Letters to the Editor
Mike Sulzer
Published Letters: 688 Editor's Choice: 2
-
ITSASECRET
[Read the article: Anti-science conservatives must be stopped]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]wrote:The last few years have been startling. The North Pole was not supposed to be ice free in the summer until sometime in the 22nd century. It now appears it could be ice free by about 2023.
Global warming is happening, no doubt about it. But how much is caused by man (anthropogenic) and how much is from other causes? Temperature records alone do not answer the question; the fluctuation is generally significant without man. Climate modeling is necessary in order to determine the causes, and it is clear that anthropogenic causes are significant. If you are going to die in a flood should you care about the cause? Yes, if it is anthropogenic, we have a better chance of fixing it by modifying our behavior.
-
It never ceases to amaze me
[Read the article: Anti-science conservatives must be stopped]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]that whenever a problem occurs that requires changes in regulation or a greater degree of international cooperation, it is called "socialism". Wake up! Changes are necessary. Unregulated capitalism disappeared log ago. It is better to determine how best to make the changes than to deny the need.
-
After all, I still remember when global cooling was a threat to our future.
[Read the article: Anti-science conservatives must be stopped]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Do you? How long was that considered a problem? Just long enough for computers to get a bit better, maybe? It is not the same science now as it was then, and repeating that tired anti-global warming line is ignorant.
-
Student_on_the_rebound
[Read the article: Anti-science conservatives must be stopped]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Would it be such a challenging task to, I dunno, look at the other side of the fence and try to answer some of the doubts of the Right-wingers?
They are mostly not looking for answers since they believe that they already have the answers: no action required.
Could there be a more conclusive study on global warming?
Studies continue. Data and models will improve, and predictions will change somewhat.
Could the scientific community, who it must be said are not the most vocal bunch, make an attempt at public education?
It is. Could the Bush administration stop trying to prevent scientists from making that attempt?
Could we come up with global solutions without demeaning someone else's beliefs?
If beliefs are held in contraction to facts, the beliefs will eventually have to change. I do not think that "demeaning" is necessary.
-
??: Since the yera 2000 the mean global temperature has FALLEN
[Read the article: Anti-science conservatives must be stopped]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Might want to look at some data: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
-
bucks4McSame: just the flavor of the month
[Read the article: Anti-science conservatives must be stopped]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That month has lasted for decades.
Yes, modeling is required to demonstrate that the measured increase in global mean temperature is due to human effects. And your reason for disbelieving the modeling results is......?
-
JamesG
[Read the article: Anti-science conservatives must be stopped]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think MP said that after a bad day at the university. Well, there is some truth to it, but most scientists are capable of changing their views if beaten sufficiently hard with the new evidence; no, I mean after a careful rational look at the new evidence. Those not trained in science should be given some leeway to resist. Maybe two decades. And those decades are up.
-
Event Horizon
[Read the article: Anti-science conservatives must be stopped]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]wrote:I don't recall saying the views of the "extreme' are "based on ignorance"
Right, I said that. "Based on ignorance" is the the most favorable thing you can say on the RWA view on this topic. "Intentional lies" is correct in some cases.
Honest, critical thinking requires we collect as much information as possible before reaching any conclusions.
Right, and then you discard the crap, not average it in with the rest. Would you argue that the truth is somewhere between evolution and creationism?
You are arguing that scientific research, although having error bars perhaps somewhat greater than some think, is somehow equivalent to what the other side does. It is not; they are not the same thing. You cannot treat them as the same thing in an honest discussion.
-
student_on_the_rebound
[Read the article: Anti-science conservatives must be stopped]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]wrote:Well, if studies are still ongoing, and there is nothing very conclusive to show me, a scientific layman, then what can you hope for?
On going studies will determined the effects of global warming, especially the anthropogenic component, more accurately.
-
Silenced
[Read the article: Anti-science conservatives must be stopped]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree that he is the wrong man for the job, but I think it is a bit of exaggeration to say he is leading the scientific community; in certain ways, yes, but not completely.
I do not like his 2006 letter regarding the Kansas school board thing. Saying that there is no conflict between science and religion is just plain wrong. You can argue about how serious the conflict is, bit it is certainly there.
-
maxwell127
[Read the article: Anti-science conservatives must be stopped]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]wrote:That is unethical journalism and is the same torment that the conservative portions of Congress are throwing at the American people. If you want to complain about transparency, you better be transparent.
Missing references (especially since a web search is so easy) and outright lies are not the same thing. But I agree it would be better to include the references.