February 22, 2007
Global warming detractor defends himself
Ed Jackson of Chatfield has been a dart board of criticism on our Opinions Page since we published his letter a week or so ago in which he pooh-poohed global warming. Ed wants a chance to defend himself...
Hey, three long derisive letters against my one short, lighthearted effort?
No fair, Post-Bulletin. What's next? Are you going to bring out the big guns like Paul Klugman and Ellen Goodman to ridicule me, too? (Oops, sorry. I forgot that liberals hate guns.)
I don't suppose you want to give me any more ink, but I can't let these unfortunate and uninformed people attack me without rebuttal, no matter how well-intentioned they may be. (Have you noticed that environmentalists and other liberals have no sense of humor? With them, everything is doom and gloom 24/7/365, and 366 in a Leap Year. Maybe they could resolve to lighten up at least every February 29. I guess itís hard to laugh when youíre always waiting for the sky to fall. But I digress.)
We do need to look seriously at the many sides of this global warming debate, so here goes another try to bring some light where now there is mostly heat (heh, heh). Does anyone out there remember the story of the Six Blind Men and the Elephant? (Oops, sorry, I meant 'Visually Challenged.')
First, let me tell you why I referred to the 'pseudo-scientists'. These are people who have politicized science. This was a method favored by the Bolsheviks who believed that crop genetics would improve under the sheer will power of Communist thought.
Today, there are people who either don't know what the true scientific method is, or have chosen for ideological reasons to abandon it. Having learned at a young age to look at things through scientific eyes, I know that hypothesis and theory are the not same thing, even though these terms are often used interchangeably in common parlance, especially by so-called journalists who are notoriously deficient in scientific knowledge.
Second, about consensus: While a hypothesis might be based on a consensus that there is something to investigate, theory is not. Theory is only based on honest investigation, fact and replicable cause and effectñor in other words, provable, objective truth. If every consensus made truth, the earth would still be flat, the West Indies would be next to India, man would never fly, humans would never walk on the moon, and viruses could be treated with antibiotics. We also would now be in the midst of the Ice Age some of these same people were agonizing about 30 years ago.
Third, I would like to address the issue of future generations. Yes, I worry about my descendants, I worry about them often and very much. And I do have children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, one only a few weeks old. But my concern about them is not based on climate change, but on the fear of demagogic politicians, ideological 'scientists,' and mushy- headed go-gooders and elites who think they have the divine right to tell the rest of the world how to live, what to eat, what to drive, how to spend our own money, and generally everything we can and can't do. I even worry about the world my wife and I will have to experience in our few remaining years as our nation creeps inexorably into socialism.
Fourth, good old Al Gore.
Now there is a study in hypocrisy if there ever was one. Has the main stream media ever told you about Gore's background and financial holdings? The story of all this is too long to cover here. But suffice to say that Al Gore's father, Al Gore Sr., (the first Senator Gore from Tennessee) developed close ties with Armand Hammer and Occidental Petroleum. Through inheritance Gore ended up controlling a big block of Occidental stock and also continued his father's coziness with Occidental. While serving as Vice-President, Gore is reported to have engineered the sale of the federal government's Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve to Occidental, not only enriching himself, but setting up environmental destruction on a grand scale.
The Reserve was rich in Indian archaeological and burial sites, as well as sensitive plant and animal habitat areas. According to published reports, it took Occidental less than five years to obliterate more than 100 native American archaeological sites and burial grounds. (Look up 'Kitanemuk' tribes and especially go to
http://gnn.tv/print/2301/Some_Inconvenient_Truths_About_Al_Gore.If you are paying any attention to the world around you, you know that 'The Nation' is about the most liberal rag of all the liberal press. During the 2000 Presidential campaign, the magazine published a lengthy article by Ken Silverstein about Al Gore's sweetheart relationship with Occidental Petroleum, and about his involvement with environment destruction not only in the Elk Hills Reserve but also in Colombia, South America.
Look up 'Gore's Oil Money' in 'The Nation.'
Also look up 'U'wa tribe.'
Especially see:
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Oil_watch/Colombias_Oil_War.html,
which details Gore's involvement in the South American scandal, which resulted in 5,000 U'was pledging to commit mass suicide rather than let Occidental drill. There is lots more on the web if anyone wants to look for it.
You will also find great support for Gore, including some who deny that Gore ever owned any Occidental stock. Why then, did he report holding between $500,000 and $1,000,000 in such stock on his mandatory senatorial financial reports?
Oh, and while youíre at it, look up 'Love Canal.'
Many readers will remember this scandal, the responsibility for which ended up at the feet of Occidental Petroleum, who had to pay $60 million to help clean it up. This is the kind of company Al Gore keeps while ranting and raving about environmental pollution and global warming. If I remember correctly, Al Gore tried to make political hay from this atrocity, all the while knowing his buddies were responsible for it. He claimed to have discovered and revealed the problem, when in fact it had been made public months before he ever thought of trying to capitalize on it.
There is much more to look at, but this is getting too long anyway. If you are inclined to be a seeker of truth and wisdom, instead of slogans and emotions, do some research on your own—read books, look at opposing viewpoints. Try to sort out provable truth from emotional feelings. Look to see how many doom and gloom ideas lend themselves so conveniently to anti-capitalist, anti-corporate and anti-American solutions. Be careful who you take your education from. Take advantage of the vast resources found on the internet. You will see a lot of trash and irrational emotion there, but you can also find truth, rationality and wisdom.
(One more subject to look up is the 'Medieval Warm Period.' Another is Dr. Timothy Ball on http://canadafreepress.com.)
If nothing else, you will see opposing viewpoints, and that's a good thing. I know this is too long to be a 'letter to the editor', but if you are interested in providing a few facts and different viewpoints, you could run it as a free-lance contribution, the same as you have done with Paul Scott with his recent screed about government control of private property. Being a good money-grubbing conservative, I should ask for payment, but I won't.
Ed Jackson
A freelance writer from Chatfield, MN
No comments:
Post a Comment