To the Editor,
Re: Uncertainties demand a calmer approach to climate change debate, Guest Comment, April 17.
An interesting article by Tom Harris on the topic of climate change, written in response to a previous article by David Suzuki.
To get a better understanding of Harris’s arguments though, one should look into who he is, and what, in fact, the International Climate Science Coalition is.
Tom Harris is a mechanical engineer, not a climate scientist, and is executive director of the ICSC. The ICSC’s beliefs are best understood by scanning a list of “10 Core Climate Science Principles” found on their website.
The first principle is:
1. Global climate is always changing in accordance with natural causes and recent changes are not unusual.
Is it just me, or does the first principle of the ICSC instantly let the cat out of the bag as to what their true beliefs are?
The world’s leading climate scientists agree that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels increased rapidly after the Industrial Revolution. From 280 ppm in the 18th century, to current levels of 385 ppm – the highest, and quickest, increase of CO2 levels in 650,000 years.
Nowhere in Harris’s article does he refute this very important, and central, piece of information.
Another core principle of the ICSC:
6. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant – it is a necessary reactant in plant photosynthesis and so is essential for life on Earth.
Yes, CO2 is a reactant in photosynthesis and is essential for life on Earth – no climate scientist would deny this.
However, CO2 becomes a pollutant when there is too much of it in our atmosphere, which disrupts our planet’s finely tuned biological systems. As the saying goes: too much of a good thing can be a bad thing.
And one last ICSC core principle:
8. Global cooling has presented serious problems for human society and the environment throughout history while global warming has generally been highly beneficial.
The ol’ “put your shorts on and enjoy the sun” argument.
Never mind the possibility that too much warming could lead to sea level rise, ocean acidification, glacial melting, species extinction, and a plethora of many other dangers that experts are warning us could, and in many cases are, already happening.
Unlike the ICSC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is composed of experts on climate change.
We already consult experts in many other different areas – the law, our health, mental health, and slope stability.
Why then would we not defer to a consensus of expert climate scientists when we have questions about the Earth’s atmosphere; a group, who most likely, understand its complexities better than a politician, engineer, or talk radio-host would.
In a world where information is increasingly specialized, the ethos of a character – or their credentials – is an important gauge in regards to their authority on complex subjects.
I trust the credentials of those on the IPCC, and will refer to their findings, rather than the principles of Harris and the ICSC.
David Geselbracht
Nanaimo
