Global Warming Crowd Goes After GM Vice Chairman: He Was Exercising His First Amendment Rights

Some bloggers out there are under the mistaken impression that criticizing the THEORY of global warming is something that the one criticizing it should publicly apologize for.

Take the example of GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz. He publicly called global warming a "crock of s---" last month in Texas. And the critics who believe in the hype of global warming immediately went after him.

He has nothing to apologize for, and shouldn't have to retract his opinion. Some of these global-warming left-wing bloggers ought to realize that criticism of global warming, and the divided science behind it, and the flawed premise that global warming is caused by man, IS protected by the First Amendment.

Global warming is a naturally occurring phenomenon that has happened before, and it will happen again, regardless of the steps that we take to stop it. Man has probably made it worse than it would have been, had it happened without our contribution to greenhouse gases, but it is NOT man-made. That is political rhetoric, not science. The true science shows extensive heating and cooling of the planet in eons past.

The "Save the Planet" crowd is too full of itself for it's own good.

When it starts to believe it's own hype, it ends up tripping on half-baked science and half-baked carbon trading markets which are controlled by companies that are the worst polluters. And it ultimately makes getting needed legislation to control and punish polluters that much more difficult.

Should we reduce greenhouse gases? Absolutely. Should we do it because we are stewards of our world, and it's our responsibility to make it cleaner than we found it? Absolutely. Should we do it to save our struggling civilization? Absolutely. Should we develop fuels that are cheaper and cleaner than fossil fuels? Absolutely.

Should we do any of this because of fear-mongering based on incomplete science? NO. People are more likely to take the steps above because it's in their best interests to do so, based on solid science and an application of reason, not fear and half-truths currently being employed by the "Save the Planet" crowd.

They'll get more support if they state the facts, separate the politics from the science, and quit fear-mongering.