Look to science in Arctic debate

Human-caused global warming supporters make misleading absolute statements that are easily contradicted

Re: Columnists climate views belie science (Letters, Oct. 9)

I am not an apologist for big oil.

I must, however, refute something that John R. Paterson said in his Oct. 9 letter written to counter an article by Tom Fletcher: “The fact most of the models point in the same direction should raise a flag, but Fletcher will continue to doubt, even as the waters from the melting polar ice caps raises around his neck.”

A 2012 paper published in The Cryosphere (a respected international scientific journal) finds Antarctica has been gaining surface ice and snow accumulation over the past 150-plus years, and finds acceleration in some areas noting, “a clear increase in accumulation of more than 10 per cent has occurred in high Surface Mass Balance coastal regions and over the highest part of the East Antarctic ice divide since the 1960s.”

There has been much play about diminishing ice in the Arctic and increasing global temperatures because open ocean absorbs the sun’s rays.

Shouldn’t the opposite be true for Antarctica? Combine this with the IPCC’s recently released data that the Earth’s climate has not warmed in the past 15 years (not predicted by any of their models) in spite of increases in CO2 production, and I think a healthy dose of skepticism is in order.

Did the climate warm during the late 20th century? Probably.

Was this caused solely by increased CO2 production? Quite possibly not.

Given that the energy industry has kept Canada’s economy afloat during the current recession, it disturbs me to see human-caused global warming supporters make misleading absolute statements that are easily contradicted by science.

Jeff St. Gelais

Victoria