The letter written by John Trainor regarding climate reaction in The Morning Star, is so distorted that I felt compelled to respond so your readers will be better informed and have a more balanced view on the subject of climate change.
They then can make a more informed conclusion with respect to climate change.
I acknowledge that views expressed in the letter to editors can be unbalanced and biased because they are the views of the writer.
However, when an opinion, and everyone is entitled to have one, gives the perception that it is science-based, I find this kind of opinion misleading.
My motive for responding to John Trainor’s letter is to have a better informed public.
It is apparent from the article that Mr. Trainor is a skilled writer. He skillfully creates a very biased view by using the technique of cherry picking reference material or more commonly known as spin-doctoring to support his view.
He is very articulate but also very dismissive of people who have a view different from him.
He begins by calling all those who defend climate change, such as Al Gore and Dr. Michael Mann, as having a, “hysterical view of the world weather.” He creates the illusion that his views on climate change are science-based.
He does so by going to great length to establish scientists such as Dr. Patrick Michaels and Dr. Leslie Woodcock as “pedigreed” scientists. He cleverly creates the impression that because these “pedigreed” scientists have denied climate change, what they say must be true. All others who have a differing view, are “climate alarmists.’’
He conveniently fails to mention that Dr. Mann is also an imminently qualified climatologist scientist and that he contributed to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on winning the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.
By providing more background information on Dr. Michaels and Dr. Woodcock than for Dr. Mann, he has created the impression that the Dr. Mann is a less “pedigreed” scientist and therefore, the inference is that Dr. Mann’s views on climate change are less credible.
Furthermore, John Trainor, via his cherry-picking methodology, does not mention that Michaels and Woodcock belong to a small three per cent group of climate deniers who are mostly funded by the fossil fuel industry whereas Mann and Gore belong to the 97 per cent of the climate scientists who support the scientific principle behind greenhouse gas warming or as John Trainor refers to them as, “climate alarmist” who are “a consequence of grant-seeking government advisors world-wide.”
One has to question “who has the hysterical view of the world weather”, and who is “chasing windmills, when everyday real problems stare us in the face.”
Should your readers wish to have more information on this topic and to come to their own conclusions regarding John Trainor’s letter, your readers can google, “climate change myth vs science, www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php” and “who are the climate change deniers.”
Ken Mori
Vernon
