Deseret News | Skeptics not heretics

Reader comments
Readers' forum: Skeptics not heretics

Timj | 5:07 a.m. July 10, 2009

Legitimate skeptics are skeptical because they don't believe the evidence is strong enough.
Illegitimate skeptics are skeptical because they have other, non-evidence based reasons for not wanting to accept the evidence. Money and some religious beliefs seem to be the two biggest reasons right now.
There's a big difference between the two types of skeptics. One has the potential to advance truth and knowledge, while the other won't.

Kevin | 7:00 a.m. July 10, 2009

Valid points made in this letter.

I just wish conservatives would turn their newfound skepticism toward the claims of their religion.

Matthew | 7:06 a.m. July 10, 2009

Who is Timj to judge which type of skeptic a person is? What type of "believer" is he, or is there only one kind?

Comments continue below

Anonymous | 7:32 a.m. July 10, 2009

It amazes me how desperately utahans want global warming to be untrue, so that guilt free lives of excess may continue in the name of 'freedom'.

@TMJ | 7:40 a.m. July 10, 2009

Could you explain, oh wise one, how the temperature of the earth is derived?
Once you study that and then factor in all the unkown variables in earth climate models, you will become skeptical that we know that man causes global warming. The temperature alone is in debate. It depends on the method and model used. There more you know the more you question.

Wes Lausten | 8:16 a.m. July 10, 2009

Great letter, Mr. Clayton.

@Timj | 5:07 a.m. | 9:17 a.m. July 10, 2009

To imply that religion is not evidence because you have apparently failed to do the experiment puts you in the illegitimate group.

A Rudd | 12:43 p.m. July 10, 2009

As a Caltech student who had many conversations with Feynman, I think that he would have been appalled to have his name invoked in an a strong effort to deny scientific evidence. A criterion that he often stated for evaluating claims was that in effect that if the result was subtle or weak this year, it better be better next year. The case for GW has indeed gotten stronger over time. By Feynman's rule it cannot be denied.

RedShirt | 12:58 p.m. July 10, 2009

To "A Rudd | 12:43 p.m." when you say global warming, you better define what you mean. I say this because it isn't global warming that is in debate, the data is in that shows warming through much of the 20th century. That is not in debate. However, the cause is.

So, when you say GW, do you mean man-made global warming or natural global warming. That is where the debate lies. There is evidence going both ways, and as each side wants to present their side, they make it stronger.

So, please let us know what you mean by GW.

R. William Clayton | 5:54 p.m. July 10, 2009

Hear Hear! Excellent letter from a man with a most excellent name.

(Yes, my real name)

R. William Clayton | 6:07 p.m. July 10, 2009

JUST KIDDING! My real name is none of your business!

Gus Talwynd | 7:08 p.m. July 10, 2009

Let's get real. The whole controversy is over the contribution of human-generated pollution to global climate change.

There is no question that human activity is adding to the problem. No one, except the anti-science deniers, thinks that human activity has absolutely no effect.

Scientists are not skeptical about the contribution. If anything, climate scientists may argue about the extent of that contribution and the resultant effects today. It is difficult to quantify, but pollution is having an effect.

To think overwise is to assume that human pollution is not a problem.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.