Comments about ‘Skeptics not heretics’

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.

Valid points made in this letter.

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

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

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'.

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.

Great letter, Mr. Clayton.

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

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.

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.

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

(Yes, my real name)

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

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.