The American Spectator

br> — Karl F. Auerbach br> Eden, Utah /p>

After looking at his blog, I find Russell Seitz a much more reasonable fellow than I gave him credit. I have not gotten my criticism of the climate change panic off talk radio. I work during the day and can only read. I expect that he might not like my sources but it doesn’t fit into his talking point. My problem with science salesmen like Mr. Seitz comes from my work experience as an engineer. I have seen their mays, possiblys and pontentiallys in many different settings.

Mr. Seitz appears unaware that some of his colleagues play a significant role in the media propaganda blitz. Hockey sticks and 10 warmest years are propaganda tools released to media outlets for only one purpose. Criticizing Al Gore is a nice start but serious scientists must take the bats to their colleagues that are willing to become whores for the Al Gores of the world. When scientists give their colleagues a pass for unethical behavior they inherit their reputations.

p>I won’t be reading any lengthy scientific proceedings on climate change but will develop an opinion on the matter anyway. I have to since there are many political types who are trying to make radical changes to my life who won’t be reading it either. That opinion will have to be developed by using trusted sources willing to spend more time than I can give to this activity. Scientists who make press release propaganda, comment on every hurricane, tornado, tsunami, string of hot days, cold days, forest fire, excessive precipitation, drought or whatever weather provides the helpful anecdote won’t make the trusted source category. Science writers or scientists that emphasize consensus over substance are not credible either. The idea that the state of knowledge cannot be summarized is bilge. When it gets summarized with words like may, possibly or potentially nobody should be trying to influence public policy. br> — Clifton Briner /p>