Consensus or junk science?

I suppose those of us who support the minority of scientists who believe that man-made global warming is a theory (and not a very good one at that), not proven science, should not be allowed to exercise OUR free speech, as opposed to Bob Muth Sr. (“Global warming is not just an opinion — it’s a consensus,” Aug. 2) and Jerry Elwood “Editor’s denial of climate change is ‘paranoid’,” Aug. 4) who have taken Managing Editor Frank Miele to the woodshed for voicing an opposing opinion.

I won’t repeat the numerous citations by respected authors in the fields of astrophysics, meteorology, climate science, statistics and others that I have previously mentioned in my letters. I won’t talk about the scientists who would not allow their names to be included in the politically motivated consensus report from the United Nations (IPCC) because their contributions were so distorted by the government hacks who wrote the report. I won’t dwell on the fact that a survey of 1,000 geoscientists and engineers found that only 36 percent agree with the UN panel. Nor would it help to cite major respected newspapers that point out the lack of change in temperature in the last 12 years. Or to identify the same weather pattern and sites of occurrence of violent storms as we experienced in the 1950s. Or to mention that CO2 emissions per capita in the United States have dropped to the lowest level in 40 years. Why bother? Or, as a famous liberal once said, “What difference does it make...?”

Logic or scientific doubt would do no good when “consensus” as put forward by politically motivated groups, such as the UN, and their dupes (if the shoe fits Mr. Muth and Dr. Elwood) are willing to mandate retrenchment of our lifestyle to save the planet. I have no problem with those who want to put solar panels on their homes before the technology is improved to a reasonable level. Nor do I care if you want to drive a Prius for fuel efficiency. JUST DON’T DICTATE TO ME WHAT I MUST DO WHEN I DON’T AGREE WITH YOUR JUNK SCIENCE!

As a physician, I have written a number of letters to the editor complaining of the junk science in medicine. The dangers of hormone replacement therapy in menopausal women is one which stands out. The product of a billion dollar National Institutes of Health initiative, it was overhyped (much as climate change) and the data was misinterpreted (just like climate change), resulting in many women suffering unnecessarily. Much of the medical dogma that we preach as “consensus” or proven fact is proven wrong down the road. Breast cancer was once treated in all cases with radical or even supra-radical mastectomy until we found that removing the cancer with a decent margin combined with radiotherapy, a much smaller and less deforming operation, was just as good.

So as you climate mavens attack us as global warming deniers, safe in the security that we will all likely be long dead and buried when you are proven wrong, put up your windmills and solar panels and drive one of those little wheeled coffins you call an energy-efficient car. Just leave me alone with my gluttony of fossil fuels and trucks. Surely the CO2 emissions you are saving will be enough to balance out my excesses! While you’re at it, stop the personal attacks on the editor for having a different opinion and stick to the junk science, I mean facts.

P. David Myerowitz is a resident of Columbia Falls.