Daniel said today he watched Al Gore’s documentary An Inconvenient Truth and said he wouldn’t recommend it in his Dining and Dancing Guide. He said it wasn’t a thrilling piece of cinema. He said he liked Jesus Camp more which he called a terrific and wonderful documentary. He said what he doesn’t understand (I don’t understand it either) is why conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and Todd Schnitt get all hot and bothered about Al Gore and the scientific proof of Global Warming. Daniel said he was driving in his car the other day and he was almost getting splattered with the foam coming out of their mouths through the radio. Daniel asked why is there this unbelievable effort on the part of these people to discredit Al Gore on this issue? Daniel called it a stalker-like obsession where they try and move heaven and earth to try an discredit anything Gore has to say about Global Warming and the health of the environment. Where does this animosity come from?
Well first of all, the appearance is that some far-right conservatives will argue against ANYTHING the other side has to say. The liberals could say the oceans are deep and these conservatives would say, no it’s not. They will pick the opposite of whatever liberals have to say on almost every issue. There is no agreement or compromise, even when the facts prove them to be wrong. Not all conservatives are like that but the vocal, public ones on this issue cast a negative shadow on the moderates.
Next, I think it’s because some conservatives have simply played followed the leader, ignoring the science that clearly shows global warming exists. If their leader said the world was flat, they would be foaming at the mouth to try and convince everyone the world was flat without considering if the argument was based on fact.
I think a better way to get people involved in this is to say ok, let’s assume Global Warming is not occurring due to greenhouse gases, it’s just a cyclical warming of the earth. But there’s no denying (I think there’s no denying) the planet is being harmed by increased pollution. So let’s do the same things that we’re encouraging everyone to do to reverse Global Warming, and instead do those same things to reduce pollution. So basically we don’t say we’re fighting Global Warming, we say we’re fighting Global Pollution. Same effect, different title. Next they’ll probably say we need more scientific evidence to prove there’s more pollution in the world than there was 50 years ago.
What do you think?