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.