Regarding Tom Harris' opinion expressed in “Anti-science ruins the climate debate” (April 20):
Generally, scientists are careful to cover their conclusions by disclaimers and qualifications to an extent unmatched by other forms of inquiry. As Richard Feynman (Nobel laureate in physics) stated in his book, "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman": " scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought corresponds to a kind of utter honesty. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid ."
Any reputable scientific panel takes this kind of stance, and that is why those panels make clear statements relatively infrequently. When scientific consensus eventually emerges, we can be sure that the scientists have considered all the evidence.
Tom Harris states there is a "doctrine (that) is a collection of now-familiar assertions made about climate, all of which must be accepted without question."
No, there is no "doctrine," and no part of the scientific consensus was arrived at by anything other than the deepest, most skeptical study. His favored climate ideas did not pass scientific muster and are not included in the current consensus. But readers should not be fooled by his whines, and should instead urge their congressional representative and senators to support climate change legislation.
- Jay Evensen: Why the pioneers give us hope today
- In our opinion: Disgusting algae bloom...
- Michael Gerson: The triumph of cynicism
- My view: Algae blooms in Utah Lake
- My view: Prison reform proponents have it...
- Arthur Cyr: Coup attempt underscores...
- Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Shurtleff,...
- Letter: Carbon fee legislation
- In our opinion: The GOP convention... 32
- Letter: Carbon fee legislation 29
- My view: Supporting Utah's public... 27
- Michael Gerson: The triumph of cynicism 23
- My view: More whites should practice... 21
- My view: Algae blooms in Utah Lake 16
- Mia Love: We are the pioneers of our day 15
- Letter: Vote Gary Johnson 14