I think I've figured out why he gets the space. It's because his opinions are so extreme that they generate letters to the editor, which makes the editors happy because then they know people are reading the columns. If you write an angry letter, the editors can publish it so it to show that people are reading the paper, and the letters can stir more controversy. (Half a dozen people wrote letters that were published in a Sunday edition.)
Controversy makes the editors happy. On the other hand, if nobody writes letters, the editors are still happy because they assume everyone agrees with the opinions. Unfortunately, most people cannot distinguish between news written by journalists and opinion columns written by columnists, so many people think the columnist's material is factual. Unfortunately, the newspaper doesn't use a columnist who writes based on facts.
The columnist's latest opinion debunks global warming. Yup. There's no such thing. "The actual measurements of what's going on with the world's climate do not support the predictions they're made. Far, far from it," he says. He believes, and I'm quoting directly, "that global warming will not make a material difference in the earth's climate, and certainly such modest changes as do occur from the greenhouse gases will not adversely affect either the human race or the environment in general." Oh yes, pigs fly.
He says that most scientists who have been expressing concern over global warming are social scientists, not "hard scientists (celestial and astrophysicists, solar physicists and climatolologists, for example). . .. Hard scientists, he says, have been co-opted by folks with axes to grind.
After this, he rambles on about antitechnology zealots who are uncomfortable with technology and who "see the threat of global warming as a weapon against technology." Environmental extremists are also at fault in this controversy, and so are the statists, people who believe government knows best and who "view citizens as children" they can make decisions for. I guess he means all the government leaders from around the world whose only goal is to run people's lives. Sigh.
Never mind that "The mainstream scientific view - as expressed by 2,500 of the world's preeminent scientists from 120 nations-is that there is no longer much question WHETHER humans are altering the world's climate, but where, when and by how much," according to a 1996 Media Guide to Climate Change. Never mind that a United Nations Rome climate conference of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change "endorsed the assessment of the 2,500 leading climate experts." This number of scientists has grown dramatically since 1996.
Go To Page: 1 2
| Here's the follow-up discussion on this article: | View all related messages |
For a complete listing of article comments, questions, and other discussions related to Kenneth Friedman's Environment topic, please visit the Discussions page.