Dear Editor:
RE: Silencing others, Oct. 31.
Henry Brunsveld’s letter argues that climate science should basically consist of a debate between the “pro” and the “con” sides regarding global warming.
I imagine that even after the Nov. 5 publication of “World scientists’ warning of a climate emergency”, signed by 11,258 experts, Mr. Brunsveld will nevertheless continue to believe that the debate deserves to continue.
He cites the Milankovitch theory (cosmic rays) as an alternative explanation for warming, but the overwhelming consensus by other researchers is that this effect is minimal.
The cyclical nature of the Ice Ages is also appealing to climate change deniers, but humanity’s recent influence has been proven to have a massively greater impact.
In journalism and in broadcasting, the advocates of “free speech” have urged that there are always two sides to an issue. Brunsveld sees science as being on the “left” side, and skepticism as being on the “right.” As in the issue of vaccinating our children, I suppose!
Partisanship only fosters inaction and paralysis; we all have a collective responsibility to address the environmental emergency facing us.
Karl Dick,
Waterloo