Is it scientific theory or scientific fact?
Dave Safier's column on scientists who "sell out" is more of his wrong-headed thinking ("The world needs scientists who won't sell out," Sept. 21, 2011).
On the subject of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), it used to be labeled anthropogenic global warming. But then the "science" behind it was exposed as a fraud and, in reality, the last few years have shown a declining global temperature, so the narrative was changed to "climate change," a much more nebulous term.
Astronomers are currently saying that they expect a marked decrease in sun spot activity in the next few years, and with it a marked decrease in global temperature. Let the experiment run its course and see if sun spot activity is the cause of large temperature changes on Earth.
On the subject of evolution, most scientists who view the world through a Creation lens support the idea of evolution: micro evolution. That is the fact that living organisms contain within their DNA information that allows them to adapt to changing conditions. The concept that the environment causes new information to appear in DNA, and thus produce a new genus, is without scientific merit.
We have been assured that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. We know that soft tissue does not live millions of years. And yet we have bones of Tyrannosaurus Rex that contain blood cells that can have DNA extracted from them. So we have two supposed scientific facts that are in contradiction with each other.
Today we learned that scientists might have found a particle that travels faster than the speed of light, a concept that violates Albert Einstein's statement that nothing can travel faster than light.
So beware of building your house on scientific theory that is being touted as fact.
Andy Woodward, Tucson
Use facts and reality, not so-called data
The entire climate change issue is surrogacy for a much deeper dispute than mere science ("The world needs scientists who won't sell out," Sept. 21, 2011).
There are the fear-driven, massive-government, hard core leftists, supporters of radical Democrat elites intent on micromanaging every last iota of the U.S. economy.
Then there are the thinking people, who are driven by reality and facts and just want to know the truth.
There is no better way to take over the economy than by terrorizing the gullible with allegedly settled science predicting the imminent end of life as we know it.
Even a cursory evaluation of the so-called data and predictive models makes it crystal clear that the data is anything but conclusive, highly subjective, lacks significant temporal and spatial reliability, with the historical record highly ambiguous and subject to large uncertainties.
Predictive models lack a decent understanding of much of the basic physics driving the climate, and give any answer desired depending upon how the correlating parameters are set. The natural processes driving planetary thermodynamics are poorly understood on the scale needed for reliable predictions.
In short, reality is enormous uncertainty with respect to current understanding of the earth's mass and energy balance and resulting temperatures.
Science is only settled to those who want it settled, because it justifies their political views. Just like the "... Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" crowd, those who view the matter closed will never believe anything contrary to their religious views on the subject. And just like certain religious zealots who resort to vicious personal attacks, name-calling, and worse, against those will not embrace their beliefs, the settled science sycophants are simply closed-minded bigots.
While "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" makes for juvenile entertainment, reality is far too important to allow such bias to drive a critical debate.
Rick Cunnington, Oro Valley