Letter: Science and climate change
To the editor:
A recent letter criticizing the contents of an opinion written by Lowell Anderson in the April 14 Echo Press implied that Mr. Anderson's opinions were not based on science, while the writers' contrary opinions (and "the rest of us") were.
"Scientific method" is defined by Dictionary.com as "a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested." Other definitions are similar. You can't establish truths by this method; it can only falsify a hypothesis. So an ongoing scientific dialog is healthy and necessary.
For example, the hypothesis that global warming is primarily caused by increased levels of CO2 generated by man has been the subject of a number of computer models in recent decades. None of them have been demonstrated as correct, yet you'd never guess that, based on the strong convictions expressed by so many.
I applaud Mr. Anderson for expressing a contrary opinion to what is politically correct, and I encourage the writer to apply the "dedication, sacrifice and hard work" to gaining more knowledge about both sides of this issue with an open mind through research. There are numerous articles, books and websites that will go as deep as you want to go on the science behind both sides of this issue. I think you'll find that it isn't nearly as simple as some would like to make it.
By the way, other than disagreeing with the strong conclusions expressed on climate change, please don't assume I disagree on other issues referenced in the letter.