I recently wrote a letter to The Telegram (“Less virtue, more consideration please,” Oct. 12) chiding Memorial University students for voting down a universal Metrobus pass. I was partly hoping for a response, defending their vote.
If the university administration had been serious about improving Metrobus use, addressing parking problems and overall environmental goodness, they could have proposed a universal Metrobus pass for all faculty and administration instead of trying to impose it only on students. Maybe the university could even have some professors propose an overall environmental plan for the city or province.
Meanwhile, I see my letter sandwiched between two climate change deniers. Andy Wells (“Saint Greta and the Church of the Climate Apocalypse,” Oct. 12) starts with demeaning a brave and undeniably smart young woman. While Wells makes a valid point that reducing fossil fuel usage potentially risks lowering our existing standard of living, his only answer is head in the sand/scream denial out da arse. Wells repeats a denialist fabricated lie about “500 scientists” who have questioned accepted climate science. The “500 scientists” are actually “scientists and professionals,” only one of whom has any relevant background. The group is led by Prof. Guus Berkhout, an electrical engineer with a background in oil and gas, and founder of the active climate denial organization, Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL).
The letter following mine from Clayton Rowsell (“Climate change yes, extremism no,” Oct. 12) also repeats the bogus “500 scientists” claim. Again, a kernel of truth. Some climate activists, (the notable example of Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth with a flooded Manhattan), misrepresented time frames, exaggerating the immediate threat to wealthy parts of the planet. However, Rowsell continues with the argument that current climate change is just a normal cycle leading to a green and prosperous Earth, and that climate scientist forgot to consider cloud cover. Rowsell’s argument rests on the conspiracy theory that the media and politicians are censored and intimated. We’ve had censored scientists under former prime minister Stephen Harper. Then, the clear intent was to muzzle legitimate science from speaking about the true impacts of burning fossil fuels on our planet — anything contradicting a political agenda.
Maybe our venerable university could also poll its professors and publicly comment on the percentage who reject the reality our current climate crisis.
Harold Chislett,
St. John’s
RELATED:
