Letter: Still debating climate science is unbelievable
By Letter to the Editor on August 20, 2021.
Dear editor, Re: Column by Mr. Larry Samcoe, Aug. 5 Mr. Samcoe says “probing climate change is worthwhile.” Why did his column not do so? He did not show errors have been made by the 97% of climate scientists who, for decades, have proven that human activities have changed and are changing Earth’s climate through greenhouse gas emissions. He merely summarized the opinion of one famous person (Patrick Moore). How many climatologists, worldwide, agree with Mr. Moore’s opinion? Was Mr. Moore one of the 11,258 scientists, worldwide, who signed their names to a letter in the Bioscience Journal in November, 2019, confirming their agreement that human-caused climate change is real, urgent and deeply problematic? Is Mr. Moore even an actual currently-practicing scientist? I doubt it. If he is, Mr. David Condon’s letter of Aug. 7 shows Mr. Moore’s opinion is unreliable and counterproductive. Disinformation about this subject is, unfortunately, common. Examples of it, like Mr. Samcoe’s column, come from people who do not know, but merely believe something. They want you to believe it, too, so they offer the opinion of a celebrity, and hope you overlook that the celebrity actually knows little or nothing about the subject. If Mr. Samcoe told you Wayne Gretzky said eating bananas causes cancer, would you believe it? Another type of disinformation is lying. For example, in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s the tobacco industry downplayed health research proving tobacco smoking is deadly. That industry lied about what was being said and done by scientists, media and health activists, and that industry strenuously fought government regulations, all to maintain profits. That industry never tried to prove tobacco smoking was benign, which was impossible. Instead, that industry publicized mere doubts about scientific knowledge as a refuting of that knowledge, equating doubt with disproof. People who would not, or could not believe the truth, died. Some people apply this disinformation method to the issue of human-caused climate change. Those people either lie, or merely deny, but offer no proof of their claims. They are, essentially, asking you to believe that, somehow, 97% of climate scientists have been co-opted by and are beholden to those concerned about our environment and that 3% of the scientists have been co-opted by and are beholden to the oil and gas industry. They then want you to believe that the opinions of the 3% should drive public policy. Unbelievable! Gregory R. Côté Irvine 19-18
Great comments. It’s no secret that many oil executives are now agreeing that it is a major problem and it’s why they fully support the Carbon Tax that this fool Jason Kenney tried to destroy. But then he has never proven that he is very smart.
Mr. Cote uses a patchwork of predictable, disproven and meaningless(tobacco?) rants in an attempt to make his laughable argument against Mr. Samcoe’s legitimate position. The left just can’t tolerate opinions which threaten their pet ideologies! Why does the phrase “useful idiots” coined by the communist dictator Lenin to describe his fanatical lap-dog supporters come to mind when I read these kinds of unhinged climate fear-mongering screeds?