To the editor:
The author of the Feb. 1 letter ("Misleading language disheartening") reprimands The Journal saying: "The "global warming crowd" you are referring to are some of America's best and brightest scientists and mathematicians. These people are much more qualified and have devoted years of study to the climate situation. This study is legitimately separate from politics," and later, "You can't use politics to deny their truth.
Now I am not defending the Jan 30 Journal editorial since I have not studied the hydrofracking issue much, but just because someone has a PhD from MIT, it does not automatically certify they will be honest in their interpretation of data, or that they did not make a mistake. Great intelligence is not always a sign of great honesty in a person.
As to "Global Warming," we know that the Medieval Warm Period about 1000 years ago had been warmer than the 20th century, and that recent warming was not unusual; this and other evidence seems to indicate that GW is bogus. And I'm getting the same "bogus" results when examining the propaganda that radical environmentalists make about the dangers of coal fired power plants.
But probably one of the most blatant cases of intellectual dishonesty becomes apparent when we analyze scientists/educators (especially in "Scientific American" and "Smithsonian" magazines) speaking of macro-evolution as scientific fact, when in reality there simply is no conclusive evidence for it. With all the data we now have on hand pointing to "Intelligent Design," there simply is no excuse for even trying to defend macro-evolution, unless of course, you're a hard-core atheist carrying a grudge against certain areas of truth.