I don't know why I bother replying to such silliness but ....

This in reply to a rather silly letter to the editor in the Era Banner.

Hi:

Your reader David Kempton presents his opinion that "Conservatively, that ratio is about 1,000 who believe climate change is mainly caused by human activity to every one who believes otherwise." I must assume opinion since there is no survey of scientists that puts it at anything approaching this ratio.

The most thorough study was by the Statistical Assessment Service at George Mason University. It's detailed survey of 489 key climate scientists working in the field found only 74% would agree with a similar statement. This is in close agreement with the numbers at the major climate change review group, the I.P.C.C., which lead that group to publish a 90% confidence level that the .74 degree increase in global temperature in the last 100 years was caused in part by people (i.e. 9:1)

Of course the real issue is not the small change that has happened but will this be the catastrophic danger, requiring major changes to society. In the same survey in answer to the question of does global warming represent a catastrophic risk only 41% agreed. Of course a good horror story is always going to get more press than boring old science, but it is important that science does get published on an even basis.

I also note Mr. Kempton seems worried that Dr. Bell is not a "climate scientist". I have to ask does this mean he is worried about David Suzuki getting so much press too? After all his major activity is as a reporter and his scientific training is all as a geneticist. As a final word to the media a final statistic from this survey. "Only 1% of climate scientists rate either broadcast or cable television news about climate change as very reliable.

The National Post has some writers taking a stronger line on Harper these days.
Predictably there is a flood of support in the letters to the editor with all the same old tired excuses about his relative lack of success. Here was my reply to a clear partisan this morning.
It was published this morning, in edited form.

Hi:

In his letter portraying Mr. Harper as a victim Mr. Klatt uses many excuses, including "If he was from Toronto or Montreal he would have had his majority long ago." Well Mr. Harper is from Toronto and personally as someone who went to the same school at about the same time Mr Harper did in Toronto (John G Althouse) I can state that any locality that may have been once shared would certainly not encourage me to vote for anyone so reckless of the economy as Mr. Harper has been.

Mr. Chrétien's "12 grim years" as described in the letter (it was 10) are credited by economists as the period when Canada did the best job of turning around the public finances of any G7 country. I can only shudder to think how bad the current recession would have been without the fiscal prudence of Mr. Chrétien to balance the two deficit binges of Mr. Mulroney and Mr Harper, both of whom set new record high deficits. While clearly the writer (in Calgary) values Mr. Harper's perceived locality over his grim record fortunately many voters do not.