David Suzuki Foundation, Nancy Greene Raine, human-caused climate change theory

Expressing doubt about climate catastrophea risky venture

By Tom Harris, & Dr. Tim Ball, Natural Resources Stewardship Project

Tuesday, January 2, 2007

In early December, Olympic skiersThomas Grandi and Sara Renner held a press conference to announce they werejoining David Suzuki to fight climate change.  Twice a World Cup goldmedal winner, Grandi intends to donate half his circuit winnings this season tothe David Suzuki Foundation.   Suzuki hopes his "Play It Cool"campaign will also attract the support of other athletes to "help combat globalwarming".

When asked about the issue by CBCnews, Nancy Greene Raine, a World Cup and Olympic Gold Medal skiing championherself, expressed reservations about today's global warming fears.  Forthis, Greene Raine was lambasted by university and government proponents of thehuman-caused climate change theory.  Some even questioned whether shecould remain Chancellor of the new Thompson Rivers University (TRU) inKamloops, B.C. in light of her statements. 

"What kind of a role modelhave we put in place when the chancellor herself gives poorly-consideredcredence to widely discredited extremist opinions such as these?" TRUnursing professor Penny Powers was quoted in The Daily News (Kamloops) asasking.   Also quoted were TRU journalism professor Charles Hays whowrote to colleagues that Greene Raine cannot remain chancellor and make suchremarks.  Environment Canada's Eric Taylor joined the fray, chastisingGreene Raine for speaking out on an issue he says she does not understand.  A neutral observer might wonder why the same criticism would not beleveled against skiers who speak out in support of the climate catastrophe theory.

Readers can decide for themselveswho is siding with extremism by simply comparing what Grandi, Renner and otherpro-Suzuki skiers said with what Greene Raine replied.

Grandi told reporters (re–Toronto Star, 08/12/06), "I think all the top scientists agree that ifwe continue business as usual, we're going to live in a world that doesn'tresemble anything the way it is right now."

Greene Raine said she issuspicious when she sees "people make blanket statements because there are twosides to every issue … in science there's almost never black and white".

Renner is quoted in the Star assaying, "It's the air that everyone breathes. It's the water everyonedrinks", clearly confusing climate change with pollution.

Having communicated with GreeneRaine, we are confident she understands the distinction between these differentissues. 

Cross country skier Becky Scott iscited in the Star as saying "I think it's a grave concern for snow-sportathletes the way the trends are going.  … It's scary", a word also used byGrandi in the original CBC article that started this furor.

Greene Raine remarked, "We don'tknow what next week's weather is going to be. To say in 50 or 100 years, thetemperature is going to do this, is a bit of a stretch for me."

It is a bit of stretch for climatescientists as well.  Computer models used to forecast climate decades fromnow are based on the same fundamentals as models used to predict next week'sweather.  No sensible person would bet much on a seven-day weatherforecast so why should Canada wager billions on what the models predict for acentury from now?  Greene Raine's caution is justified.  

This affair is just anotherexample of how the climate science debate has been ruined by politics andbullying.  When statements as inoffensive and centrist as Greene Raine'sresults in indignation and attacks, we know the issue is no longer aboutscience.  Instead it has become fundamentalist dogma that is questioned atone's peril - that alone should make any thinking person skeptical.