Good thing our governments are trying to balance economic and scientific realities
By Letter to the Editor on January 30, 2019.
Re: “Let’s not be fooled by wind and solar,” Jan. 16: The following thoughts are from one of those “conditioned to believe” that greater CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is having and will have significant adverse effects on humans and other living beings. “The conditioned” accept that scientists work to understand and to help us understand how nature works. They have been able to determine what temperatures were like in the past, how the sun’s irradiance has changed, how the earth’s tilt and orbit have shifted, and how the concentration of CO2 has varied. It is through considering all of these factors that scientists have been able to explain how and why changes occurred in the past and how they anticipate our climate will change into the future. Thacker appears to be one of those who has decided that the last factor mentioned should be eliminated from consideration. Given that the sun’s irradiance is diminishing and the atmosphere should be cooling but is warming instead, he is left with a truism like “the climate has always changed and always will.” For those who respect science, that is not a particularly convincing explanation. Thacker makes the assertion that science follows money. The opposite view is more sensible. Scientists have been talking about CO2’s effect on climate since the late 1800s. Considering its potential impact, it should surprise no one that environmental groups like Greenpeace or The Suzuki Foundation would speak out on it. The fact that they were founded, respectively, in 1971 and 1990, would suggest that they are responding to scientific evidence rather than manufacturing it. And what is abnormal about wealthy people spending money to support their positions? Have not billionaire oil magnates like the Koch brothers been investing huge amounts of money in lobbying to advance their agendas for decades? For what particular reason should those who accept science be excluded from promoting their concerns — or from gaining wealth by making investments in energy production which is less environmentally damaging? Finally, the description of the limits of wind and solar power precludes the development of more efficient ways of both collecting and storing that energy. Technological advances in these areas are occurring, unfortunately primarily not in this part of the world. Our government faces a daunting task in balancing economic reality with scientific reality, but at least it does not have its head buried in the (oil) sand(s) when it comes to either of them. Ed Dick Medicine Hat 11-10
