Re: Climategate
Every editor writer has a duty to argue one side or the other of an issue. The editorials can be pure opinion, however at times facts are presented to support an editorial argument. Before being quoted, these facts should be given at least a cursory check for credibility. Last week's piece on “climategate” relied on the work of one man whose work fails any such test.

While there was a reference to the so called climategate scandal, it was not tied to the difficulties at Copenhagen. The attendees at Copenhagen agree there is a problem, it was reaching a solution that escaped them. It was a “neat trick” which was a reference to clever methodology, not deception. The hackers who got into the University of East Anglia system, ripped the phrase out of context and tried to claim they had some sort of smoking gun. Nonsense!

The editorial claims that there is no consensus amongst scientists that global warming is a result of the human carbon footprint. This is also nonsense. There are hundreds of thousands of respected and responsible scientists in the world who agree that our footprint is the problem. The editorial uses the work of one man to support the other side of the argument. Robert M. Carter of James Cook University has produced research claiming that the changes in climate we are experiencing are really just part of an ongoing cycle that the earth has experienced for many centuries.

So who is Robert M. Carter? He is a retired professor who once taught at a university in Queensland, Australia. If in fact there are many experts on this side of the issue, why do we have to go all the way to Australia?

Carter sits on the research committee of the Institute of Public Affairs, an Australian think-tank, funded in part by oil and tobacco companies. The group is in the climate change skeptic camp and, oddly enough, also questions research finding that second hand smoke is a health hazard.

According to the Sydney Herald, “Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community.” Never the less, his name is popping up regularly when climate change deniers anywhere are trying to legitimize their view. It looks like Carter is supplementing his pension by hiring himself out to support this unsupportable view. He has by way steadfastly refused to submit his findings for peer review, which is a fundamental procedure for legitimizing any scientific research.

It is easy to understand why Carter has an audience. Corporations who see environmental stewardship as a threat to the bottom line embrace his view. They would rather deal with the issue as a marketing problem and hire spin doctors to change public perception. And, many people in the Western world see climate change as a threat to the life style to which they are accustomed. These people are living in denial and find Carter's view of some comfort.

Climate change science is sound and the actions required have been laid out for us. And it will take more than a switch to recyclable shopping bags and compact fluorescent light bulbs. A fundamental shift away from fossil fuels is needed more than ever. We have sped through the last hundred years on a fossil fuelled ride that will come to an end one way or another. It is not too late to change to a better ride that will work for generations to come. Or we could just step on the gas harder and take Mother Earth over the cliff with us. Informed, responsible journalism would help us make the right choice.

Tim Larsen
Merritt