• Front page
• Receive letters on your RSS reader

Dan Staley of Castle Rock writes:

I generally find the viewpoints of Mike Rosen to be educational. For example: who knew that standard weather station reporting is a conspiracy to coerce us into using less water (October 12)? But his latest column (Al Gore’s Ignoble Nobel, October 19) is doctorate-level education in sociology.
It is instructive that his column was a rehash of what regularly appears in a few media outlets but not the scholarly literature. These arguments Rosen recycled lack robust evidence to back them and have not withstood professional scrutiny. Every last point long ago was addressed, refuted, and laid to rest. Nevertheless, here they are again unchanged from their previous recycling.
What is most instructive, however, is the newly quieter and plaintive voice in which the refuted arguments are delivered, because the viewpoint of Rosen and a few others are in a rapidly shrinking minority. Our society is no longer discussing whether man-made climate change is happening. Now we are discussing what we should do about it.
The societal shop has sailed, as it were, and the voices of the few Rosens who refused to board are fading with distance. Society is now discussing the ship’s course, and we have learned that the best the Rosens can do to contribute to the course-setting by the Al Gores of the world is recycling, hyperbole and name-calling.

This letter has not been edited.

READER COMMENTS

It seems every cult with mindless followers have doomsday predictions. After a long search between man destroying the world with nuclear warheads, western civilization destroying it’s self, white man planning AIDS in Africa to kill everyone, farmers poisoning the food supply, world war III over oil and religion, looks like the left has found a new one in global climate change, SUVs drowning polar bears and coastal populations. Lucky for the rest of us who can still sleep good at night, we know that history proved time after time that scientists are wrong more often than not. Modern science is more about government grants and politics than facts.

I just love the argument from the doom and gloomers. That the majority of scientists are backing global warming. When in FACT it is the other way around. Those that are still screaming about global warming are NOT the ones who study the climate.

Several facts often left out is that there is more ice pack then previous thought. That the glaciers are growing in most areas. Especially in Greenland where they had to travelk to the only, I repete the only glacier that is actually shrinking.

Humans are sheep and will continue to be sheep unbtill they wake up and stop drinking the koolaid.

Uno will apparently believe scientists only if they tell him what he wants to hear. Just like George Bush. Do you really believe that "Modern science is more about government grants and politics than facts?" Then I guess you'll be giving up your antibiotics, your GPS devices, your cellphones and your computers real soon, then, won't you? When it comes to a scientific question like climate change I have more confidence in the opinions of climate scientists than of political hacks.

"I just love the argument from the doom and gloomers. That the majority of scientists are backing global warming. When in FACT it is the other way around. "

I'd love to see a link, cruton

http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200710250001

Anything linked to mediamatters is highly suspect.

Now, now Romulus, what are you saying? Al Gore is a climate scientist now? To me he is just a political hack.
Also the scientific basis for some of the things you listed are from accidental discoveries, and the popularity of computers, you can thank a college dropout for that.

Also I said “scientists are wrong more often than not” I didn’t say all the time. If not so, where is cold fusion? How come rockets work in the vacuum of space after all? There are countless of examples of wild claims by scientists, look them up. So tell me, what percentage human activity is contributing to global climate change. It should be easy to answer with all the scientists working on this.

Uno, you can choose to be on the side opposite of science....but it's not going to do your credibility any favors.

Uno got it right:

"It seems every cult with mindless followers have doomsday predictions."

Yeah, like Islamofacists are going to establish a Caliphate that will rule the world...so let's attack Iraq!!!

Then Uno prattled on about some bogus theories that are supposed to support his contention that scientists are wrong more often than not.

Perhaps, but scientists at least admit it and move on. That's what science is.

Ya prat...

Uno said ” Lucky for the rest of us who can still sleep good at night, we know that history proved time after time that scientists are wrong more often than not”

Sure thing, science is indeed more often wrong than right, but why would that make you sleep better at night?
Science has shown itself to be amazingly good – just look at all the goodies around you, including the internet and PC you used to post your comment with.
What other method of enquiry would you propose if not science?
Belief?

