Letter to the Editor

Warren Blair responds to the Letter to the Editor by Loren and Mary Ruth Wilkinson, addressing issues surrounding climate change.

Firstly, I have a high regard for Loren and Mary Ruth from my time at Regent College (many years ago). I have read and studied Loren's book Earthkeeping, Christian Stewardship of Natural Resources, and have hosted Loren and Mary Ruth in Calgary for a course related to that very subject. There is no doubt in my mind that the Wilkinsons lead by example and "walk the talk." Nonetheless, I feel compelled to respond to some of the statements contained in the Wilkinson's Letter to the Editor about the Regent poll on the Northern Gateway Pipeline ("Gateway") summarized as follows:

1. The Wilkinson's principle argument against Gateway is based upon an a priori assumption that the human emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere is the primary cause of catastrophic climate change or "global warming." This assumption has been found to lack any compelling scientific evidence. The common authority for substantiating this assumption is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ("IPCC") whose charter gives the game away:

   "The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation." (emphasis added) Principles Governing IPCC Work

   Put simply, the IPCC is to report on the magnitude of man-made climate change to the exclusion of other potential factors. I would refer you to the book exposing the IPCC by Donna Laframboise entitled, The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert.
2. The second support for the assumption is the "consensus." Reliance upon consensus has no credence in the realm of science and the scientific method. We can refer to Copernicus, Galileo, Wegener, and many others in this regard. If one feels they must rely on consensus, then I would refer you to this website.
   

   "It is in the admission of ignorance and the admission of uncertainty that there is a hope for the continuous motion of human beings in some direction that doesn't get confined, permanently blocked, as it has so many times before in various periods in the history of man." Richard P. Feynman

3. Geological and human history teach us that the earth's climate is dynamic and always changing, subject to a myriad of planetary and solar variables, some of which we are likely not as yet even aware. To believe that man has the ability to exercise any meaningful control of the earth's climate (based upon one variable— atmospheric concentration of CO2) exhibits extreme hubris and disregard for the methods of science.

I do agree with Loren and Mary Ruth that we should be concerned about the planet's health and a concern for perpetuating a way of life at the expense of future generations. It is inexcusable that we are allocating substantial resources attempting to solve a problem beyond our control—wasting resources which could be utilized in adaptation and to alleviate significant environmental, health and poverty problems. I would also emphasis my agreement that "Christians especially need to think clearly about this issue."

Respectfully,
Warren Blair