To the Editor,
Re: Muzzling scientists’ work an assault on a country’s democracy, Science Matters, April 11.
I disagree with the David Suzuki Foundation’s methods of muzzling any scientist who opposes or debates its own global warming theories.
There is a large group of qualified climate scientists on the planet that rally behind alternative climate theories.
It is now politically advantageous to promote or disqualify the international trade of goods and fossil fuels by manipulating the reasoning behind global change. It is now politically popular to side with a group of scientists that will reap the votes of their followers.
This is where science is being clouded by politics. And the alternative scientific climate theories are being squashed because it is not green enough or their ideas cannot be leveraged as votes.
Taxes have been created in B.C. on a gas that humans naturally exhale. The confusion of carbon footprint taxes is now bleeding our schools and hospitals of funding. Those funds for example are going to groups of people who have figured out that dumping fertilizer into the local ocean will qualify as a huge dollar credit. This is political science at its best.
The Science Matters column should have more than one voice. Or it should have content that refers to science and not aimed to leverage one political party.
Using a column with intent to advertise is called spam. When did opposing a government become scientific?
There is only one thing that remains constant on planet Earth and that is ‘change’. We have become afraid of change.
David Suzuki and his foundation spearhead the fear of change at every opportunity. His theories support an idea that the world should be a constant and quiet place.