Climate change dogma challenged

So Kim Campbell considers me a criminal (Climate change denial ‘criminal,’ SP, Oct. 5).

Of course she is referring to the belief in dangerous anthropogenic influence on climate wrought by carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of coal and petroleum, and she rhymes off a list of “anomalies” — diseases, hurricanes and fictitious physical phenomena which she claims show this — if you “connect the dots.” She insists we should pay no attention to “ridiculous climate deniers” who are “idiots” because they don’t agree with this narrative for “unbelievably bizarre stupid reasons.”

I would wager Campbell is ignorant of the complex interplay of natural factors that govern climate, from ocean currents to solar cycles to clouds. I suspect she is unaware of the history of Earth’s climate over what we geologists call Deep Time, or the alternating glacial and interglacial phases over the past few million years which have done so much to shape the Canadian landscape. I would be surprised if she has ever herself looked at weather station data in order to detect a trend, or compared modern human history with the record of fluctuating warm and cool episodes since the last Ice Age ended some 12,000 years ago.

My take on the scientific evidence — not numerical models or pressure to conform to some kind of declared consensus — is that the anthropogenic influence on climate is largely not distinguishable from natural processes, although as a scientist I promise to change my mind if the facts change. Campbell’s rant tells me she has joined a growing body of dogmatic individuals who are against freedom of thought and freedom of speech.

Brian Pratt, Saskatoon