Monday, December 30, 2013
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 closed-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.