Letter to the Editor

I had a letter published in the York Region paper The Era on Sunday, Feb 21,2010. It was in response to a letter by Al Faria printed Feb 11 and titled "Suzuki's opinions not accepted by all", which called for The Era to publish other scientists to "balance" the views of David Suzuki, whose column The Era (to their great credit) publishes each week. In his letter, Mr Faria referenced the work of Dr. Timothy Bell (See Wikipedia).

Here's my original, as submitted:

---

Re: Suzuki’s opinions…”, Feb11
In his letter to your paper, Al Faria notes that he would “like to see you publish some of those who have a different view” on climate change.
I agree, but I would suggest that, to be truly fair, you should publish differing views in proportion to the number of actual climate scientists holding those views. Conservatively, that ratio is about a thousand who believe climate change is mainly caused by human activity to every one who believes otherwise. (Note: Dr. Timothy Bell is a professor of geography, not a climate scientist.)
Following that ratio, you should publish your next article from a climate-change denier in about twenty years.

---

Here is is as published. I think that you will find the differences interesting:

---

Mr. Faria notes he would "like to see you publish some of those who have a different view" on climate change.
I agree, but I would suggest, to be truly fair, you should publish differing views in proportion to the number of actual climate scientists holding those views. Conservatively, that ratio is about 1,000 who believe climate change is mainly caused by human activity to every one who believes otherwise. (Note: Dr. Timothy Bell is a professor of geography, not a climate scientist.)
Following that ratio, you should publish your next article from a climate-change doubter in about twenty years.

---

Ok - I'll admit -most of the changes are pretty minor - a few words left out (e.g. "that") and "a thousand" changed to "1,000". Both help the letter fit the available space.

But I highlighted (in green) the one I found really interesting - the change from "denier" to "doubter".

The media, and many environmentalists, are really afraid to use the term "climate change denier". The term "denier" has been totally taken over by those who only want it used for "Holocaust denier."

But here's the thing. The Holocaust was horrific, with the murders of 6 million Jewish, homosexual (as gays were then known), gypsy (as Roma were then known), elderly, infirm and handicapped people. But climate change could cause the deaths of a thousand times as many people. By that, I mean 6 billion. All of us. There might be no Climate Change Survivors.

So the term "Climate Change Denier" is quite apt. In the 1940's there was lots of evidence that the Nazis were rounding up (mainly) Jews in Europe and killing them. Many denied it, many highly placed in government, media, etc - they were the early deniers, and did far more harm that crackpots like Ernst Zundel. If they had looked at the truth, shed their anti-semitic biases and called for action, the Holocaust might have been avoided, or at least curtailed.

Similarly, if our current-day climate change deniers (and those they have duped) would look at the truth and shed their consumerist, growth-at-all-costs biases (and fears), we would stand a better chance of survival. We might even thrive, with lower demands and a green economy.

Initial thoughts

I am writing this at the end of a February in Ontario with unusually little snow, following two winters with more snow than usual, following a winter with unusually little snow. And so on.

The soil is frozen and exposed to the drying winter winds. That's not good for the soil, and not good for the seeds that are waiting for Spring. There will be too little snow melt then to replenish the moisture ripped away by the winter winds.

Christmas Eve of 2006, at midnight, I was swatting mosquitos hovering by a friend's hedge. And so on.

Do you read the news? Do you see signs of climate change?

As long as I've been reading up on climate change, over twenty years now, the main prediction has been an extended period of increasingly erratic weather. Dry where it was wet, or perhaps just as wet overall but in sudden deluges. And the reverse. Longer hot spells. Less ice.

They say climate is what you expect and weather is what you get. Well, I want my climate back! I want deep snow, far sub-zero cold for days on end, and that brilliant sunshine we only seem to get in February days when it's actually cold and clear and dry.

I say the warm weather in winter is bad, just the way cold weather is bad in summer. I hate it when the weather "reporters" on the radio - you listening 99.1? - get all happy over extra-warm winter days.

So why should you read this site?

I'm not a scientist - I have a degree in Physics and Math from U of T, and I'm a high school Computer Studies teacher. I'm also an artist (see http://pixsilver.com/), a member of Sierra Club of Canada, and a union activist with OSSTF. So I get climate change on many levels. I understand the science, and I know that people respond to stories and images and passion much more than we do to numbers and charts. And I get the social aspects, too; I know that people often respond to change with fear, and I know the power of hope offered with an extended hand.

I also have a way with words. Maybe that will be the main thing I have to offer. I can clarify the science behind climate change, and I will offer resources, including letters that I have had published in various newspapers, so that you can use them as a basis for your own letters-to-the-editor.

So let's go - questions anyone?