On March 10, Dr. Melvyn Fein titled his column in the MDJ “Liberals’ climate-change denial hides many sins.” Since Dr. Fein claims to be thoroughly inculcated into the scientific peer review process, as his peer (certainly, I am as knowledgeable of climate change as he is) I would suggest that he change his title, since liberal or conservative political viewpoints should not correlate with scientific proof of climate change.
Further, the headline is inflammatory and brands the author as biased before a reading of the article begins. However, I think the good professor would discard this advice.
Dr. Fein bases his global warming rebuttal on 1) scientific journals are subject to manipulation, as evidenced by 120 science and math papers that were fraudulent, 2) scientific consensus proves nothing, 3) computer simulations are not facts and cannot validate themselves, 4) “People who are in denial refuse to see facts,” and 5) “Liberals are in deep denial.”
Regarding item (1): the 120 fraudulent scientific journals were indeed found to be fraudulent and not used to influence future research. In this example, the review process worked. Item (2): Please refer to item (4). Item (3): the climate scientists know this and continue to try to improve the computer models, not to validate global warming, but to predict its impact for planning purposes.
The real proof of global warming is found in field measurements (facts) of recent temperature increases (certainly with fluctuations, but still increasing); measurements of ice core and atmospheric gases (facts) which show a direct correlation of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and global temperature increases.
“Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position,” NASA has said at climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus. It is worth your perusal because it contains a staggering list of scientific organizations which have agreed with the concept that global warming exists and that mankind is highly likely to be causing it. I would like to see a poll of how many of the scientists in these prestigious groups are liberals in “deep denial.”
Finally, Fein’s reasoning is beyond faulty and biased. However, I believe him fully when he states: “People in denial argue for the strangest things.”