I am writing in response to Tim Ream’s letter in the Nov. 18 issue of the Emerald, in which he voices resentment of Hannah Hoffman’s piece on global warming. After reading her article in Monday’s edition, I found myself appreciating Hoffman’s boldness in writing an article that does not fall in with the status quo of “popular” thought. I took away a different reaction to the article than Mr. Ream.
I felt that the piece was not about perpetuating a Republican conspiracy, but rather an attempt to legitimize both sides of an argument whose outcome is, contrary to Mr. Ream’s opinion, undecided. This article was about examining the entire discussion, questioning accepted norms and not settling for the neatest conclusions – exactly what the academic process is all about.
It is imperative to closely examine the motives of individuals who feed us interpretations of raw data. In other fields such as politics, ulterior agendas are endlessly called into question; however, the motives behind the assertions of scientists largely go unscrutinized, as they are considered “expert opinions.” I find it quite necessary to examine the obvious incentives for research to be “guided” toward certain conclusions for fear of loss of funding, etc.
As for Mr. Ream’s concern for the reputation of the University of Oregon and the Emerald, I think that we should be proud that we have a journalistic system that attempts to reveal the entire truth, not just the standard liberal philosophy that Mr. Ream holds dear. If true knowledge is what we strive for, then efforts such as Ms. Hoffman’s should be rewarded, not scorned.
Also, I find the placement of Ms. Hoffman’s article on the same level of denying the Holocaust even more offensive.
Kyle Cunningham University Junior