One severely dry year does not a crisis make
I am really concerned over how you portray climate change with your information on page 4 of the Jan. 6 issue regarding dry conditions related to climate change. Have any of you lived through the 1930s, 1970s or 1980s in Saskatchewan?
I have lived through the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, where we had many years of dry conditions, even through the winter with dust blowing close to Regina. This was never a climate change issue back then, so why is it all of a sudden now that we had one severely dry year?
Read Also
Surviving a bad harvest day sometimes requires a little luck
Producer and writer Kevin Hursh shares a day of three potentially disastrous incidents as cautionary tales of farm safety for Prairie farmers in the midst of fall harvest work.
Our world has gone crazy over this climate change issue. What after climate change will we see then?
John Thomas
Red Deer, Alta.
Opinions not the same as scientific facts
Katelyn Duncan’s article on misinformation on page 10 of the Jan. 13 issue is gravely concerning because it contributes intensely to the muddled perception of “opinions” and “ideas” as legitimate alternatives to scientific facts, thus pouring fuel on the fire kindled by ideological hotheads to divide society.
On the one hand, Duncan calls for “scientific rigour” in assessing the correctness of information, and on the other she wants laymen’s’ “ideas” and “opinions” to be “peer reviewed and replicable.”
“Peer review” refers to the assessment of a given published scientific statement by professionals, usually academics who work in the same field as the researchers proposing the statement. These are not “ideas” or “opinions” but cold, hard facts, which can be supported or refuted by statistical analysis of the results and a critical assessment of the methodology employed to achieve these results, including reliability.
Scientific facts are not immutable and change with acquired evidence. This makes many people who believe in a created and immutable universe uncomfortable and doubtful.
“Objective knowledge” is real and achievable. May I recommend immersion into this topic so excellently covered by Karl Popper in his 1972 publication by that name.
“Misinformation” is the intentional misinterpretation of factual evidence, often achieved by quoting statements out of context, outright fabricating “facts” or perpetuating incorrect information based on one’s ideological preference with an intent to deceive.
The dissemination of such nonsense was formerly suffocated by lack of consent in one’s immediate environment. Social media has now opened a global platform for everything, and misinformers can now bask in their echo chambers,sensing approval of like minds.
It’s time social media content is fact checked and flagged to prevent further rifts in society.
Alex von Dewitz, BSc.,DVM
Blaine Lake, Sask.
