Pin It

Propagandists and the selective omission of contradictory fact 

The Sept. 12 issue 's opinion contributions by the founders of "Mothers for Nuclear" ("Natural-gas-fueled electricity"), as well as Mark Henry—the "father" of nuclear—("A convenient untruth"), as well as an Al Fonzi piece ("Defending sandcastles") proved "an embarrassment of riches" for those who disagree with them.

First, apparently, the Mothers for Nuclear have not considered the issue of nuclear waste disposal when pushing for nuclear power as a "renewable" source of "carbon-free energy." If they had, they would have learned that the waste already generated will be deadly radioactive for the foreseeable future and is welcomed by no one, nowhere, even if there were a way to safely transport it to a welcoming repository. No one can even comfortably assure us that the steel/ concrete repositories at the Diablo Canyon site will hold indefinitely. Until those problems are resolved, I, for one, welcome renewable energy like wind and water and sun.

As to Mr. Fonzi's comments on Dr. William Gray, the late much-lauded hurricane authority and very vocal denier of the theory that the activities of man such as drilling for fossil fuels and fracking has anything to do with climate change, I have this to say: Fonzi's propaganda mill seems to ignore anything that challenges his opinions. For one thing, 97 percent of today's climatologists attribute climate change to the very fossil fuel extraction activities that Gray (and Fonzi) denies are responsible. For another, Gray's theories and seminars on climate change were definitely not apolitical as they were supported and promoted by the Heartland Institute, which collectively received more than $60 million from ExxonMobil, The Koch Brothers, and the conservative Scaife Family Foundation (Google it).

I echo our founders' belief that the democratic system supports the concept that every person is entitled to strong opinions on almost every subject, but I resent the selective omission of every fact contrary to the opinion holder's belief. That is just intellectual dishonesty.

Istar Holliday

Arroyo Grande

Readers Poll

What is your opinion on public art projects in San Luis Obispo?

  • It's good for the community, and we should have more of it.
  • Public art is an eyesore and a waste of public funds.
  • Such projects are good, but residents should have more say in where and what they are.
  • I don't care about public art.

View Results

Pin It


Showing 1-1 of 1

Add a comment

Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-1 of 1

Add a comment

Search, Find, Enjoy

Submit an event

Trending Now