Look at evidence, not twisted information


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.

Steve Luckstead

Walla Walla



Iopine says...

Gee Mr Luckstead - your very complimentary? Everyone has an opinion and if it doesn't agree with your established opinion they are wrong. Obviously no room for thought there?

Personally I would depend on an ole farm dog and the Farmer's Almanac before I would trust a computer generated report by the government.

Posted 31 December 2013, 9:24 a.m. Suggest removal

tpeacock says...

'Everyone has an opinion and if it doesn't agree with your established opinion they are wrong. Obviously no room for thought there'
Truer words are normally left out of these posting forums. The problem is that these words apply to far too many that post and yet fail to recognize their posts are following this sad truth. Each side accuses the other of being liars, name callers, averse to facts, etc. yet there is much truth to the simple truth that both side are guilty of the same. We haven't had a President since God knows when that didn't lie about something, and in many cases, it's for our own good. In the service they have different security clearance levels, and again, for a very good reason.
It would be quite advantageous to let the public in on everything the Government does, as the security of our Country depends on us not being involved in everything; I'm not sure why that escapes many.

Posted 31 December 2013, 12:35 p.m. Suggest removal

stvsngltn says...

I do not disagree with your comment, Mr. Peacock. However as we know there are opinions based upon truth and those that are not. ... that are based upon erroneous information. And of course sometimes based upon half-truths. Having an opinion based on bad information doesn't make a person a liar. Frankly I don't believe those of us who express our opinions in the U-B are liars. But the difficulty is always determining the truth. Sometimes very difficult but an admirable effort. Happy New Year to you, Namvet, Steve Luckstead and all who happen to read this. May 2014 be the year we establish the truth regarding all our opinions.

Posted 1 January 2014, 10:52 a.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

Thank you Steve and hoping you have a Happy, Healthy & Prosperous New Year.

Posted 1 January 2014, 2:24 p.m. Suggest removal

usnmustang says...

There be only one out-of-town comment for this topic, that totally discredits the opinion in subject. It is common knowledge that negative responders or opinionates do not have a very good command of the English language, let alone any original knowledge of the subjects they choose to defend. Most often the opinions are parroted from TV, News Clips, and second rate books. There are numerous opinions each day in the U-B that are not worth the ink to print, however are in most instances entertaining to read and privately "TEAR APART!" and laugh!!

Posted 4 January 2014, 3:13 p.m. Suggest removal

Log in to comment