Getting one-sided story on global warming
To the editor
In my 10-18-19 ‘Global warming position indefensible’, I noted that even a somewhat small up or down change in the massive quantity of atmospheric water vapor may release or absorb far more heat, and therefore have more effect on temperature, than would a doubling of our current tiny CO2 level.”
The 10-22-19, ‘U.S. military expresses concern about climate change’ does a rebuttal without challenging my climate science figures. He simply quotes the military: “Climate change is a threat that shapes the entire geostrategic environment,………” He says we need to listen to the military because: “they are less amenable to politicized science.”
Many Vietnam war combat vets will agree that politicians pretty much decided on how the war would be fought. Why should their influence on the military be any different regarding science issues?
In ‘An American Knight’, Col. John W. Ripley, the Marine Corps’ most famous Vietnam war hero, documents in appendix 1&2, his testimony before the 1992 Presidential commission on assignment of women in combat roles; and the 1993 House Armed Services committee on preserving the ban on homosexuals in the Armed Forces. It’s a real eye opener, alas, his common sense advice has been rejected.
My letter ended with: “Like evolution, heliocentricity, and billions of years old earth, the “man-made global warming” position appears to be indefensible.”
Carved in stone above Cyrus Northrop auditorium are these words: “University of Minnesota. Founded in the faith that men are ennobled by understanding dedicated to the advancement of learning, and the search for truth…”. Seems comparable with definition of a scientist: ‘A person engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge that describes and predicts the natural world.’
So why can’t our taxpayer funded education system just adhere to that path?
Why do scientific topics like the four above, have to be run through the PC processor before being released for public indoctrination, such that we end of up only one side of the story instead of honest presentation and discussion of all viewed data and plausible explanations? (PC = politically correct)