CTL_Webmaster
06-20-2007, 04:07 PM
I am amazed that you would include "Bob's Back Page" in your July 2007 issue. As 'editor at large' I assume Bob Friel speaks for your publication. I would like to make a couple of comments about his/your opinion when it comes to global warming:
1 - The fact that your approach to someone who disagrees with you is to call them names (Butt Ostrich) only magnifies your inability to make your point with facts. There is absolutely no irrefutable evidence that global warming even exists, much less that if it does it is the result of man's abuse of the planet. For all of the scientists that you wish to quote supporting your 'position' there is an equal number of scientists who don't buy it, and the vast majority of these scientists are not supported by the energy industry as you allege. Rather than choosing to point this out, or at the least admit that global warming is very much a debatable issue, you choose to belittle anyone who disagrees. You remind me of the Weather Channel show host who said that any meteorologist who disagrees with her view of global warming should be stripped of their certification. You both display the height of arrogance.
2 - It is interesting that Bob complains of resorts in the Caribbean who add to the global warming problem. These are the same resorts whose advertising dollars pay your publication's bills. I would suggest that if you are so concerned about them adding to the global environment problem that you would not accept their money.
Of course you won't do that because like most who bang the gong about global warming with such an elitist attitude, your actions don't match your words. Your hypocrisy is like the politicians and entertainment celebrities who are constantly telling me how I am destroying the planet while they are flying around in their private jets and living in 20,000 sq.ft. mansions that use more electricity in a month than I will in a year.
Come to think of it, you'd better keep the advertising dollars because you will need them to make up for the reduced subscription income. Count me as one who will not renew my subscription. I refuse to support anyone or any entity that takes such an arrogant and close minded view of an important issue like the environment.
Oh well, look at the bright side… cancelled subscriptions mean less paper to print your magazine which should be good for the environment!
John Gooch
Houston, Texas
1 - The fact that your approach to someone who disagrees with you is to call them names (Butt Ostrich) only magnifies your inability to make your point with facts. There is absolutely no irrefutable evidence that global warming even exists, much less that if it does it is the result of man's abuse of the planet. For all of the scientists that you wish to quote supporting your 'position' there is an equal number of scientists who don't buy it, and the vast majority of these scientists are not supported by the energy industry as you allege. Rather than choosing to point this out, or at the least admit that global warming is very much a debatable issue, you choose to belittle anyone who disagrees. You remind me of the Weather Channel show host who said that any meteorologist who disagrees with her view of global warming should be stripped of their certification. You both display the height of arrogance.
2 - It is interesting that Bob complains of resorts in the Caribbean who add to the global warming problem. These are the same resorts whose advertising dollars pay your publication's bills. I would suggest that if you are so concerned about them adding to the global environment problem that you would not accept their money.
Of course you won't do that because like most who bang the gong about global warming with such an elitist attitude, your actions don't match your words. Your hypocrisy is like the politicians and entertainment celebrities who are constantly telling me how I am destroying the planet while they are flying around in their private jets and living in 20,000 sq.ft. mansions that use more electricity in a month than I will in a year.
Come to think of it, you'd better keep the advertising dollars because you will need them to make up for the reduced subscription income. Count me as one who will not renew my subscription. I refuse to support anyone or any entity that takes such an arrogant and close minded view of an important issue like the environment.
Oh well, look at the bright side… cancelled subscriptions mean less paper to print your magazine which should be good for the environment!
John Gooch
Houston, Texas