An Unscientific Method
The truly insidious piece was a piece published by a Professor declaring that “Acknowledging Climate change is in the GOP’s Best Interest.” The piece is full of the usual canards lobbied at right-minded people who don’t want to wreck the global economy (“Yet our electoral system continues to grant climate-change deniers considerable power” he writes) in support of global warming hysteria and leftist political action masquerading as science. But the Professor tries to pretend that his radical environmental agenda is somehow conservative in nature. For example:
What’s lost in translation, of course, is the fact the conservationism is at the heart of conservatism and Republicanism. Remember, it was Ulysses S. Grant who gave us the first National Park, and Teddy Roosevelt was the first national figure who was a conservationist.. And, as I mentioned last week, there’s plenty of Biblical and religious basis for protecting God’s creation.
But the question here seems not to be the environment, and more along the lines of embracing radical leftist environmentalism:
Environmental conservatism needn’t be an oxymoron. In a very real sense, the human future depends upon society’s willingness to chasten its material desires and live within limits.
The typical code word for the middle class to give up basic consumer goods in order to protect the environment. Something that the majority of Americans realize is nonsense.
I haven’t noted the Professor’s name yet. Because that’s what is truly insidious about The Sun publishing this piece. Because check out the byline:
That’s right, the Baltimore Sun printed an op-ed in support of radical environmentalism from a professor at MICA.
Clearly Mr. Jaskunas has some sort of environmental background right? Well, no. He’s a literature professor. The MICA website describes him as part of the faculty of “Humanistic Studies.” He has a Master’s in Fiction. He teaches classes on Contemporary Fiction, Creative Nonfiction, Dawn of Modernity, Intermediate Fiction,Postwar Fiction and The Wire.
So, why I am throwing this professor under the bus for writing a column in support of radical environmentalism? I’m not. But it does expose certain hypocrisies of the left. Both environmentalists and editorial boards of the mainstream media decry opposition to leftist approaches to deal with climate change as being “anti-science.” Yet, often times the leading proponents of global warming hysteria in the media are often not scientists themselves, but actors, politicians, and political agitators.
It isn’t those who are opposed to Big Environment that are saying things like “The Science is Settled.”
The debate over “Climate Change” itself is settled, because the climate is changing all around us. It has for five billion years. It will for another five billion. But it is hard to take seriously the desire for supporters of radical environmental policy to shut conservatives out of the debate on ecological issues and by branding conservatives as “anti-science” when the left sends out a humanist literature professor to make their case…