(b) Environmental degradation (including pollution, loss of wildlife, and over-extraction of fresh water)


Her conclusion is that people such as me (who question the greenhouse narrative and the concept that man’s activities are altering the overall climate) are also haters of beauty who will do anything for some quick and destructive profit: nothing could be further from the truth. Meanwhile, the wind turbines and solar panels that are promoted by the Climate Modellers do exactly that (they create ugliness, destroy birds, bats, butterflies and other wildlife - and are adopted because of the money generated via government subsidies).


‘Philosophy Now' is a very interesting magazine and, despite the above remarks, I definitely recommend it. I wrote to them about the article and they kindly printed my letter in the following edition. Here it is:


Dear Editor: 

I wish to express my consternation that a professor of philosophy, Wendy Lynne Lee, should support the value-laden term  ‘climate change denier'  (‘Dewey & Climate Denial' in Issue 135).  She does not define this concept, but a ‘climate change denier' would appear to be anyone who questions the assumptions that (a) the planet is heating up unusually, and (b) that this is caused primarily by CO2 emitted by the burning of fossil fuels. These are matters of scientific observation which may or may not be true. However, if a person may not question them without condemnation, what becomes of Karl Popper's principle of falsifiability ?

Worst of all, perhaps, the word ‘denier' is habitually associated with ‘holocaust denier'. The application of the term is to imply an appalling moral deficit.  Those who wish to live in a peaceful, reasonable and rational world should decry the use of the term ‘denier'.


Here are the relevant links: