Tom Fletcher’s editorial “Making sense of climate change” involves some half-thought-out arguments to support his perspective.
First off he defines the position of people supporting climate change as using “religious dogma” whereas most indicators show that 97 percent of scientists, not just climatologists, support the science supporting climate change.
He then argues that two years of spring flooding from record snowpacks is not a trend, and that having talked to an SFU “climate adaptation expert” (not a climatologist?) that we are in for a trend of more warming and thus more rain. It would appear that Tom has lived too long in rainy Victoria and does not appreciate that more moisture and rain on the coast translates to more moisture and snow in the colder interior. It would seem that Tom wants both sides of the argument — global climate change is a “religious dogma” yet he agrees with an SFU professor that we are generally in a warming trend.
As an aside to the overall argument, the decreasing Arctic ice and generally much warmer temperatures of the Arctic support this trend. More moisture and not quite so frigid air blows across parts of the continent — this year B.C. and Eastern Canada — creating much more snow.
But back to Tom and his professors. Having used one to help support his arguments he then decries “The arrogance of the university climate experts.” So which way is it Tom? Is your SFU professor arrogant and in error, as by you they are not even right “once in a while?”
And then Tom uses Al Gore’s 2013 ice-free argument to support this arrogance. Well, good news, Gore is not a climate scientist nor a professor but probably — being a politician of rank — quite arrogant. Al Gore has a lowly bachelor of arts from Harvard. If George Bush can graduate from there, anyone can. Not quite a scientific climate expert, but then, that was your point, although it is an arrow fired backwards.
The argument then moves on to comparing diking up the Fraser River at the cost of $9 billion dollars or cleaning up much of B.C.’s forest interface. Why not both Tom? You and your Fraser Institute buddies always want more mega projects to create more jobs so why not do both. Or perhaps it is better to wait until the Fraser River does flood and then disaster capitalism can get to work and create much more than $9 billion worth of reconstruction, insurance claims, and — yes — more diking. Money and jobs, Tom, your usual arguments, why not support both projects?
The editorial ends with Tom implying that studying “the actual history of flooding in B.C. instead of fashionable climate theories” will help deny global warming. I agree, leave the “fashionable” theories aside, and pay attention to the actual scientists who by a large majority support climate change — which includes the strongly supported scientific data (actually, scientific fact) that warmer air (relatively) with more moisture actually increases snowfall.
Jim Miles