Picking and choosing evidence to support agenda

Published: December 7, 2012
Advertisement
;

“Mix of science, politics can result in bad policy,” (Our Views, Nov. 28) misrepresents science. Science is both apolitical and amoral — it takes no political or moral position. Science is based on evidence and evidence alone. That's not to say that science can't be misused by politicians and others to push an agenda, frequently by misquoting, misapplying or in some cases lying about the scientific findings. The editorial quotes an article from the Daily Mail that purports to discredit evidence of global warming. They do so by only citing part of the evidence (the previous 30 to 40 years) while the entire temperature record dates to the 1800s and demonstrates a significant upward trend, including the fluctuations cited in the article.

The evidence of warming is undeniable, Arctic sea ice equal to the land area of the United States melted last year. All regions of the Greenland ice cover showed melting last year; the rate of sea level rise is increasing at a faster rate than expected. These are just the tip of the iceberg so to speak. If one picks and chooses evidence, one can support almost anything. Real scientists don't do that. If they do they're exposed by other scientists for fraud.

Joseph D. Maness, Weatherford



Trending Now


AROUND THE WEB

  1. 1
    Did Pope Francis really tell a 90-year-old atheist journalist that 1 in 50 priests are pedophiles?
  2. 2
    Facebook and Twitter won the World Cup Final
  3. 3
    Dead body falls out of coroner's van along busy road
  4. 4
    Tracy Morgan: Recovering in style -- first pic since NJ turnpike crash
  5. 5
    Ex-captive Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl could return to active duty Monday
+ show more