Letter: That’s not science; it’s religion

Glenn Beaton is only one author who has noted the similarities between a slavish devotion to “climate changeism” and a slavish devotion to other religions, including nature worship (The Aspen Times, Jan. 18). In his Jan. 20 responsive letter, Dave Reed takes Glenn to task. Why? Because Glenn’s arguments “sow confusion and doubt” about climate change, seeking to “prevent action” by “people who claim to follow science.” Once again, “science” is settled. Don’t ask uncomfortable questions.

Reed reveals his distaste for actual “science” with his argument that one should not entertain doubts when it comes to climate science. That must be a very unique scientific discipline. Confusion and doubt are the essence of all other sciences. Otherwise, Einstein would not have “doubted” the quantum discovered by Max Planck (who himself scarcely understood his discovery), leading to great advances in quantum mechanics that would not have happened without Einstein’s (and others’) “confusion and doubts.” And Edwin Hubble would not have doubted the conventional wisdom of a contracting universe despite his observations of an expanding universe.

Glenn was right. A science in which confusion and doubt are taboo is not a science. It is a religion.

Maurice Emmer