Dear Mr. Prentice,
Recently, you have said that, despite the leaked documents from CRU (and, the latest evidence suggests they were not hacked, but leaked by a conscientious whistle-blower), your position remains:
With the Copenhagen conference coming up, Mr. Minister, I would like to most emphatically point out that the science has never been ‘relatively clear’, at least not clear in support of the claim that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is the driving force behind climate change.
There has clearly been a very lively scientific debate since these ACC claims have first been made.
On the one hand, there is the series of IPCC reports, the latest of which claims the support of 2,500 scientists and policymakers. If this is a matter of numbers – which is something measurable – then let’s contrast this 2,500 scientists and policymakers versus the 31,486 scientists (including 9,029 with PhDs) who have signed a petition disagreeing with this claim, because in their expert opinions, the scientific evidence does not support the ACC claim.
Just because very many of scientists think something is right, it does not makes it so: I am simply bringing this to your attention as proof that there has never been a consensus among scientists on the topic of anthropogenic climate change. With 2,500 saying ‘yes’ and 31,486 saying ‘no’, it is clear that the ‘science’ has not been proven and that the debate has never been ‘settled’.
Please note – this petition predates any of the current scandals (the Dr. Jones CRU team, the Dr. Mann data, the Dr. Wang data, or even the Danish cap-and-trade scandal)
Something else that many people have been very uncomfortable with – for a very long time – is the militant way in which those supporting ACC claims have behaved: some people have labeled them ‘warm-mongers’, because of their bellicosity! Dr. Suzuki, for example, a once-respected scientist, has even called for jailing people who have different opinions from his!
That is not how scientists behave. It is not just ‘the heat of the issue’ or its importance: this is contrary to the very rules of scientific behaviour. Perhaps the greatest physicist of the 20th century, Dr. Richard Feynman, explained this very clearly:
As you see, Mr. Minister Prentice, we do not have all the facts, the science is not clear – relatively or otherwise. No conservationist and no responsible environmental steward would make decisions or commitments based on unsettled science and uncertain data!
Please, keep that in mind during the Copenhagen conference: my children’s future depends on it!
Sincerely yours,
Xanthippa
[well, actually, I used my real-life name....and provided contact info, just in case...]
