Follow the global warming science

By Letter to the Editor on February 8, 2019.

Re: “In Canada we don’t have a right to be wrong” Jan. 26

I feel obliged to respond to Mr. Lewis’ critique of my letter. My main reason is that he misquoted the first sentence of my letter of Jan. 16 and then proceeded to create an argument based on that false quote.

No reasonably informed person would argue that we are not adding CO2 to the atmosphere, through our use of fossil fuel energy, as he implied was my position. Nor, for that matter, that CO2 can’t act as a greenhouse gas. Where the real scientific debate and disagreement occurs is in determining the quantitative effect that the man-made addition of this trace gas is compared to all of the real and natural effects on our climate that have occurred throughout our planet’s existence. These powerful natural effects have, at times in Earth’s history, created tropical greenery from pole to pole as well as cyclical and repeated frigid Ice Age phenomenon all without the help of man-made CO2!

I think Mr. Lewis should dial down the emotion and try to accept, or at least understand, the scientific method. It has been very successful in guiding scientific investigation toward important physical truths. It requires that any credible scientific hypothesis may and should be tested by other scientists to confirm, disprove or alter the theory. Anthropogenic Global Warming is a scientific theory creating a flurry of research and opinions from all points of view, from believers to skeptics. Highly credentialled scientists, on both sides, continue to disagree on what impact we may or may not be having on our future climate. This is a very important debate that must not be shut down by non-scientists or anyone else. Critically important threatened government policies that would reduce society’s prosperity and well-being depend on our full understanding of the subject.

The headline of the Lewis letter responding to mine is indicative of the climate-alarmist tendency to deny any view but their own to be heard. Censorship of viewpoints that question climate(or any other) ideology is a very dangerous path.

Lynn Thacker

Bow Island

8
-7