No denying heated debate

The debate about heated oil can't be debated, one reader says.

To the Editor,

Re: Preparing for the after-oil era, Letters, Feb. 28.

I am responding to a letter by Pamela Walden-Landry of Feb. 28. “We must wean ourselves off our carbon-based economy” is a mantra we should put on the back burner for a while. Like, about 100 years. At that time we might be a bit closer to depleting known resources and maybe have learned how to substitute oil.

If carbon consumption is responsible for global warming, according to the fearmongers, the planet will be two degrees warmer by the time our known resources would be depleted at no additional cost to anybody.

Scientists have known for some time that temperatures always increased during previous warm periods before amounts of CO2 became more abundant in the upper atmosphere. In other words: it is not CO2 which issues marching orders to our climate.

Lord Christopher Monckton has a standing invitation to debate this with any scientist of your choice on the Roy Green Show. The last person to be sure to find such a person and silence Monckton forever was Elizabeth May, the leader of Canada’s Green Party. That was about a year ago.

The most typical response from those serving at the altar of ‘global warming’, is: “but Monckton is a ‘denier’, not a climate scientist!…”

But, Ben West of the Canadian Wilderness Committee is? Elizabeth May is? David Suzuki is? Al Gore is?

Ottawa Prof. Ian Clark is a climate scientist. He and others have studied the drill cores of Greenland and Antarctica ice which clearly show that, for whatever reason, warming happens, then the amount of CO2 increases in the atmosphere.

Knowing this, should we still be as keen on making sure Alberta oil does not reach the coast?

That we deny our grandchildren an unprecedented opportunity to participate in an economic boom?

Now: sign me up to ensure all reasonable safety standards are applied. Even a “global warming denier” does not like to see an oil spill.

Ziggy Eckardt,

Burnaby