A couple of weeks ago I wrote an article that apparently fired a lot of people up.
The article was about how I thought the continued inaction on climate change was more offensive than a recent Monty Python-esque short film that depicted some violent, albeit corny scenes of climate change deniers and foot-draggers getting blown up after not agreeing to do their part to reduce carbon emissions.
If you're a rational person and saw the movie, you know that it was not advocating violence.
But as expected, I was inundated with inane comments and hateful emails. Some of which suggested that the movie was in fact advocating some kind of eco nazi-supported violence. Typical of the extremist denier movement that consists mostly of drooling Glenn Beck zombies who spend their spare time (of which they apparently have a lot), sniffing out climate change articles and leaving their asinine comments – often laced with venom and vitriol.
After the first 30 or so comments and emails came in, I was told by the management here that while they won't censor me, I might want to consider that when it comes to the climate change debate, I might want to be a little less hostile.
I was also told that if I want to take on the climate change issue, I should understand that not everyone believes that increases in greenhouse gases are a result of human activities. And therefor should spend more time explaining why I believe this is an issue of great importance – and less time trying to force my opinion by being over-the-top.
OK. I can do that.
So today, instead of showing you pictures that illustrate the results of climate change, I'll simply refer you to some of the information that leads me to believe climate change is a serious issue, and should not be trivialized by fossil fuel interests or those who choose to believe Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh over thousands of reputable scientists and researchers across the globe.
The first is a 2007 report called “National Security and the Threat of Climate Change”. This report was commissioned by the Center for Naval Analyses – a not some left-wing think tank.
In this report, you can read the following. . .
"Climate Change can act as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world, and it presents significant national security challenges for the United States. Accordingly, it is appropriate to start now to help mitigate the severity of some of these emergent challenges. The decision to act should be made soon in order to plan prudently for the nation's security. The increasing risks from climate change should be addressed now because they will almost certainly get worse if we delay"
You may not want to hear the truth from a loud-mouth like me. But maybe 11 retired military brass, including five admirals and four generals will make you at least consider that the climate change denier mentality is one that is not in the best interest of our national security.
And for those of you who keep hitting the rewind button on “There's no consensus on the link between human activity and climate change,” let me draw your attention to something I found over at climateconservative.org, called: The Real “Ozone Man”
"In 1984, researchers confirmed a hypothesis that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) used in aerosol sprays and refrigeration equipment were depleting the earth’s protective ozone layer.
They concluded that unless ozone-depleting chemicals were phased out, life on earth would be exposed to ever-increasing levels of dangerous ultraviolet radiation emitted by the sun.
These findings met with much the same kind of skepticism and resistance that have greeted scientific conclusions about climate change—and from many of the same sources. Limbaugh, for example, has been a longstanding cynic regarding both ozone depletion and climate change. He dismisses each problem as a “hoax” and has made ridiculing them a staple of his act.
Reagan, when faced with mounting scientific concern about ozone depletion, listened to all sides, carefully weighed the facts, and ultimately sided with the climate scientists who were urging him to take prudent action to safeguard our atmosphere.
Despite strong opposition from Interior Secretary Don Hodel and other skeptics within his administration, President Reagan chose to push through a strong international treaty to begin phasing out ozone-depleting chemicals.
That 1987 treaty, the Montreal Protocol, is widely regarded as the most successful environmental treaty of all time.
A few months before the final negotiating session the United States’ chief negotiator for the treaty, Richard Benedick, was concerned that Hodel and others would convince Reagan to back off the U.S. position, which demanded significant near-term CFC reductions.
In a 2007 article entitled, Science, Diplomacy, and the Montreal Protocol, Benedick describes how he learned of the president’s decision:
'In June 1987, with the final negotiating session at Montreal less than three months away, I was at the Reichstag in Berlin to deliver an address on the fortieth anniversary of the Marshall Plan when a breathless U.S. Embassy attaché brought me an “Eyes Only” personal cable from the White House. President Reagan thus became the world’s first head of state to personally approve a national negotiating policy on ozone protection. Ignoring the advice of some of his closest political friends, the President completely endorsed, point-by-point, the strong position of the State Department and EPA.'
President Reagan decided to protect our atmosphere from a problem that, at the time, was not fully understood by scientists. He discounted the arguments of those who claimed that the problem was not real or that the economic cost would be too great.
Today, because of his bold leadership, our ozone layer is healing.
In the 2000 presidential race, former Vice President Al Gore was mocked by George W. Bush supporters with the label “Ozone Man.” Little did they know that the real “Ozone Man” is not Gore. It is Ronald Reagan."
Just a couple of things to think about the next time you assume that you're doing what's in the best of interest of the United States when you ridicule and deny the existence of climate change.