John Faulkner (Letters, Sept. 25) "sarcastically" suggests skepticism of "Global warming" statements by scientists "due to their desire to get more research funding, and fill their pockets with money." Could corporations likewise pay scientists to provide "desired" findings, to disprove Global warming, the way they "pay" politicians via campaign contributions to provide "desired" legislation? What other scientific statements should we similarly doubt?
He asks "can we trust in the majority view?" (The 97 percent of scientists who agree with global warming)? Should we instead, believe the 3 percent of scientists who do not believe in global warming? Better yet, let's believe scientific statements made by nonscientists!
Those scientists who believed in "global cooling" during the 1970s were a minority. Most wanted better data. Today, the controversy is between the scientific, business and political spheres. Within just the scientific community it is nearly unanimous.
Faulken says "There hasn't been any global warming for 16 years!
That is the truth!" What is his source of "Truth?" London's equivalent to the National Inquirer, "The Daily Mail." One scientist quoted (Judith Curry), denies making
any of those statements.
Yes, "maybe these 'experts' needed more information before forming a view." But, certainly the same is true for "nonexperts."
D.L. (ANDY) ANDERSON, Richland