In response to “Proposed AZ bill hinders scientific advancement in global warming fight” (By Dan Desrochers Feb. 8):
It is good that the writer finds his home in the opinions page. If you don’t have to hide your bias with facts, you can be as outrageous and pedantic as you like. The obvious bias is the line “as fair and balanced as Fox News”. This has been a common talking point among the Left but the writer fails to recognize the bias behind NBC, MSNBC and CNN. The claim that “30,000 scientists signed a paper saying global warming wasn’t primarily caused by humans” is shrugged off in an afterthought while the global expert Al Gore is held up as more knowledgable than 30,000 scientists combined. Science is open for debate and teachers should be allowed to question science, in order to foster a discussion.
Just reread the article, could find no mention of Al Gore! As a matter of scientific fact, Mr. Desrochers is correct that the existence and cause of climate change is well-understood, and that the debate now is about what, if anything, we’re going to do about it. It’s those who want to short-circuit that discussion who claim to challenge the science, just as big tobacco did so effectively for so long. Climate change is happening, and it’s caused by CO2 from our burning of fossil fuels. Get over it, move on to consider what, if anything, we do about it. That is a debate politicians and political think tanks can legitimately contribute to. Phony challenges to the science merely undermine our democracy, stop it!
— Dennis DuBay (in response to Brian)
The article did not mention Al Gore but the attack on right wing Fox News is an obvious bias for the Left. (If the left can call me a racist because I use “code words” like “welfare” and “angry”, then I can [use] code words too).
The question of the effects of second-hand smoke are legitimate. If you put yourself in the shoes of the company, you would want to know for sure that your product killed or harmed someone second hand before you shelled out billions in lawsuit settlements.
As for the CO2 debate, I urge you to read the study by Burt Rutan.
— Brian (in response to Dennis DuBay)
“ … those 30,000 people are not even close to the majority of experts …”
As an editor of a news publication, Mr. Desrochers should know better than to toss out an assertion like that without any proof to back it up. That figure actually far outnumbers the figure thrown about in support of the IPCC, 2,500-3,000, which itself is not a number that reflects the actual amount of experts on climate science. What the Oregon Petition Project does is illustrate the number of scientifically literate people who are greatly concerned about the disregard for the Scientific Method which the IPCC seems to employ. I’d also suggest that those who chose to smear the petition do so at their own peril, as I suggested in a 2010 article about it: “The Curious History of ‘Global Climate Disruption.’”
On the global warming issue, this bill would advance scientific advancement on the issue, since it points to the anti-science position taken by enviro-activists and their supporters who would rather pontificate on the matter being closed while pretending skeptic science points are invalid, instead of engaging in the arena of ideas, showing in detail how skeptic climate scientists assessments are wrong.
Nobody is debating whether global warming is real, but those on the enviro-activist side do not want the public to know there is an unsettled debate over whether human-induced greenhouse gases are the primary driver of it. And that political position, friends, is the true anti-science one.
— Russell Cook
I support killing this legislation. However, teaching that “global warming is caused by humans” is problematic because it’s only partially true. They have been shown to play a role, but they are not the sole cause.
Teaching that “the earth has become warmer in recent decades” is the teaching of scientific a fact, regardless of what humans are doing.
— Good Lt.