Political terms used to close discussion

Dear Editor,

Climate Change Part 1.

As a science teacher and student of science developments all my life, I would be amused by the handling of several ‘science’ issues today if they did not have such serious consequences.

One such is climate change (earlier known as climate warming).

As an earth science major, I studied meteorology, climatology, landforms such as glaciers, and took a particular interest in Arctic geography when the University of Alberta had the world-class repository (Boreal Institute) of documents from and about the Arctic.

Politicians, journalists, editors of scientific journals (with biased peer review) and pseudoscientists (those who pander after biased research dollars – a good living takes precedence over intellectual honesty) are all responsible for where we are at today.

What the public and journalists that are providing them with supposedly trustworthy information do not understand is that two words being used are foreign to science – “settled” and “consensus”.

No truly honest, unbiased and truth-seeking scientist will ever use these terms in a scientific paper, debate or discussion.

These are political terms that are to close discussion and debate to further an agenda. This leads to political rather than scientific attacks on people as sceptics or deniers as they promote their particular economic agendas – electric cars, solar and wind power, carbon pricing, et cetera.

The actual fact is, good scientists are always sceptics by examining data, finding new data, proposing theories and adjusting them or abandoning them as new data is found.

They never adjust data to fit the models (as we see happening) but adjust their model to fit new data.

They are always open to new studies.

In fact, if 100 studies support Conclusion A but only one study supports Conclusion B, that means that A is faulty and must be changed or discarded, or at best kept with reservations.

Do we find this honest discussion happening today?

No, we hear only a political viewpoint from both politicians and journalists.

In fact, I am disappointed to see that the ECA Review has fallen prey to this globalist political agenda.

There are thousands of dissenting scientific studies with available data that can be studied and replicated which true scientists would do.

But what we see instead are ignoring, dismissing and religious worship of these Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) models which do not predict accurately.

This is politically motivated, not scientifically motivated. And now we have new credible data from NASA which supports Conclusion B.

How will it be handled?

That needs to be the subject of another letter.


Doug Munro

Killam, Ab.

About the author




* indicates required