De Omni Scribili

Scribblings Of Ed Wiebe

Tom Fletcher is Wrong Again* About Climate Change

... And this is in spite of being shown his errors.

*Note: there is no debate about climate change and the human causes of what we observe. There is still an opportunity to have a meaningful discussion on how we can best deal with climate change. Tom Fletcher appears to be acting to undermine any effort to have this important discussion in British Columbia. One has to wonder why.

written by me, twitter-->@edwiebe, 2017-02-12

My Tom Fletcher is wrong about climate change index page.

My main Tom Fletcher is wrong about climate change page.

His opinions have been archived.

Tom Fletcher ( @tomfletcherbc on the Twitter ) confuses politics and science. Why he continues to do this in spite of being reminded time and time again is a useful question for people to ask. He also has some funny misunderstandings about politics.

TF: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau decreed that the "carbon price" shall be raised nation-wide, $10 each year to $50 a tonne, by 2022. That's 12 cents on a litre of gasoline. If provinces don't do it by carbon tax or emissions trading, Trudeau will attempt to force it on them.

Either Trudeau decrees something or he doesn't. In reality this kind of thing requires the assent of Parliament and doesn't happen by decree. In this case the government forms a majority so it's easier than it might otherwise be. Note that at the end of Tom Fletcher's opinion on this issue he softens his tone from "decree" to "will attempt".

TF: Horgan's reluctant conversion to climate warrior is now complete. He has adopted the term "carbon pollution," which is, to be polite about it, a false description that defies even high-school science about the basis of all life on Earth.

It's difficult to remain polite about the errors that Tom Fletcher continues to make with respect to climate change. This one's a doozy. The term "Carbon Pollution" is perfectly accurate. This is because it doesn't refer to the processes that "form the basis of all life on Earth". Rather it refers to the burning of fossil carbon and other imbalances to the processes that "form the basis of all life on Earth". Seriously Tom Fletcher, this is not a remotely new idea. We have known about this problem for at least 100 years. You are very far behind on what we know. If you remain obstinately ignorant of this, what else are you, an alleged journalist, also ignorant of?

Every climate scientist and every person who makes even the slightest effort to learn about climate change can explain this. The Earth's climate changes over time. It changes at different time and space scales. It has changed since there was an atmosphere on Earth and it will continue to change so long as that atmosphere exists. That is not the point. We know now (since the 1800s in fact) that human activity on Earth is contributing to the way that the Earth's climate changes. We know that human activity such as burning fossil fuels (carbon pollution) and changing the landscape (land-use changes) have forced the Earth's climate to change much more rapidly than would happen in the absence of humans. We know that the change is of a much larger magnitude than would have happened in the same interval of recent history (some few centuries) than would have happened in our absence. We know that humans are the primary cause of the observed change in the past century. Humans are the cause. That Tom Fletcher doesn't believe this is a failing of his intellect not a failing of the entire body of scientists working hard to investigate many independent lines of inquiry in many different countries to understand the climate of the Earth. That Tom Fletcher doesn't believe this is ultimately irrelevent but it is irritating. In spite of being a crusty, grumpy, misanthropic ignoramus he has an audience of like minded libertarians and others proud to refuse to learn about the real world. See my links to discussion of the ethics of journalism below for more on that topic.

TF: Even if you accept the propaganda that human-generated CO2 is suddenly the sole driver of climate change, when you look at a global context, none of this Canadian posturing matters a damn bit.

Tom Fletcher is wrong about the science of climate change being propaganda. He is at best confused. That's the charitable view that a reasonable person has to take. However, look back at my other posts (linked at the top of this page). He's been shown all of the mistakes he's made. He's not confused. Tom Fletcher is wrong about climate change. If you're confused there are plenty of resources available to help you learn about climate change.

Below are some examples of reputable sites. Frankly, the Wikipedia Page on Climate Change knows more than Tom Fletcher does.

TF: Barack Obama's great Paris climate deal with China and India allows them to continue ramping up emissions until at least 2030. Donald Trump will soon pull the U.S. out of the toothless Paris accord and end Obama's "war on coal." So that's the world's top three greenhouse gas emitters out.

I've already addressed this in an earlier post mentioning the standards of journalistic practice in Canada that Tom Fletcher appears to be ignoring. I've also pointed out the ethical and moral flaws in Tom Fletcher's arguments. He doesn't appear to understand ethics or morals.

So again we see that Tom Fletcher, writer for Black Press in free community newspapers in Greater Victoria, and across BC is wrong about climate change. I challenge him over and over again to take this issue seriously and to begin reporting on it from the perspective of a decent human being who cares about what he knows rather than attempting to mock his betters. I've made no progress on this to date. It may be impossible.

This page took 0.5 milliseconds to generate.