On April 27 the College Republicans hosted global warming and environment expert Christopher Horner. More than 50 people attended the lecture, asked questions and engaged in discussion of the president's "green" agenda; however, the UW-Oshkosh community was not very receptive to the idea that a person would actually be on campus challenging the left. The Advance-Titan published a negative rant and the College Republicans received ritually spiteful, anti-intellectual e-mails.
raditionally, university halls are where ideas are bolstered and debated. In early Christian academies, students were to challenge their professors, yet keep an open mind. It would seem through the hostility shown to the College Republicans and Christopher Horner that the university is no longer a place to challenge ideas and students no longer have an open mind.
The letter printed in the A-T on April 21 is yet another example of close-minded thinking. Horner was criticized as not being a "valid source" on climate change, because he isn't a scientist. It would seem the letter's author doesn't realize the people leading the crusade are not a scientists. Al Gore, Meryl Streep, Leonardo DiCaprio, Sheryl Crow and Sigourney Weaver are all spokespersons, leading advocates and even congressional witnesses for the agenda. Yet we hear no protest of this or even their pseudo-documentaries on the subject (or Mr. Gore's still being shown in schools despite its main arguments being rejected as unsupportable by the UK High Court).
The letter points out that Mr. Horner is an attorney and that this is a demerit; however, the author somehow overlooked the backgrounds of key policy makers who, incidentally, actually exercise authority on the matter. Barack Obama, Joe Biden, their "Climate Czar" Carol Browner and Russ Feingold are all "just attorneys," much like the three authors of the Senate's Kerry-Graham-Lieberman bill. I await the letters in protest. It would seem that being an attorney qualifies somebody to write legislation and make decisions on global warming, but when it comes to giving a speech, writing a book, or talking against the policies being an attorney disqualifies you. It seems for our intolerant friends that one's qualifications are found in whether one agrees with them. How sophisticated.
At the end of the day, this University keeps pushing its "green" agenda and spending your increasing tuition dollars to do it; however, when a speaker comes in to share a differing view, he is assailed with standard Alinskyite ad hominem. Over 50 people came with an open mind. The author of the letter was not one of them. That might have led to rethinking dogma. And that's to be avoided at all costs in an academic setting, apparently.
Ethan Hollenberger
Winneconne
is a member of the 
5 comments
i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme.
ii) As Mr Chamberlain persuasively sets out at paragraph 11 of his skeleton:
"The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC:
(1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise ("climate change");
(2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ("greenhouse gases");
(3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations; and
(4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects."
These propositions, Mr Chamberlain submits (and I accept), are supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world's climate scientists." They did, however, rule that he embellished some of the details.
http://www.elaw.org/node/2284Critical thinking is also a characteristic of educated debate. Perhaps Mr.Hollenberger should try it before he takes the university community to task.