Fein’s column more scientific illiteracy
February 26, 2014 04:00 AM | 1763 views | 8 8 comments | 22 22 recommendations | email to a friend | print
DEAR EDITOR:

I’m beginning to wonder if scientific illiteracy is a prerequisite for having a column in the Marietta Daily Journal that references climate change.

Dr. Melvyn Fein’s latest column, “Left locked in deep denial about Obama” follows Don McKee’s columns from last month and Charles Krauthammer’s current absurd syndicated column “Barack Obama and the myth of ‘Settled Science,’” all of whom managed to butcher scientifically demonstrable reality with their bizarre denialist pieces. We have a veritable trifecta of bad information.

In his piece, Dr. Fein actually equated our current understanding of climate change with belief in UFOs. As an academic, Fein should know better. He should understand more than most, the academic discipline and rigor involved in getting a Ph.D. in a particular field of study; which in the case of climate science includes physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, ecology, oceanography and biology, among others. These scientists aren’t working with mail-order credentials. They aren’t publishing their findings on BlogSpot. They are doing real science.

Dr. Fein should also understand the scientific method. He should know what peer-review means. But by setting climate science and belief in UFOs as equal, he has demonstrated all too clearly that either he skipped all science classes on his way to his sociology degree, or that he understands science and is simply pandering to the gazing populace who choose to stay in the dark.

R.L. Bays

Kennesaw

Comments
(8)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
Kevin Foley
|
February 28, 2014
I've got news for the deniers. Nearly 100% of all climate scientists in the world agree global warming is for real and manmade CO2 is the most likely reason why.

I choose to put my faith in people who actually know what they're talking about, not some crack pot in the pay of the oil or coal industry on Fox News

Here's another flash: Darwin was right.

And one thing more: the earth isn't 6,000 years old and man didn't co-exist with dinos otherwise they'd be showing The Flintstones in high school science classes.
CobbCoGuy
|
March 01, 2014
KF,

Please kindly explain the following...

"There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists."

Source:

Statement of Patrick Moore, Ph.D.; Before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight; February 25, 2014;



“Natural Resource Adaptation: Protecting ecosystems and economies”

Patrick Moore, Ph.D., was one of the founders of Greenpeace.
CobbCoGuy
|
March 01, 2014
The holy grail of the human-caused climate change movement is the hockey stick graph, created by Michael Mann from Penn State, and others.

According to Moore, when McIntyre and McKitrick requested from Mann the original data used to create the hockey stick, Mann refused.

Is this true? Anyone? If true, why would Mann refuse such a request?

I would think Mann would welcome any peer review.

on balance
|
February 27, 2014
Guido,

Bays is a gadfly.
CobbCoGuy
|
February 27, 2014
R.L. Bays,

You are obviously intelligent and well read on the subject of climate change. It is also obvious - correct me, if I'm wrong - that you believe the science is "settled" and there is no need for further discussion.

Is it also fair to say that you believe it is correct, and necessary, to suppress and, if possible, completely extinguish, any differing opinions?

Just so we completely understand your position.
R.L. Bays
|
February 28, 2014
Hi CobbCoGuy,

Of course science is settled until it's unsettled. And it's unsettled by new, better research. In other words, science is always about progress toward a better understanding of the natural world. So until new, better research is presented that contradicts the current understanding of climate change, I'm sticking with the current understanding of climate change.



I'm happy to factor new evidence (notice how that's different from opinions) in to my assessment but I don't (nor should anyone) equate blogs and opinion columns by non-climate scientists with actual peer-reviewed scientific research.

Hope that helps :)
CobbCoGuy
|
February 28, 2014
Very good, Bays.

Even tho' I don't agree that things are currently settled, sounds like we can have civil discourse going forward.

Have a good'un.
Guido Sarducci
|
February 26, 2014
Mr. Bays, the real scientific community is populated by scientists with open minds. Thank God, you are not a scientist. Alchemy and the flat world would be the subjects of the day if scientists were as close minded as you.
*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, and spam will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides