This is a response to George Weiss’s letter parroting Tom Osborne’s views in his column “When Ideology Trumps Facts”. Any skepticism of global warming whatsoever and you are branded a right wing heretic, lacking sophistication, critical thinking, and knowledge. You are labeled the deeply derogatory term “denier.” Name-calling to denigrate and silence opposing views does not add credibility to the debate. It’s a similar tactic to being called a racist if you disagree with Obama policies. Gentlemen, the debate should stick to science, not pejorative name calling. I guess when the science isn’t working, try ridicule and intimidation!
I’m not skeptical of global warming alarmists because of any political ideology. I do not deny facts. I do not deny that E=mc2, gravity or Newton’s Laws of Motion. I am skeptical because the original global warming predictions were proven false by the evidence. The hypothesis had to be restated from “global warming” to “climate change”.
Actually, I am a firm believer in climate change. It happens every day. It’s been happening since the Earth was formed and will continue long after the last piece of coal is burned. Large scale climate change occurs with ice age cycles and affected civilizations throughout history. It will continue to do so.
Einstein and Galileo were objective scientists, uninfluenced by religion or politics, unlike most climate scientists today tainted by political funding. Einstein and Galileo would not believe a failed hypothesis and join the sheeple, blindly believing claims of 97% consensus. They would research the methodology behind the claims and find the “97% consensus” paper written by John Cook and used by the IPCC, governments, media and other alarmists, was seriously flawed. The paper reviewed 11,944 climate papers. The true scientific results: only .3% of the papers explicitly said man caused most of the warming since 1950. Zero said it was dangerous.
Shocker, I believe carbon emissions may cause warming, but only negligibly and nothing to be alarmed about.
I also agree with most goals of the global warming alarmists, but for reasons other than catastrophic global warming. I’m concerned about environmental pollution of our water and air, and the fact that we need to develop alternative sustainable energy sources before we run out of our limited supply of fossil fuels.
The gentlemen could find some common ground instead of name calling and dismissing people as ideologues. Those tactics merely reflect an intellectually weak argument.
Stephen Tygh, Laguna Beach