I was rather surprised to learn that the Financial Post printed Vaclav Klaus’ op-ed piece claiming that environmentalists support an anti-human ideology, and that his opinion on climate change is right despite the overwhelming evidence that does not support his view.
I have up until now been impressed with the Financial Post’s coverage of the transition to a low carbon economy. Your coverage of clean energy development and innovation has been very informative.
I understand that you feel it’s important to provide coverage on both sides of an issue. In certain cases this balancing act is not applicable. You wouldn’t include an op-ed piece from a racist, for example, or someone who believes that capitalism is the root of all evil and that we must all embrace communism. You certainly wouldn’t include the ravings of a conspiracy theorist who believes that 9/11 was engineered by the Pentagon or the CEOs of multinational corporations. We know that such opinions are either damaging or quite simply idiotic. They are not grounded in reality and evidence. They make up their own evidence and stick to it no matter what.
The same can be said about Vaclav Klaus. Despite the fact that thousands of climatologists contribute to the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change, and that the majority of environmentalists call for commitments to green energy investments and green-collar jobs, Klaus has another view all together.
Klaus’ op-ed piece is not worthy of the Financial Post. Your venerable paper is much better than this.
McNamara, C. (2010). Response to Vaclav Klaus' op-ed piece in the Financial Post. Retrieved from http://www.trunity.net/climateresponse/view/blog/159816