Letters 06-13-2016

June 10, 2016

Take Back Science?

This letter is in regards to Thomas Kachadurian’s piece concerning his faith in science. He says we were told that the low levels in Lake Michigan were due to global warming. Was this presented in a scientific journal (no reference was cited)? Was it an off-the-cuff remark by a climate scientist? Was it some journalist’s headline? He cites a number of examples where science got it wrong, and where politics has crept in. Science, like any human institution, is subject to error and corruption. This seems to have led to his conclusion that since science is not infallible, it’s better to disregard it if it disagrees with your own perception of the world.

Kachadurian says "In real science facts can be confirmed objectively. You don’t need a consensus to show that H2O turns to a solid at 32 F." If you see an unfrozen puddle by the side of the road on a winter day, can you objectively conclude the temperature is above 32F, or is unseen road salt dissolved in the water, keeping it unfrozen? Science merely starts with objective facts. To try to understand complex phenomena, many facts will need to be related in a logical way, and seemingly contradictory facts will need to be plausibly shown as non-critical. Theories need to be confirmed by further observation or experimentation.Results need to be presented for peer review. Then you start to build scientific consensus.

Scientists come in all political stripes. There is no scientist party. Scientific sounding pronouncements by PACs should be treated with skepticism

He says "It’s time to take back science." You can ignore science, or try to distort science, but you can’t take back that which you were never invested in.

Michael Moss, Cadillac

Intellectual Dishonesty

The scientists peddling their "scientific" papers questioning the certainty on climate change are betraying their dishonesty. To assert that there is uncertainty regarding a scientific finding describes all scientific conclusions. Science is unable to prove truth or guarantee certainty but only able to show their conclusions are likely true.

These "scientists" carry out their distortion of science by not submitting their papers for peer review, which is required by the scientific method to guard against human bias and error. Instead they impose their views on the public, as most of us are not as trained to be able to assess if the paper is factually sound.

Science uses testability to assess what is the best explanation for what is being studied. Besides requiring certainty and avoiding peer review, these questionable seekers of truth misrepresent the predictions being made as unreliable when in fact the predictions are usually underestimates of what is occurring.

These biased scientists usually focus on one aspect of global warming rather than the scope of what climate change is explaining. The strength of any scientific explanation is that it is able to explain many diverse events including sea level rise, extreme weather, acidity of the ocean, flooding, wild fires, and droughts. These scientists often focus on global temperature and ignore the other events.

Probably the most damaging criticism of the scientists who present evidence refuting global warming is the principle of falsifiability. Since scientific claims (i.e. global warming is a hoax) must be based on evidence, it must be possible to imagine a fact that could show it is false. When such facts are presented to the deniers, they are not accepted. Because no evidence could falsify the claim, it is not empirical but a statement of belief.

Ronald Marshall, Petoskey

Kachadurian’s Environmental Entertainment

Thomas Kachadurian’s essay in the June 6th issue was clearly written as entertainment rather than as serious thought. As such, it should have been placed near the end of the magazine with the astrology and advice columns.

"Scientists don’t have to do experiments anymore" is so far from the reality of working scientists that it doesn’t merit serious refutation. However, there is some good science on the subject of Great Lakes water levels and it should be presented in your publication, particularly in light of the nonsense contained in the first two paragraphs of his essay. Anyone with an Internet connection can access the actual science of water level changes by going to the NOAA-Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory website, or the site maintained by the Graham Sustainability Institute at the University of Michigan. It is a very complex equation. Mr. Kachadurian’s assertion that the recent rise in water levels is evidence that the science of climate change "has become a matter of faith" lacks any rational foundation.

Climate change is a fact, not a political statement. We are told that Mr. Kachadurian resides on Old Mission Point. That is a good thing; there is plenty of sand there in which he can comfortably bury his head. Hopefully that will keep him from writing more material that you’ll feel the need to publish.

Tom Darnton, Charlevoix

Real Science

As Thomas Kachadurian in the June 6 issue suggests, we should be skeptical of scientific studies, especially when they are produced by industries or individuals vested in promoting certain products, positions, or books. However, is he really suggesting global climate change is a scam like the one perpetrated by tobacco companies?

He makes the error of mistaking local weather -- fluctuating water levels in northern Michigan -- with climate, which is global. One does not have to have a degree in climate science to review the research. Bill Nye, affectionately known as "The Science Guy," is not a climate scientist, but he has a gift for explaining complicated topics in an easy-to-understand way. Is Kachadurian suggesting that a person who hasn’t done the research himself shouldn’t even talk about it?

Kachadurian states, "Scientists don’t have to do experiments anymore." Nevertheless, they keep at it, and they keep comparing their findings to see what holds true, just as they always have. As he must know, almost all scientists agree climate change exists, though they differ on the details. And they agree it is happening too quickly. The ones who disagree nearly all work for industries that would be adversely affected if we were to change the way we fuel our lives.

Like Kachadurian, I enjoy going outside and observing. This spring he sees high water levels. I see animals and plants expanding beyond their usual range. I see unpredictable bird migration and quirky weather. I blame these and other changes on a number of factors, but I also find it helpful to see what real, smart scientists think. This world is a very complicated place. If you are just looking out your window, you are missing the big picture!

Sally Cook, Frankfort