” Modern science is more about government grants and politics than facts.”

Actually that hasn’t changed much, if anything it is a bit better than before.
If it wasn’t royalty or benefactors or the church deciding what outcomes and findings were tolerable, then it was direct threat of being tortured or killed if the answer wasn’t satisfactory.
These days (with one notable recent exception) developed countries only restrict what gets researched and what gets further funding, they don’t actually censor findings, and nobody burns scientists at the stake, makes them drink poison, or has them put under house arrest for discovering something the rulers didn’t like.

A fair improvement, I would say.

I do likes it too when Mike "I'm not a Scientist Either" Rosen seeks forth to edumicate me. I especially likes it when he makes fun of and disparges those I already disagree with and don't like. Thats funny!

Bangalore Skank, "they don’t actually censor findings, and nobody burns scientists at the stake, makes them drink poison, or has them put under house arrest for discovering something the rulers didn’t like."

Unfortunately, it may come to that if the "man made" global warming crowd gets its way.

Already, skeptical scientists have had their reputations trashed, grants removed and careers threatened. The media has been warned not to allow their views to be heard. Skeptics been accused of taking bribes, called the equivalent of holocaust deniers and "climate criminals deserving of Nuremberg style trials".

That's the reason I've taken their side of it. If the science behind the theory that global warming is human caused was solid, then proponents of it wouldn't have to resort to threats and insults to win the argument. The science would stand on its own.

As usual, Rosen doesn't know what he is writing about.

Dave said ” Skeptics been accused of taking bribes, called the equivalent of holocaust deniers and "climate criminals deserving of Nuremberg style trials".”

Accused and compared to holocaust deniers by whom; the scientific bodies, the science journals, the research institutions?

” That's the reason I've taken their side of it. If the science behind the theory that global warming is human caused was solid, then proponents of it wouldn't have to resort to threats and insults to win the argument.”

Faulty logic again, Dave.
Now you are concluding that the holdouts must be correct because you think they have been threatened or insulted. How does that make sense to you?
In what manner is the truth of a claim dependent on whether it’s author is insulted by others or not?
Does the press dictate what is true by virtue of whom they mock?

” The science would stand on its own.”

Precisely!
It should stand on its own regardless of any personal attributes of the people involved.

What you are doing, and it is an understandable and very human thing to do, is take a shortcut and base your belief of the validity and truth of something on the authority of people you trust.
Nothing wrong with that as a heuristic to reduce effort, but it is not a predictor of the truth of anything, only a handy shortcut to save time and thinking.

You have just taken the heuristic one step too far, and assumed it determines truth.

Dave, we're waiting for the evidence you're going to provide backing up all your accusations...

(crickets)

......

(dog barks in distance)

......

(car door closes)

Bang, what on earth are you talking about “just look at all the goodies around you, including the internet and PC you used to post your comment with.”? What is that has to do with climate change?

Charles, you’re a mindless cult follower, a cult called Democrats.

Uno, it demonstrates that science doesn't just explain in narrow language what it sees in nature, it is also productive through technological artifacts that people use.

So when science tells you that the planet has warmed and is undergoing a heating event driven by human activity, it isn't just some bunch of misfits with soapboxes in the park, it is the same academy of thought that brings technology into being.

It is thus a good idea to pay attention to them.

On the flip side, the people denying the science are predominantly politicians and talk-show types - now ask yourself how many goodies they produce for you.

POST A COMMENT

• Columbus Day parade embarrassment
• Money can cause incompetence
• Victim advocates still wrong
• DMV restrooms a disaster
• Fareed Zakaria’s editorial
• Thoughts on torture
• Surprised that Sen. Salazar signed Reid letter
• “Memoirs 2002” an interesting read