Scientific versus unscientific thought

To the editor:

This past week Sloan’s moans attempt to teach us about the scientific and unscientific. Many of today’s climate change ideologists — whose grants are largely contingent on providing “evidence” to support a particular economic model — corrupts the scientific method, he states. He continues, “Leftist rejection of science doesn’t end with climate change.”

Sloan reminds me of a frog study done in 1935 indicating that a frog placed in water with calories gradually increasing will eventually boil to death without it realizing what is happening. Come to think of it, perhaps Sloan’s moans aren’t rightist, they may just be “frog like” or maybe he is just foolish.  

Is it possible that science is so definitive as Sloan’s moans declare? I don’t know what Sloan’s beliefs or faith are, but there are many who claim that not believing in God is scientific, propounding thoughts that in essence state that all things majestic, alive and in motion begin from nothing, that this wondrous order we experience comes from disorder or no order. Enough should be enough, but let me continue. Many continue to insist that some microscopic iotas “decided” to band together to bond heaven and earth. It seems so foolish and absurd what passes for scientific thought on evolution, but I’ve gotten off on a tangent.

Sloan’s moans continue by saying, “The often comical dismissal of the fields of geology and petro-physics displayed by the anti fracking crowd is an integral part of the green ideology.”

He doesn’t stop there. He complains about the terminological latitude that liberals have inflicted on marriage, terrorism and is. Where does this come from?  Sloan wont quit. His moans equate Marxism’s violent repression of religion with today’s climate change fanaticists. How much foolishness can we stand?

If we accept Sloan’s moans, we just might be worst off than frogs. Sloan’s ideological gymnastics convert one truth to subvert, flip and contort other truths.

Jose Lucero, Grand Junction