Rigid ideologies stifle critical thinking

Monte Heil (Daily Bee, Aug. 15) defends Roger Roots’ “photographic evidence and independent research” purportedly showing Glacier Park’s glaciers are growing. Has this evidence/research been presented to and evaluated by qualified experts? Has it been published in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal? If so, Mr. Heil should provide a citation. If not, Roots’ claim is nothing more than uncorroborated hearsay.

The USGS has not specifically addressed Roots’ claims for the same reason is does not waste time responding to the spurious arguments of flat-Earthers. There is an abundance of well-documented, scientifically-validated data demonstrating long-term glacial recession in the park. Until this anti-warming lawyer/sociologist documents his findings in a scientifically-verifiable format and they are confirmed by peer-review, his growing glaciers have the same credibility as a flat Earth.

According to Mr. Heil, relevant qualifications are unnecessary for properly evaluating determinative evidence. Really? If he suspected he had cardiovascular disease, would he seek the advice of an experienced cardiologist or would a plumber’s opinion suffice?

Jeremy Conlin (Daily Bee, Aug. 15) cites an article falsely claiming NASA scientists have manipulated temperature data to provide misleading information. In fact, it is Mr. Conlin who has been misled, see “NASA did not create global warming by manipulating data.”

Mr. Colin frequently quotes Roy Spencer who argues human activity hasn’t contributed to global warming. To understand Spencer’s uncompromising anti-science bias, see “What are the very best arguments … What exactly inspires Mr. Spencer to simply rehash these refuted arguments?”

Rigid ideologies stifle critical thinking and corrupt the scientific endeavor.

JACK DeBAUN

Sandpoint