<div> </div>
<div>All:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This might be fun!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett</div>
<div>-----------------</div>
<div>Mr. O'Neal:<br><br>You wrote in your Daily News editorial, topped with the headline in the subject heading in this e-mail, printed Tues., March 6, 2007:<br><br>On this page, the faithful's rhetorical amamentarium consists of little more than sophomoric personal swipes at one writer who dares to question the faith.
<br>----<br>In my editorial topped with the headline ""Human Effects on Climate Change Are Real," from the Fri., February 23, Daily News, I presented a documented rebuttal of Ed Iverson's claims that the scientific community's warnings about human induced global warming are partly based on suppression of the data from the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age, data he implies contradict their theories. I also presented data and well developed theory on climate change that supports the claim that human CO2 outputs will alter our climate in dramatic fashion.
<br><br>My editorial was neither sophomoric nor based on faith, but premised upon the empirical world of science, where scientist's data and theories are questioned critically by other scientists, intent on determining the functioning of the natural world apart from the irrational bias and emotional wishful thinking so common among human beings, often driven by religious superstition or "faith." If a scientist's data or theories do not stand up to scrutiny, they face a culture of exposure for their mistakes or biases. This is how the scientific method proceeds.
<br><br>The misinformation campaign by those seeking to distort and mystify the scientific evidence for human induced global warming qualifies more clearly for the label "The Church of Global Warming Denial," than do those who promote the scientific evidence for global warming deserve the label you placed upon them. Your claims that those who are warning of the dangers of human induced global warming are not doing so based on the scientific evidence, is doing a disservice to the respect for the impartial objective pursuit of truth in regard to understanding the natural world, a pursuit that science has fought a courageous battle to defend over centuries against the forces of superstition and denial of the facts gained from observation.
<br><br>If your logic prevailed, we would see attacks against the "Church of Nuclear Weapons" for making arguments against nuclear fall out from nuclear war, while they use nuclear power, or the "Church of Lead Poisoning" spouting hypocritical propaganda about the harm of lead exposure, while they use lead solder in their electronics, or the "Church of Psychiatry's" hypocrisy for promoting the idea of genetic mental illness, while still believing in a soul with human choice and responsibility.
<br><br>Many of those who follow the conclusions of science would be under attack for so called "hypocrisy," if they were caught in any contradiction between their faith or lifestyle, and the science in question.
<br><br>Which would pretty much catch most all of us, in one way or another.<br><br>Ted Moffett<br> </div>