LETTER

"Speak up" and Little Stevie’s Limitations

 

Luc McCann’s letter of February 17 has prodded me to respond. I can't recall Mr. Desjardin's letter but I can still respond to the objections of Mr. McCann's.
 
 As to defining "bitumen" I find there are not many definitions. Whereas conventional crude oil flows freely, bitumen does not. At room temperature it looks like cold molasses, and must be either heated or diluted before it flows. Bitumen contains more carbon than hydrogen, as well as many other impurities. These impurities must be removed and the carbon-hydrogen imbalance corrected. Only then is it correctly known as refined bitumen.

As for Mr. Ryan, I find it much easier to accept his research and opinion than Mr. McCann’s, despite his collection of acronyms. To Mr. Desjardin's opinion of Mr. d'Eça, he is certainly free to form his opinion based upon the research of reading Mr. d'Eça's numerous comments here, just as you have formed an opinion of Mr. Ryan from his editorials.

Further, I think you overstep when you comment "we all are starting to be fed up with environmental talk". I am not fed up with the subject, since there are still opinions to be changed every day. The opinions that must soon change are the opinions of those who should cease denying overwhelming evidence that climate change is being directly impacted by human action.

I must confess that the "example" you discuss evades me, and I, unfortunately, must question your research as to protesters’ sponsors or President Obama's legacy.

You speak volumes when you claim journalists, unions, and environmentalists elected the Liberals, ignoring committees created, studies initiated, and promises kept -- and in the same breath beg for Harper's actions to be forgotten. Following your logic, a Conservative Reform Alliance Party would have been elected by opinionated, managerial, polluters.  If I could scrub Harper's actions from history, I would, but it will be forever there in the history books, for all to witness. The willful actions of Harper, ignoring, and harassing in the courts, indigenous people, his contempt for parliament, gagging of scientists and public servants, destroying research libraries, wasting millions on politically driven advertising. The list is large and available on the internet and it is no joke.

Your whining about (Trudeau’s) photo-ops is refuted by Harper's avoidance of "Idle No More" for his own clownish photo-op with a panda. Your contention that police investigations should not be interfered with is untenable in this case because it appears the police are the main impediment to a proper investigation that should tell us what we do not yet know.

I, too, enjoy the letters from Mr. D'Eca, and all contributors, because they give me a chance to hear all sides of a discussion and have a chance to sway or be swayed by both facts and opinion.

Ron Temchuk
Aylmer