Analysis not open nor objective

Accusing opponents of techniques one uses oneself is a debating tactic the climate-change skeptics employ when accusing others of cherry-picking.

Science requires examining what the evidence indicates and drawing conclusions that the evidence suggests. Scientists don't shoe-horn evidence to satisfy some predetermined political dogma. With climate change it is not the scientific consensus that is built on cherry-picking, it is the obscure view of the skeptics that requires cherry-picking, but not of the data. It requires championing oddball opinion, distortions, deceptions and discredited claims.

Besides those few not publishing in the relevant peer-reviewed literature, the community of atmospheric scientists agrees on one interpretation of the climate-change evidence. To deny this interpretation requires rejecting what the experts conclude the evidence suggests while clinging to an interpretation propounded by an obscure minority who base arguments not on the evidence but on preconceived judgments that are maintained in the face of the evidence. Such contrary approaches are not often adopted by successful scientists.

When the points they have chosen to argue in defense of their position are discredited by the evidence, skeptics either deny the evidence or skip to another discredited argument built on deception and distortion. Lurching from deception to deception, they make it difficult for the voices of sanity and reason to pin them down.

Dr. Randall Stahly's view is based on neither an open nor an objective analysis of the evidence. This denies him at every turn. As Matt Miller suggested, at some point repeating errors becomes lying.

ALAN JOURNET, Cape Girardeau