Poetical counterattack

Re: “Extreme media alert,” Terence Corcoran, Jan. 24 Terence Corcoran’s recent column appears to be an evenmore-than-usual hysterical response to the evidence everywhere that humans are causing dangerous climate disruption with our carbon dioxide emissions. There is really only one way to respond to such anti-science drivel: Thank you so much for this. It’s really disgusting. Every TV newscast starts with five to seven minutes about the weather. They interview people on the street “Cold enough for you?” “How many layers do you have on?” Please! It’s winter. It’s Canada. It’s January in Toronto. Sure we have had mild winters for a couple of years but this is nothing compared to what we used to experience on a regular basis. There were piles of snow, ice everywhere. The temperatures were much, much colder. I still am only wearing a leather jacket (no winter coat yet), and still haven’t worn gloves or a hat. Really, it’s still a wimp winter. Now, about those TV newscasts. Will someone Please. Make. It. Stop! Steve Veale, Toronto I was happy to see Terence Corcoran acknowledge Insurance Bureau of Canada’s efforts to help Canadians adapt to severe weather. More Canadians are suffering more weather-related property damage than ever before. Severe weather incidents that used to happen every 20-30 years are now happening every five to 10. Storm and water damage has replaced fire as Canada’s No. 1 cause of property insurance claims.

So, we do need to take our changing weather reality into account in the way we plan and build communities and their infrastructure, and to make sure existing communities and assets are protected.

I was not as thrilled to read Mr. Corcoran’s argument that, since he’s not convinced that severe weather is linked to climate change, the severe weather threat is not as serious as experts say. An Alberta farmer who just had his barn damaged by yet another hailstorm probably doesn’t care if the climate graph is shaped like a hockey stick or not. A Nova Scotia homeowner who just had the roof ripped off her house is not likely interested in sunspot patterns or European biofuel impacts.

Regardless of why, the weather in Canada, and around the world, has become more severe, more often. When things change, smart people adapt. Don Forgeron, CEO, Insurance Bureau of Canada Re: The above and “Keystone vs. religion,” Peter Foster, Jan. 22 I read the Financial Post primarily as I am aligned with the idea of a market-driven economy. I also read it to stay informed and aid me, to an extent, with my investment decisions. I’m troubled, however, by the commentary of certain writers who seem bent on putting ideology ahead of empirical evidence. In particular, the issue of climate change is continuously discussed via half truisms and cherry-picked facts. I know this because many of the assertions reported are easily checked by surfing to the relevant website and reading for one’s self the full picture. I don’t have enough space in this letter to the editor to provide examples as there are many.

I’m concerned that these commentators take the view that if the empirical evidence doesn’t fit the ideology, just change the facts. George Orwell called this “newspeak.” Hardly a practice a paper like the Post should associate itself with.

One can dismiss these commentators as cranks and out of touch. The trouble is, by condoning this sort of reporting, the Financial Post colours its other articles and reporters with the same brush. As such, I have to ask myself, how seriously should I take any article printed in this newspaper? D. Kelly-Ward, Ajax, Ont. For a newspaper with so much authority and gravitas on financial and economic affairs, I am at a loss to understand why the FP continues to publish op-eds like Peter Foster’s. James Hansen would be appalled that Mr. Foster is taking his research wildly out of context to justify inaction on climate change. The Oval Office is surely aware that 99% of climate scientists agree that climate change is caused by human-induced carbon emissions and poses an increasingly enormous economic cost the longer it remains unaddressed. And even conservative economists will now tell you that environmental issues are undeniably linked to economic prosperity, and a price on carbon provides the certainty to make sound business decisions.

The fact that the FP continues to provide a pulpit for ideas that are wildly out of sync with reality is undermining its credibility. Patrick DeRochie, Toronto Just a note to say how much I enjoyed Peter Foster’s comment. He was “right on” in his comments. I, for one, was not impressed by Barack Obama’s inaugural address. He was obviously trying to satisfy a large number of his constituents in alot of camps. Elaine Godwin, Surrey, B.C. How can the paper allow a comment like Peter Foster’s? He acknowledges that climate change is happening. But then he tries to divert our attention from the catastrophes that it will cause and becomes totally misleading at best. Temperatures have been rising over the past 16 years according to MET and NASA, opposite to what he writes. As a reader, I feel disrespected with the printing of such a tripe piece and it undermines the credibility of the paper. Sharon Howarth, Toronto