Gore editorial
Issue date: 4/16/09 Section: Letters to Editor
Dear Editor,
The April 6 edition of the East Tennessean featured an article titled "A convenient untruth," by a guest contributor. He had many remarks that were both ill-informed and devaluing in respect to women and the general public. First, we would like to give credit to the author for noting Gore's inconsistencies regarding temperature scales. However, the mentioned "half degree Celsius" is not in any way intimidating to the majority of the audience.
Next, we would like to address Gore's alleged use of the two terms "carbon monoxide" and "carbon dioxide" interchangeably. A previously published ET article extensively quotes Mr. Gore's statements on the "exhaling" of industry and fails to note any such discrepancies ("Al Gore visits ETSU to discuss global warming" found in Vol. 83, Issue 43 March 30th). In the face of this evidence, the idea of planting trees to slow global warming does not seem so far-fetched.
Furthermore, the statistics that Gore gives in reference to a solar farm in Arizona is not a proposition, rather an illustration of the capabilities of solar power. To suggest that Gore endorses the feasibility of such an idea is absurd. The empowerment and education of women is directly related to population and thus resources usurped by humanity. The author's misinterpretation of Gore's approval of culturally acceptable methods of birth control is appalling. Gore suggests contraception as a way to avoid overpopulation. Gore is by no means suggesting abortions are a solution to global warming, and how anyone can draw that conclusion is baffling. Lastly, something everyone should take offense to: the author refers to Gore's audience as "eager and blind followers." To make a blanket statement that assumes ignorance and gullibility is unacceptable and rude.
-Molly Rutemeyer and Allyn Heath.
The April 6 edition of the East Tennessean featured an article titled "A convenient untruth," by a guest contributor. He had many remarks that were both ill-informed and devaluing in respect to women and the general public. First, we would like to give credit to the author for noting Gore's inconsistencies regarding temperature scales. However, the mentioned "half degree Celsius" is not in any way intimidating to the majority of the audience.
Next, we would like to address Gore's alleged use of the two terms "carbon monoxide" and "carbon dioxide" interchangeably. A previously published ET article extensively quotes Mr. Gore's statements on the "exhaling" of industry and fails to note any such discrepancies ("Al Gore visits ETSU to discuss global warming" found in Vol. 83, Issue 43 March 30th). In the face of this evidence, the idea of planting trees to slow global warming does not seem so far-fetched.
Furthermore, the statistics that Gore gives in reference to a solar farm in Arizona is not a proposition, rather an illustration of the capabilities of solar power. To suggest that Gore endorses the feasibility of such an idea is absurd. The empowerment and education of women is directly related to population and thus resources usurped by humanity. The author's misinterpretation of Gore's approval of culturally acceptable methods of birth control is appalling. Gore suggests contraception as a way to avoid overpopulation. Gore is by no means suggesting abortions are a solution to global warming, and how anyone can draw that conclusion is baffling. Lastly, something everyone should take offense to: the author refers to Gore's audience as "eager and blind followers." To make a blanket statement that assumes ignorance and gullibility is unacceptable and rude.
-Molly Rutemeyer and Allyn Heath.
Be the first to comment on this story