Sunday, December 2, 2007
Last Friday, I was given the opportunity to be in my town newspaper for a second time, although this time I was the subject and not the author. Now, I am very happy about this because I am glad to see that the community is taking part in the political process instead of picking up celebrity magazines and worrying about Britney Spears. The response I got was pretty much what I expected--I was commended for standing up for what I believe in but attacked over small side facts I brought up in the article, altough I should mention that the main point in article that suggests global warming could very well be a natural process, was largely left alone. I was even accused of suggesting that energy efficiency would not benefit the planet, even though I strongly disagree with anything of the sort. I am foremost a conservationist and I am very concerned with some of the things happening with wildlife and pollution. It's typical of liberals to accuse someone who disagrees with the man-made global warming theory of not caring about the planet. Those of you who know me know I am a huge fan of Steve Irwin and his campaign to save wildlife. In fact, many of his actions inspire me to write what I do today. While I welcome criticism of my work with open arms, I am worried that there is a growing movement from extreme enviromentalists and ideological politicians to silence dissent over global warming.
Just how harmful is it?
Well, for starters, many scientists (yes, there are plenty)who disagree with man-made climate change are often accused of working for big oil, supporting a right-wing agenda, or simply being a hack (as Glenn Beck points out in his great new book, An Inconvenient Book). The founder of this movement, Al Gore, has called for the media to cover only one side of the debate, as I have pointed out in my recent editorial and numerous posts on my blog. Researchers, politicians, and commentors who make their disagreement public are often the target of personal attacks by far-left character assasins determined to silence those who refuse to submit to their belief system. But radical enviromentalism goes from being extreme to dangerous. A few posts down I talked about the rather frightening story of a British woman aborting her own baby to "reduce her carbon footprint". Well, on my way to work a couple of days ago, much to my horror, I read a license plate that actually said Global Warming: Have cats not kids. The cult-like actions of a previously unheard of enviromenal movement are spreading from the UK all the way out here to California. Sure, it sounds almost laughable, but this derranged ideolgy is very real. That's why it is very important for people who disagree with radical enviromentalism to get their platform and spark debate instead of allowing this madness to grow.