Why should we be alarmed?
To the Expositor:
Although I quite agree with the point that Brad Middleton is making concerning the threat of terrorism (‘Climate change is small beer compared to terrorism, December 4, page 4) I can’t agree that proposed climate change policies [and its alarmist fanatics] is “small beer.” I recently read an article that appeared in Dr. Roy Spencer’s [Ph.D. Meteorology] website. (By the way, I strongly urge all to check out Dr. Spencer to see what he, and his true scientist colleagues, have to say about climate change, if you wish to see a truly scientific point of view as opposed to a purely political and/or evangelical/alarmist/fanatical point of view.) The article was written by Patrick Moore, one of the original founders of the Greenpeace movement. The title of the article is “Whose Supported Policies Kill More People; ISIS or Greenpeace?” Mr. Moore has severed his relationship with Greenpeace because, he contends, it has lost its purpose and turned to extremism to try to justify its existence. For example, by opposing the use of DDT it has contributed to the deaths of 40 million people (and counting), most of them children. By now opposing fossil fuelled power, it will contribute to the deaths of tens of millions every year because they are among the 1.2 billion to whom it campaigns for the denial of affordable, clean, continuous, low tech, fossil fuelled electric power, and at the same time denying CO2 to all green plant life on earth, the basic “food” they exist on, and by extension, we exist on. Paradoxically an organization that calls itself “green” is against the harmless, beneficial, natural trace gas that nourishes and sustains life as we know it on this planet. It is opposed to returning to the atmosphere, a tiny fraction of the CO2 that was once present there.
The Paris climate talks are based on the premise that CO2 is a harmful pollutant–this is completely false. Moreover, CO2 could actually benefit the world! Why is research in this direction not supported? I guess because it is not as exciting, scary or “doomdayish” as the opposite. The only effective way to limit CO2 would be to stop using fossil fuels altogether–this, of course, is physically impossible unless we wish to return to living a Stone Age lifestyle. I urge you to read Shane Desjardins’ Expositor letter concerning renewable energy.
How about terrorism? Approximately 200,000 people have died due to global terrorism in the past 10 years. During that time millions of people (mostly women and children) have died due to policies promoted by Greenpeace and their like such as anti DDT, anti golden rice, anti fossil fuels. Since poverty is the leading cause of premature death in the world and fossil fuels have enabled the world to prosper and people to live longer more comfortable lives, being opposed to the use of fossil fuels is, at best misguided and at worst just plain evil. In 2014 terrorism caused the deaths of over 32,000 people—golden rice could save as many as 100,000 poor childrens’ lives each year by supplying them with necessary vitamin A, and yet Greenpeace actively campaigns against poor countries growing golden rice.
By the way how many knew that last year Al Gore sold Current TV to Al Jazeera (which is funded by Mid East oil interests), netting him some $100 million? Hypocrisy or what? Oh, and by the way, Dr. Roy Spencer, who is renowned for his work on global temperature monitoring, says that 2015 will be the third warmest year in the satellite record—not the warmest! And, considering the strong El Nino in progress, why should we be surprised or alarmed?
Sam Bondi
Mindemoya
