When the Board of Opinion makes a statement like "it's definitely time for politicians and policymakers to let science speak for itself," I find myself in complete agreement. However, the rest of the editorial from which that phrase is taken ("Court to Decide," June 28) seems a little less friendly toward a science-based viewpoint. Talking about climate change as if the Supreme Court has the authority to decide whether it is "just another far-fetched disaster scenario," or saying that the concept of global warming should be ignored if the court decides that it is "unproven" (leaving aside the fact that nothing can be absolutely proven in science) is the wrong way to approach the issue. No matter which side the Supreme Court comes down on, it does not have the power to overrule nature itself, which is currently telling us that anthropogenic climate change is both a real phenomenon and a real problem. If our government decides to take the head-in-the-sand route, it will be doing a major disservice not only to Americans, but potentially to every living thing on earth. A denial of the empirical observations will not change their implications for human society and world biodiversity.