Letter - In science, it is verifiable results that matter

Advertisement

In his column on March 2, Dr. Larry Mulkerin wrote, “I accept the consensus opinion that climate change is a probable threat to the planet and future generations.”

Consensus. That word keeps popping up.

I agree that changing climate could be a threat, however, the issue was never about that. The issue is about what causes it. And — if human CO2 emissions do — could it be stopped by throwing trillions of taxpayer dollars at it (that could have been better spent fighting real problems like poverty, AIDS, cancer and malaria)?

Michael Crichton mentioned scientific consensus in his Jan. 17, 2003, Caltech Michelin lecture. He said, “Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.

Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear; the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.

In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.” He then gave some historic examples.

I believe many people such as Dr. Mulkerin are honest men who are merely mistaken. However, there are many scientists and political activists who are lying to us about it for political and/or financial reasons.

In his recent State of the Union speech, President Obama scowled and declared, “Climate change is real!” Secretary of State Kerry exclaimed, “Climate change is the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction!” Last week Al Gore terrified his believers with a 90-minute presentation claiming floods, wildfires, torrential rains, droughts, dust storms, rising seas and increasing temperatures are “evidence” our CO2 is destroying the planet.

All untrue.

The reason I believe these superrich politicians are lying is because they have the resources to determine the truth — that the science is not settled. Problem is, that truth doesn’t fit their political and financial agendas.

If they were honest enough to question the “consensus,” perhaps they could begin by reading Global Warming — Myth or Reality (The Erring Ways of Climatology) by Professor Marcel Leroux.

Steve Singleton

Walla Walla

Comments

Igor 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Outstanding letter. Science is never "settled." Those that want to close the door to legitimate debate almost always have a political agenda, which is certainly the case with the AGW proponents. 600 years ago the Roman Catholic Church burned Giordano Bruno at the stake for proclaiming that our planet was not the center of the universe. At that time the "fact" that the earth was the center of the universe was "settled science" for all good Catholics. History is replete with events like this. The "peer-reviewed study" and "settled science" mantra advanced ad nauseam by the Left demonstrates scientific immaturity.

0

stvsngltn 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Thanks, Igor. Also of course there was Galileo who was tried for heresy for supporting the theory of Nicholas Copernicus that the earth moves around the sun. He said, "The authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Or words to that effect...)

0

namvet60 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Steve - here's a little article that came out of the NYT I thought was interesting:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/03/10/NYT-CA-Drought-not-from-Global-Warming

The politicians will go to the utmost extremes to push there agenda.

0

stvsngltn 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Thanks Namvet ... did see a similar report on that. Of course as we know, true planetary global warming of a degree or two and the increased carbon dioxide which follows temperature rise wouldn't cause drought anyway, but would tend to bring more humidity and rain due to evaporation ... and therefore result in improved farmland growth worldwide as well. (Vegies do love CO2. :)

0

namvet60 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Yes sir - it was a couple of years ago that the state of California was forced to empty some of there reservoirs to save the Smelt in the tributaries. This caused local farms to dry up and prevent them from planting and harvesting much needed produce. To date those reservoirs have not been replenished to provide much needed water for the farming communities. If those reservoirs had been replenished the drought would not have been as severe as they try to indicate.

On a lighter note, I'm not sure even with GMO labeling they would be able to determine how much CO2 the plants are actually ingesting. :) Of course I totally agree that great Veggies love CO2.

0

downhillracer 7 months, 2 weeks ago

A ridiculous letter and even more ridiculous commentary. To compare what was “science” in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church 600 years ago, versus what is universally regarded as the modern Scientific Method is both self-serving and extraordinarily myopic.

The wonderful thing about modern science - even if you don’t “believe” in something, doesn’t mean it’s not true - given the results of empirical and measurable evidence used in the experimentation, formulation, testing and modification of a given hypotheses.

But keep shouting your denial of that empirical evidence and continue to share the modulation of facts to suit your obviously "right versus left" hysteria- it's quite amusing, actually!

1

stvsngltn 7 months, 2 weeks ago

There is absolutely no repeat no evidence that human-caused co2 emissions significantly affect global temperature or climate, and you would know that if you looked into the issue honestly and with an open mind (which of course you never will). I don't shout, by the way ... and it's very strange to me that this issue is corrupted by "left vs right" politics. It shouldn't be.

0

downhillracer 7 months, 2 weeks ago

You state "it's very strange to (you) .. the issue is corrupted.."

In your original missive you state:

"Problem is, that truth doesn’t fit their political and financial agendas.".

So, in otherwords, you're a liar AND a fraud, too? Good to know.

0

namvet60 7 months, 1 week ago

Your smug inference is totally out of line to say the least and with your consistent negative, ignorant posts you should actually take some courses on comprehension!

Did your critical thinking differentiate the two sentences line one and line three which essentially have the same context.

Your last sentence describes >downhillracer< to T!

1

stvsngltn 7 months, 1 week ago

Downhill poster: people like you never have courage or conviction enough to call someone a liar to their face ... only from behind a computer screen. But rest assured I would call you an idiot on this issue to your face because that's exactly what you are.

0

stvsngltn 7 months, 1 week ago

Downhill poster: I've requested my last response to you (where I called you an idiot on this issue) be removed. That's because I should not have stooped to your very low level of handing out personal insults on this site. I haven't yet looked into who you are, but based upon your less-than mature responses to me and others, I'd be surprised if you have enough years or life experience to participate in serious discussions on this subject. This will be my final direct response to you on this site.

0

Sign in to comment

Click here to sign in