Climate debate refuses to reach merciful demise
To the Editor,
Re: Writer ignores important facts, and Writers challenge facts, but fabricate their own details, Letters, Jan. 3.
Just when I thought that the vaudevillian opera known as a climate change debate had reached a merciful demise, it gets an encore.
Will Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick graph also see a revival? Didn’t Al Gore retire as the world’s first eco-billionaire? Didn’t David Suzuki return to the things he’s really expert in, like the genetics of fruit flies?
I did hear something about Saint David soliciting funds last month in order to save Santa from falling through melting polar ice. A few little people emptied their piggy banks for that scam.
It’s hard to believe that some people, all with their own lists of “facts” and quotes from “experts”, are still flailing at each other over this subject.
However, a couple of statements in one letter did cause an eyebrow to raise – “current global research confirming current unnatural warming due to human causes”?
Even Suzuki doesn’t try to tell us that the science is settled anymore. Perhaps he read of the findings of the Danish Space Research Institute that were published last year in the journal Nature.
The other statement, “It’s true that some environmental groups receive a small part of their funding from the U.S.,” doesn’t exactly mesh with Tom Fletcher’s (B.C. Views) assertion last month that various groups have received “millions” from U.S.-based foundations in recent years.
If millions is considered a small part, how much is the big part, who provides it and why?
However, this is just a little nit-picking while I wait for climate change to warm the golf courses again. I hate walking them in the cold and wet.