Mr. Lindzen, a signatory of the "Leipzig Declaration" which was already revealed for the ruse it was, already wasted no time in trashing Mr. Gore in the Wall Street Journal in an attempt to stifle support of the movie when it first came out, in my view because he is a paid operative for the oil industry. He is a shill for EXXON and all other oil companies that are willfully killing this planet for profit. But notice that in these hit pieces designed to discredit Mr. Gore who based his slideshow on scientific consensus, Mr. Lindzen's "associations" are never mentioned. Well, I think we know why. See the links below.
Now, Bjorn Lomborg:
Fron the Union of Concerned Scientists:
Well, at least that is what Mr. Lomborg calls himself.
As far as the others mentioned in this piece, namely Mr. Easterbrook (who just had to mention he wasn't a Republican yet said there was no political motivation to his contribution,) Kevin Vranes, and the couple others I never heard of, it is of course logical to understand that there will not be agreement across the board on various points being made in this most important debate. However, it is one thing to have a sincere conviction about an issue one way or the other and express that conviction with the intent of addressing it to the entire scientific community, which this hit piece and their comments do not do which in my mind hurts their credibility.
It is quite another to simply attack Mr. Gore specifically for political, economic, or personal reasons and I personally find it to be beneath any scientific standards for a scientist to condone such a blatant tactic, especially against a man who has done nothing but relay a message that has been corroborated by scientists from the NSA, the IPCC, NASA, and hundreds of scientists from across the world: That climate change is also human induced and that we must join together to reduce our impact upon this world which is clearly seen if you are an impartial witness to what is occurring on our planet right now.
And I would also suppose that these "scientists" have not viewed An Inconvenient Truth, for if they had they would know that nowhere in it did Mr. Gore state that inundation due to rising sea levels was "imminent." He stated the situation clearly enough for those of us without an ulterior motive: Global warming is upon us, it is being exacerbated by human activity, and it is altering our relationshiop to our planet and unless we take action now to mitigate its affects we could see the very scenarios scientists have and still are predicting.
Therefore, since those critics cited in this article agree that climate change is happening and that is is being exacerbated by humans, why are they not then bringing forth ideas in this piece to deal with it instead of joining the NY Times in attacking a good man who is telling truth? Perhaps that should be the focus of the next NY Times article on this crisis instead of blatantly once again hitting on a good man doing all he can to make this world a better place.
So exactly what is it that Mr. Gore speaking in tandem with hundreds of climate scientists and organizations from the NSA, IPCC, NASA, and the IPCC specifically not telling us that Mr. Lindzen, a paid shill for oil companies is going to tell us?
I am sure he will not tell you this:
It surely to me is a shame that this issue is so polarized and politicized because of those who even when evidence is brought before them regarding the responsibility we all have to this planet's future and what we are doing in contributing to this crisis still feel the need to attack the messenger rather than work together to solve it because it is what is buying policy in Washington DC over what is morally and ethically the right course for our planet.
Even Evangelical ministers are standing with the science in this movie and in general and breaking away from the political chokehold this issue has had on progress and working to bring the truth about our moral responsibility to this planet forward. Shame on those who continue to make this about everything but what it should be which is our obligation to be good stewards of this planet regardless of politics or position in life and SHAME on the NY Times.
I think it is time for many to ask themselves what is more important to the future of this planet and what takes precedence now in the furthering of this debate past rhetoric to action: their jealousy and hatred for Al Gore, or their love for this Earth? I personally have seen enough of the former.
KEYWORDS: Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth, climate crisis, environment, morals, responsiblity, Earth, citizen activism, media propaganda
Sign up for a Complimentary Member Account... Join the community! It's fast. And it'll allow you to take advantage of all this site's great features!
|< Good Order and Discipline | On Being Mr. Buttle >|