Letters

Unconvincing arguments

Editor:

Re: Aiming at wrong target, Dec. 8.

It is unfortunate that the recent column by Roy Strang on climate change appears to be recycled from a few other columns he has written with little new “revelations” on global warming and climate change.

Strang suggests the science on climate change is but a theory with little evidence supporting its hypothesis and has many detractors.

I can’t help wondering whether the detractors are conducting a political campaign or scientific research.

Strang claims, “Good science… is objective, rarely if ever completely certain.” Yet science has conclusively determined that the earth is not flat.

The scientific objectivity Strang suggests appears lacking in his column due to his unsubstantiated claims of some coverup.

Strang writes with incredible certainty about an apparent conspiracy to quiet other scientists. He even seems to take issue with peer-reviewed journals which are the means in which bona fide scientists publish their studies.

Strang claims these journals have prevented those critical to the “accepted wisdom” from being published, however provides no example for the reader to determine the validity of his claim. Was their work found to be lacking in scientific rigour? Has their criticism been found to have little or no validity based on other scientific findings?

Strang produces no evidence to back up his claims that the consensus on climate change is wrong, nor does he mention that the fossil-fuel industry has financed much of the so-called research by “experts” to discredit the known science on climate change. This makes it difficult for the reader to confirm or challenge his viewpoints.

These so-called “skeptics” have found more than their fair share of exposure in the media, which has happily published their views but has not given the same level of exposure to those who take issue with their views. Hardly objective.

I do agree with Strang that we need to take actions to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels to sustain our society.

But besides these efficiencies, there are a host of other actions we can take on a personal level to reduce our impact on our atmosphere and terrestrial environment.

Phil Le Good, White Rock

• • •

This is a response to Roy Strang’s series of articles claiming global warming is false science.

Roy, what do you hope to achieve by writing these articles for Peace Arch News? Do you think the world’s scientists read Peace Arch News and will be swayed by your viewpoint? Why aren’t you writing these articles for peer-reviewed science periodicals where scientists can respond to the issues you raise?

Speaking on behalf of the non-scientific people who read Peace Arch News, we’ve had enough. Please find another subject to write about.

Christopher Rickwood, Surrey

 


We encourage an open exchange of ideas on this story's topic, but we ask you to follow our guidelines for respecting community standards. Personal attacks, inappropriate language, and off-topic comments may be removed, and comment privileges revoked, per our Terms of Use. Please see our FAQ if you have questions or concerns about using Facebook to comment.

You might like ...

Report ranks high spenders among Metro Vancouver cities
 
Cross-country competitors flood Mundy Park
 
Port Moody Gunners defeat first place Chilliwack
Port Moody Panthers on a roll as club takes third win of season
 
Losing skid continues for Coquitlam Express
 
Swift move at PoCo Thanksgiving tourney
Couple evicted after decade in South Surrey woods
 
Swimming with a team builds empathy
 
Record breaking high jump