Climate letter only ‘propaganda’
The “businessman and conservative activist” who wrote a column on climate change last Saturday failed to include this one line in his little diatribe.
His first line should have begun: “I’m not a climate scientist, but “. There is a small, pitiful cadre of individuals with some scientific credentials whose pockets are stuffed by corporations with a vested interest in undermining climate science. They prostitute their profession for personal gain and depend upon “conservative activists” like this writer to pimp their skewed “data.”
The reality is, little if anything these prostitutes say can stand up to peer review by the vast majority of real scientists all around the globe whose lives are devoted to climate research.
Your paper does a disservice by allowing people like this writer to spout such uncontested blather. Your paper should not just be a sounding board for skewed capitalist propaganda. Your credibility should be of greater concern to you.
Any day now, we can probably expect a similar article by some Koch Industries prostitute telling us that allowing corporations to buy our elections is somehow enriching our democracy.
R. Bruce Wilkey, Signal Mountain
***
Keep politics from climate research
On political topics, it is easy to dismiss differing opinions. Unsurprisingly, my initial reaction to last Saturday’s column titled “Don’t Be Fooled by Climate Change Alarmists” was dismissive. Upon reflection, the writer’s statement, “Science isn’t a democracy,” seems valuable to remember.
Of course, science also isn’t personal opinion. So neither his non-expert opinion of available evidence (i.e. “Man-made climate change is not supported by scientific evidence”) nor my own equally non-expert opinion to the contrary are particularly meaningful.
Personally, I find the comparably brief article titled “Why Scientists are (Almost Certain) That Climate Change is Man-made” in The Economist Explains blog (Nov. 2, 2014) more persuasive than the writer’s. Regardless, I agree with the writer that policymaking is impeded by politically motivated scientific misrepresentations.
Unlike the writer, I do not consider scientists, such as those expressing consensus opinions for the American Meteorological Society and the National Science Foundation, as “alarmists” willing to forfeit professional integrity to secure funding. I believe the foremost wish of good scientists is to do good science.
Good policy needs to be informed by scientists expected, allowed and funded to conduct climate research free from left or right politics.
Patrick Lavin
***
Minister’s column eschews God’s word
I would like to respond to a July 18 Life page contributed column titled “Finding Forgiveness, Healing.”
Is that hypocrite just plain stupid or what? Maybe she needs to seek professional help or something. I don’t know.
What I do know is that a true Christian doesn’t rejoice over same-sex marriage. The word of God condemns it. It even states that a woman should be silent in church at least as far as being a minister or what have you. She is living proof that it is a good idea.
And to have her article published in the Faith section? Get real.
Tim Ledford