Stu Lindberg says in an Oct. 12 letter to the Vermont Journal that he is answering questions from various groups. Here are a few more questions that he should answer.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), echoed by NASA, the American Meteorological Association, and other scientific organizations, “Scientists know that recent climate change is largely caused by human activities from an understanding of basic physics, comparing observations with models, and fingerprinting the detailed patterns of climate change caused by different human and natural influences.” See www.nap.nationalacademies.org/download/25733.
The NAS also states, “Greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide absorb heat (infrared radiation) emitted from Earth’s surface. Increases in the atmospheric concentrations of these gasses cause the Earth to warm by trapping more of this heat. Human activities – especially the burning of fossil fuels since the start of the Industrial Revolution – have increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations by more than 40%, with over half the increase occurring since 1970.” Does Stu Lindberg understand this statement? He has said, “CO2 is not a pollutant.” What does that have to do with the NAS’s explanation?
In a June 7 letter to the Vermont Journal and other publications, Lindberg claimed that a FDA website showed that “Covid-19 injections have killed 28,312 Americans. The data includes 232,694 serious injuries.” This shows a complete misunderstanding of the FDA data. Anyone who has worked in clinical trials knows that your statement is nonsense. The website itself explains that these events are not generally related to the vaccine and that serious adverse events caused by the vaccine are very rare. Given these facts, and that readers who were misled by Lindberg’s letter could have been convinced to not be vaccinated and possibly get Covid, be hospitalized, get long Covid or die, does Lindberg regret publishing this misinformation?
If elected, if scientific issues arise, will Lindberg seek out and accept the opinion of scientists who are knowledgeable, or will he accept the opinions of individuals who simply agree with his preconceptions, such as Robert Kennedy Jr., an anti-vaxxer conspiracy advocate and recognized fraud, who I believe Lindberg follows?