Mr. Oullette's (Jan. 7) letter may seem confusing, but it is standard
environmental rhetoric.
I quote: "down this 4.5 billion-year time line, a science-based opinion he
obviously accepts." He seems to reject all science proving the age of this planet and by that also rejects nature as it actually exists.
He also rejects the concept of human comforts, yet enjoys and lives with those human comforts and actually survives because of them. Diversity and abundance of flora and fauna and the constantly changing world appear beyond his comprehension.
An example of this natural change: a few thousand years ago all you see about you was once open grassland with a limited diversity of large herbivores and large predators.
The melting ice sheet altered the climate, the flora and fauna present could not adapt to this change and became
extinct. These changes in nature provided room for the expansion of other varieties and more adaptable plants and animals that survive here today.
The author also speaks of "well-trained and informed members of
environmental groups." These would be environmentalists who submitted papers to the IPCC - papers that were used in the attempt to prove human involvement causing climate change.
These well-trained environmentalists would surely have included those that poured simulated oil over their bodies, rolled in the dirt demanding that nature and evolution cease because it was in conflict with how they thought nature should be preserved.
As for David Suzuki, no attempt was made to mislead the public on his part.
These were statements made by Mr. Suzuki or his representatives and open to public interpretation. David Suzuki allegedly is a proponent of nature, the natural environment and an advocate of endangered species.
He advocated Save the Spotted Owl, which led to the removal (politically correct term for kill) of all barred and horned owls living within an area of 500,000 hectares of forest land.
The barred and horned owls are doing exactly what nature and the natural environment intended them to do - they are expanding their territory, forcing the less-adaptable spotted owl into extinction.
Can Mr. Oullette justify and explain how the killing of thousands of owls is green, environmentally friendly, or saving the planet, or as Mr. Suzuki states "helping the planet we all depend on."
This is the industry of environmentalism overriding nature.
We the human species are a naturally occurring species on this planet and, as such, force less-adapting species into extinction, just as every other species does.
We use all resources available to us to ensure the continued survival of our species. We are part of the natural environment. We are not a whipping boy for environmentalists who cannot come to terms with nature and the natural environment.
Environmentalists make up 10 to 12 per cent of the population. Another 78 per cent are environmental and accepting of nature even though it may appear cruel and ugly.
The remaining 10 per cent do not care one way or the other.
Larry Barnes
Prince George
