Look at evidence, not twisted information

Advertisement

Steve Singleton’s Dec. 22 letter on anthropogenic global warming is arrogant, presumptive and misleading.

Singleton and I spoke cordially over the phone last spring. I explained to him I was busy preparing for a vacation and making ready for my transition to retirement. He stated he too was busy. We left open the possibility of meeting over a cup of coffee some time to discuss our differences of opinion.

His letter turned this into my declining to meet with him.

He offered me some books. People are always suggesting books to me. I stated I had a huge stack of books I was trying to find time to read. Furthermore, I said I had a broad range of interests and that I had to set my own priorities for reading. Given my backlog, I said I doubted l had time to read his books any time soon.

Apparently, not letting Mr. Singleton dictate my reading agenda opens me up to him accusing me of close-mindedness.

He inferred from this that I “had no interest in reading data contrary to (my) already established opinion.”

How does he know what I have already read? In fact, I have explored those contrary opinions to my satisfaction and find them woefully lacking.

It’s curious he cites NOAA as an “original source” that shouldn’t be trusted? It is an original source because it, unlike most critics, actually does research.

He could have added to that list every other scientific laboratory/organization on the planet. It’s absurd to claim such entities are untrustworthy.

Their critics are usually lone wolves whose counter arguments are flimsy at best. Those same critics often have long histories of challenging mainstream science with concocted arguments.

Often they are intimately associated with lobbyist front organizations. Typically, they have scientific sounding names and conduct meetings with little more than the trappings of science.

Most, like the Heartland Institute that Singleton acknowledges, are sponsored by industries whose products or activities are harmful. Their function is to sow doubt, a skill they’ve honed in previous battles over issues like the dangers of cigarette smoking.

Unfortunately, responding to these critics extends to them a forum they haven’t earned. In place of research and meaningful data, they try getting a leg up by manufacturing controversy.

They’ll try convincing you it’s just a matter of “he said-she said”. Be smarter than that; look at the evidence.

Steve Luckstead

Walla Walla

Comments

Igor 3 months, 3 weeks ago

The Singleton letter should be posted because if you didn't read the print edition with his letter you really have no idea what Mr. Luckstead is talking about. Perhaps Mr. Singleton exceeded his letter limit, though I doubt it because I always read his letters and those of Dr. Philpot and I can't remember having seen a Singleton letter for quite sometime. Just a suggestion. Seems unfair to publish a comment on a letter that has not been put up on the U.B. website.

0

blue_streak 3 months, 2 weeks ago

I would agree that Mr. Singleton's letter on Dec. 22 should be posted online, although I suspect I can summarize it sight unseen:

"Since you can't trust the IPCC because's it's a branch of the UN, and you can't trust the National Academy of Sciences, or the USGS or NOAA or NASA or EPA or the University of Washington Dept. of Atmospherics Sciences , or the WA dept. of Ecology, because, you know, they're part of the government, the only reliable information on climate science is from the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal or the public affairs team at ExxonMobil, and these utterly reliable sources tell us there's absolutely no credible evidence that global warming or climate change is even occurring, let alone linked to anything as innocent as burning fossil fuels."

Did I miss anything, Steve?

0

namvet60 3 months, 3 weeks ago

Mr. Luckstead - speaking of arrogant, presumptive and misleading - maybe one should step back and read your letter again? I read Mr. Singleton's letter and it was more resounding to the truth than any government computer generated climate data that you have presented.

To be truthful I will depend on an ole farm dogs prediction along with the Farmer's Almanac before I would take any prediction you presented. Just my opinion.

2

Sign in to comment

4 free views left!