I have encountered many disappointed people as of late, and I do not know what to do about it. They seem to want me to feel sorry for them because they are being challenged. You may ask, what is challenging these disappointed individuals? The answer is the resurrection of the global warming debate. Frankly, I do not know why they are so disappointed. They should view this as the Waterloo of the global warming skeptics, since any debate on the subject is an open-and-shut case.
Proponents for action on global warming fundamentally assume greenhouse gas emissions, like the pollutant carbon dioxide, gather in the atmosphere and trap heat that melts Arctic sea ice and drowns polar bears. No wonder these individuals are so disappointed; the gas they emit every time they exhale ends up killing cute, cuddly polar bears! Now, of course, this is pure foolishness. Carbon dioxide, an essential element to life on the planet, is not a pollutant. Moreover, polar bears are not dying in droves because of a lack of Arctic sea ice. Yet many, possibly including you, have been led to assume these as basic “facts” that any learned individual should know.
AU College Republicans hosted a screening of the film “Not Evil Just Wrong,” which tackles the tenets of modern environmentalism and questions the legitimacy of the science surrounding global warming hysteria. Climate change is a naturally occurring process, but it’s unfortunate that this phrase is so frequently interchanged with global warming. Our climate is changing — it is becoming cooler.
So why, as put forth in an article complaining against the College Republicans, should we operate on the assumption that significant anthropogenic global warming exists when emerging science contradicts that same assumption? Before succumbing to this global warming hysteria, shouldn’t we at least be sure the science is true and not unfairly exaggerated? The person who wrote the letter, Anjali Bean, and her fellow disappointed friends should appreciate and not attempt to quash the nuanced debate College Republicans encourage.
Why does Al Gore use a private jet when carbon dioxide releases from air travel are the supposed worst emissions contributing to global warming? Why must American families suffer up to a $3,000 increase in their energy bills if global warming legislation passes? Why was the hockey stick model touted so publicly by environmentalists to demonstrate warming trends and later dismissed as insignificant by the same group when it was found to be flawed? Advocates for action on global warming should answer these questions and not dismiss them simply because they challenge the sacred words of Al Gore.
The starkest underlying issue Ms. Bean and her disappointed friends have with the College Republicans resurrecting the global warming debate relates to cap and trade legislation affecting American workers. Ms. Bean wrote in her piece, “The heartwarming story of the factory worker from Indiana who depends on oil to make his living is of course true, but missing the bigger picture completely. Transitions in industry have happened at many junctures in American history, and the country has managed to go on.” Essentially, she wants American families to struggle and “just deal” with the negative impacts of cap and trade. Frankly, that’s quite easy for her to say indicating how out of touch she and environmentalists are with the American public. Contrary to public belief, College Republicans do care about working men and women, unlike cap and trade advocates. Encouraging the passage of legislation that could harm American families is foolish and downright dangerous, especially considering the shaky and challenged assumptions the entire thing is predicated upon.
Honest and open debate, which the College Republicans encouraged with the screening of the film, should occur without environmentalists trying to sideline it in pursuit of an agenda.
David Lindgren Sophomore, SIS
