The Rice Thresher

Location: http://the.ricethresher.org/opinion/2007/02/23/letters_to_the_editor

February 23, 2007 > Opinion > Letters to the Editor

Letters to the Editor

By The Rice Thresher Editorial Staff | Thresher Editorial Staff

Debate worthless without full info

To the editor:

Two weeks ago, Carr Taylor wrote a column (“Global warming claims should be challenged” Feb. 9) that was interesting but sadly lacking in its argument. He refers to Newsweek and The New York Times to illustrate inconsistency in the global climate argument, but his assertions seem to lack any credible weight.

I’m no scientist — I’m not even a science major — but I and everyone else who’s taken high school English can tell a faulty argument when they see one.

Truthfully, Taylor’s facts are somewhat correct. Water vapor does produce two-thirds of the world’s greenhouse effect and is vital to our atmosphere, but Taylor presents this in a faulty context. The knowledge of water vapor and the past cycles of planet warming/cooling is not news to the scientific community. They have known about it for years. And the Earth does have its own naturally occurring carbon cycle (see:www.koshlansciencemuseum.org) that has contributed to natural fluctuations in the past. True, humans are but one element in the big picture of Earth, but we are an increasingly influential element. It’s important to understand our relationship to the planet so that we can better prolong and appreciate its benefits.

Ultimately, I’m not interested in fixing Taylor’s column. I’m more concerned with the failure to see and address the real problem in these debates. Integrity is at stake here. In fact, I agree with Carr Taylor in that we have to get the facts, know the whole story and that “too many questions go unasked.”

The thing is, there are proselytizers on both sides of the greenhouse/climate debate; both sides have been guilty of hand-picking the facts and leaving out “inconvenient” information. But arguing is worthless if you don’t even include all the information.

Melody Yenn

Will Rice sophomore

Non-scienist fails to think logically

To the editor:

I was appalled by the deceptive logic in Carr Taylor’s guest column (Global warming claims should be challenged, Feb. 9). His well-written, common-sense analysis gives the impression that climate scientists are incompetent fools, whose work has no credibility. While questioning authority is part of the scientific process, uninformed ridicule of “experts” is not.

Taylor’s sources of information were surely not from the scientific literature, Nature or Science magazines, the many talks at Rice by global warming experts, or the 2006 book by Rice alumnus Andy Dessler (Lovett ‘86), The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change: A Guide to the Debate. Taylor does cite the recent summary for policymakers by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. However, the contents of this report demolish most of his arguments. I surmise that his misconceptions about global warming came from the media or Web sites hostile to science.

Taylor’s column exemplifies the failure of our educational system to teach non-scientists how to think logically about technical issues. This creates a vicious cycle of ignorance, in which neither journalists nor voters get things right. As leaders of tomorrow, Rice students might emulate Bill Clinton, a non-scientist who learned to think through complex issues of all kinds. In 1993-94, the Clinton administration implemented tepid measures to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. The backlash contributed to the Republican takeover of Congress in 1995. Afterwards, Clinton wisely abandoned environmental advocacy and settled on a survival strategy.

Future effects of global warming will ensure that tomorrow’s leaders have abundant opportunity to apply the lessons provided last week by Taylor and Clinton.

Bill Wilson

Biochemistry postdoctoral research scientist

Abortion should not be a “choice”

To the editor:

Last week’s letter to the editor (“Choice refusal sums Feminists for Life,” Feb. 16) criticized Feminists for Life for not offering the “choice” of abortion among the options offered to women facing unplanned pregnancies. This criticism makes an assumption about abortion — namely, that it is simply like any other “choice.” Choosing whether or not to have an abortion is not like choosing whether or not to go to graduate school — it is choosing whether or not to kill a baby. While this is an uncomfortable point, and not meant to condemn anyone who has had an abortion, it is the truth. Biology tells us that life begins at conception — one only needs to look to the nearest embryology textbook to see this.

When one accepts the fact that abortion kills a baby, this “choice” begins to look a bit different.
Criticizing Feminists for Life for not offering “the option of abortion” is then tantamount to criticizing the organization for not offering a mother the option of killing her newborn child — an option that is not, and should not be, available to us.

Feminists for Life refuses to choose between the mother and the child in the abortion debate, but rather works to help both. Abortion cannot help the child, and so Feminists for Life works to enable and empower women to either raise their children themselves or put them up for adoption, helping both the mother and the child. Because yes, women do deserve better — both born and unborn.

Carolyn Greene

Baker senior

End of article

Back to top