Dear Editor:

Joe Grant’s letter to the editor of December 9 is a textbook example of science denial by cherry picking data. Cherry picking is the practice of sifting through data to present evidence to support a point of view, or opinion that is otherwise unsupported by the whole of the evidence. Joe Grant overlooks the entirety of the overwhelming evidence that human caused climate heating aka “the greenhouse effect” is real. Joe Grant fails to cite any published peer reviewed science journals so I will provide some for our readers here from  "The Physics of Climate Change” by Lawrence Krauss:

--Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity by Syukuro Manabe and Richard T. Wetherald in the Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences May 1, 1967;

--Atmospheric carbon dioxide variations at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii by Charles D. Keeling, et al in Tellus A December 1976;

--Perception of Climate Change by James Hansen, et. al. in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) August 6, 2012.

There are thousands more peer reviewed articles reporting on scientific research done in this area.  In short, global heating of our atmosphere and oceans is a matter of consensus of climate scientists.

Joe Grant’s opinion, based on a few selectively chosen data points, is not science or anything near it, it is denial and a sad commentary on the state of science education in this country. Apparently Mr. Grant does not know what scientific method is.

That such anti-science sentiment runs so deeply in our public discourse demonstrates the power of the propaganda generated by the fossil fuel industry. That so many people fall victim to these anti-science persuasions highlights the need for better education in critical thinking. 

There is a difference between intellectual skepticism and head in the sand denial. One book I recommend in learning general critical thinking skills is “The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in Dark” by Carl Sagan. I know that people like Joe Grant have invested heavily in this anti-science stance, but for the rest of us, let's be more skeptical.

Fred W. Nehring

Boothbay