Everyday I spend a little time perusing reader feedback, answering questions, and explaining the meanings of my cartoons. I often need to remind the people who complain about my work that I'm in the opinion business, not news relaying, and that it's expected I rattle the nerves of readers on a frequent basis. Last weekend's cartoon was designed to just that, and it got a few bites, just as this side of North America was concluding a balmy stretch of unseasonably warm January weather. Here's one which I'd like to share:
I don't usually write anyone about anything except your cartoon upset me so much this morning that I can't finish reading the paper. From what you wrote it seems that you don't believe in humanity's role in global warming. This isn't a natural cycle of the Earth. I think you should educate yourself before you do allude to a "let's do nothing to stop global warming" approach. Good places to start are "The Weathermakers" by Tim Flannery, David Suzuki's website, and Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" (even if you don't like Al Gore he has some hard scientific data that I'd love to see someone refute).
So far any scientist that has studied core samples from Antarica state that the Earth has never warmed this quickly before.
You have a lot of power as someone who is seen daily in the news. I wish you'd be more responsible.
Sorry my editorial cartoon upset you but sometimes that's what an editorial cartoon is supposed to do. At the very least I hope it reminded you that the source of all the recent bizarre weather is not to be blamed solely on increased levels of carbon dioxide and other emissions in the atmosphere. I simply threw out something in cartoon form which challenged all the hype conspired by warm weather, a cabinet shuffle, polls, and recent studies which have put the environment as the flavour of the month. I wasn't hearing much in the news about El Nino, which science has proven is naturally occuring.
I don't know where you get any notion of a "let's do nothing to stop global warming" from me, or in my cartoon. I'm concerned as anyone else about the environment but I don't think it's unreasonable to push back and question some of the junk science you'll find with the presentations from the people you mentioned.
I appreciate your email.
Sorry, but what do you mean junk science? What's wrong with how they obtained their results?
Forgive me, but I don't know if your question to me about "junk science" is rhetorical in nature.
There have been countless articles written refuting some of the statistics and theories used by Al Gore, David Suzuki, and Tim Flannery to back up their arguments, which in essence, create global warming hysteria. A simple search of the Internet will find reputable articles which challenge the approaches based on "junk science". The overriding fact of the debate is that a causal link between greenhouse gases and global warming has not been proven conclusively.
So to paraphrase a term you used in your initial email to me I think you should educate yourself on the stances of both sides of the global warming debate before you criticize me for an editorial cartoon which reminds people of a scientifically proven naturally occurring phenomena called El Nino. The opinion I conveyed in my cartoon, and that's what I do in cartooning -- express opinion, simply illustrated the hysteria I sensed last week. You can agree or disagree with it, but I doubt we'll see eye to eye on the issue on global warming, and that's ok.