Regarding response to “Put Andy in the hot seat” by Gale McNeeley, published in the July 12 to July 19 issue:
In recent days, the Sun published a criticism of California’s Green Movement, written by Andy Caldwell, followed by a well written response submitted by Gale McNeeley. In effect, Mr. McNeeley suggested that Mr. Caldwell’s thoughts are suspect because he makes his living expressing them. Beyond that, Mr. McNeeley accused Mr. Caldwell of confusing opinion and fact. Mr. McNeeley’s passion seems to have led him to employ some unnecessary hyperbole. Let us look at the facts.
1. Mr. McNeeley splits hairs when he adamantly claims Mr. Caldwell is not a “community activist.”
Activism has been defined as “an intentional action taken in support of, or opposition to, one side of an often controversial argument for the purpose of bringing about social, political, economic, or environment change.” Mr. Caldwell is certainly engaged in activism. And he is a member of the local community. It seems odd that one would take issue with calling a community member engaged in activism a community activist. But that is enough about that.
2. Mr. McNeeley states that “global warming is a fact.” But in the words of Paul Harvey, now you will hear the rest of the story.
If one looks at the last 50 to 100 years, it is indisputable that Earth has been in a warming cycle. However, it is imminently logical that warming should have been occurring during the past 100 years, plus or minus, since the Little Ice Age ended around the middle of the 19th century. The Little Ice Age was preceded by a warming period known as the Medieval Warm Period that lasted approximately 300 years.
But back to Mr. McNeeley’s opinion piece. He did the very thing for which he castigated Mr. Caldwell. He presented opinion as fact when he posited that “all reputable climate scientists have proven that we are destroying the planet by our energy consumption.” This statement is factually false. To be fair, a majority of climate scientists may believe it, but not all. One example: Roy Spencer is a very reputable climate scientist who believes that global warming occurs naturally. He argued against the theory of man-made global warming in a film called The Great Global Warming Swindle. What about his qualifications? Dr. Spencer was a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., and is known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he has been awarded the American Meteorological Society’s Special Award.
Now, a couple of questions for Mr. McNeeley: Why is it that people who support a singer or performer are patrons of the arts and all of us regard them highly, while people who support the work Mr. Caldwell does are called “special interests” by Mr. McNeeley in a manner that suggests scorn? Do the purveyors of ideas and their supporters not deserve the same measure of respect accorded to providers of entertainment and their supporters?
In closing, both Messrs. Caldwell and McNeeley deserve kudos for contributing their thoughts to an important topic, one that deserves a lot of continuing discussion. After all, it was continuing discussion that finally caused all of the world’s reputable scientists to accept that Earth revolves around the Sun and not the other way around. In other words, truth is not necessarily revealed when a majority of scientists agree. The majority has been wrong before.
David Pratt lives in Santa Maria. Send comments to the executive editor at rmiller@santamariasun.com.
This article appears in Jul 26 – Aug 2, 2012.
