Apr 26 2007
Green-Scare Counterpoint II
As part of our prior stated objective of providing alternative views on the rush to legislate government solutions to global warming, here are a few fresh articles:
- Greening Industry caught in carbon ’smokescreen’
- Film on Global Warming Is Challenged
- The Liberal Globe Not Warming Up To Senator Inhofe
- Global Warming Skeptic Rips Media Alarmists and ‘Malevolent’ Scientists
Again, our purpose is not to pick one side or the other, but to foster open discussion on what we find to still be an open debate. For our original post on why we feel this way, click here.
“our purpose is not to pick sides”
Guys, love your investment approach, but your links belie your pretense of objectivity on this issue.
Wayne,
No doubt it appears that way, and I’ll be the first to admit we’re not entirely convinced of the pro-side ourselves.
Nonetheless, if you read our earlier posted “opener” on the global warming subject, you’ll see that we’ve made the point that the “pro government solutions / absolutely man is to blame” opinion is getting non-stop coverage by 95% of the media out there, and especially the big / mainstream media. Very little coverage in any consolidated form is being provided to alternative or skeptical opinions. Moreover, there is even a trend of silencing debate and tarring of the reputations of anyone who would dare to disagree.
We think that’s wrong. Ideas should speak for themselves and not be edited / PC’d from public discourse, and certainly legislation should never be railroaded through on wave of fear and untested theory. Hence, we are no doubt providing a one-sided forum to the other side being demonized by the mainstream.
Does that mean we have no objectivity on the issue? I don’t think so. In fact, my suggestion to anyone reading this post or any in our series is that they read up on both sides of the debate and not just the skeptics’ side. I’m not convinced by either side yet. But i am convinced that educated decisions are better than decisions made in haste, possibly at the behest of special interest with alternative motives (which you can say influence BOTH sides of the debate regardless of which is in fact correct)…
I suggest you read the first posting in the series rather than a rehash. And, please, keep in mind the point of this site is to get people to think and question, and not simply operate with the herd on autopilot. Vigilant investing involves not just money, but where you invest your time, votes, entrepreneurial activity, family’s direction and so forth.
Thanks for you two cents.