GN climate change position driven by ideology?

I read with interest your article: “Global warming won’t hurt polar bears, GN says”. (Nunatsiaq News, May 26, 2006)

I can’t imagine why you would quote the National Center for Policy Analysis “study,” which is not a scientific study at all, but a fossil-fuel financed PR effort designed to misinform the public with politically motivated misinformation. The so-called “study” refers throughout to qualified climate scientists as nothing but “global warming alarmists,” and relies on blatant agenda-driven cherry-picking of the science in support of its conclusions. This is the antithesis of science.

In discussing the issue of global warming, it’s important to distinguish between honest scientific conclusions, and agenda-driven ideology. The NCPA is clearly promoting the latter.

Your article left me wondering what motivates Mitch Taylor to deny the evidence that suggests that polar bears will be unable to adapt to the ice-free summer Arctic Ocean predicted by the middle of this century? Who is this man? What is his agenda?

Why not balance Taylor’s opinion with a view of the risk of global warming to the polar bear by quoting qualified biologists who have studied the issue, rather than a right-wing think tank dedicated to misleading and misinforming the public?

Michael Seward
Edmonton

Editor’s note: First, whether you agree with his reasoning or not, Mitch Taylor is one of North America’s leading polar bear biologists. He has “studied the issue” and his conclusions are newsworthy. Two, we quoted the National Center for Policy Analysis to suggest to the reader who it is that the GN might actually be lining up with. Three, there is no need to “balance” the quotations from the National Centre’s study, since we’ve provided voluminous coverage of the environmental side of the story for more than 10 years, and will continue to do so.