Coal terminal still under attack
At the county commissioners’ meeting this morning there was more than usual citizen interest, even though the agenda was relatively short. Let’s talk about the coal terminal issue in this blog entry.
The public open commentary section was dominated by the topic of the coal terminal, said topic being opened as the very first item by a League of Women voters position against the terminal. The usual greenhouse gas argument was made along with the concern that the coal business is not a good business because coal demand is expected to drop. The latter point escapes me completely: if one does not like coal, why not let the coal companies bleed themselves to oblivion? I doubt it is a charitable concern for Millennium that this issue is raised.
The former point, that greenhouse gases caused by man will destroy the planet, has been raised time and again. I could not resist getting up to the microphone to counter in small part that argument. For those who are interested in something more substantive than Al Gore or ABC, here is a link that shows that substantive scientists have understood the problem differently than the science that is mired in politics and money:
It pays to mention that these scientists do not make it a point to state that there is no human contribution to climate change; what they say is that’s science is far from settled and that politics and populism make the search for scientific truth very difficult. By the way, for those looking for money as the opportunistic reason for the deniers, there is no money for these “deniers,” only public scorn. That cannot be said for the other side.
After the meeting, much to my surprise, I was taken aside by a climate change advocate who was unhappy with me and claimed that I had offended them (and more). That, in a nutshell, is why scientific truth cannot be discovered in the current political climate of dogma over science. (Let me add, I have no interest or desire to offend anyone, but I will stand my ground on issues.)