On June 19, a letter appeared in The Times Argus. It was titled “Readers deserve better.” The author of the letter apparently disagrees with John McClaughry’s views on climate change. McClaughry’s views were printed in an op-ed in The Times Argus on June 14.
I say “apparently” disagrees because I cannot figure out what the letter writer means in most of the letter. For example, he claims that McClaughry’s op-ed “doesn’t accommodate the foot of snow ... or the total lack of any weather pattern here in much of the last 20 years.” Huh? Total lack of any weather pattern for the last 20 years? This makes no sense whatsoever. Weather comes in patterns (fronts, high pressure zones, etc) always has, and always will. If the writer means something about climate change — well, wouldn’t that be a weather pattern?
Now, if this was simply an incoherent letter, I would ignore it. However, I am friends with John McClaughry, and I work with him in the Ethan Allen Institute. I can’t ignore this letter because some of it is very clear, including the part about “unbridled greed and political aspirations that (John McClaughry) and the neocons are getting rich on.” Nobody, friend or enemy, who knows John McClaughry would ever say that John is a man of “unbridled greed” who is “getting rich” by sharing his ideas with the public. This letter attacking him contains no content concerning John’s opinion of climate change. However it does contain simple-minded and untrue attacks on John’s integrity.
I don’t know why you published this letter. Your readers deserve better.
Director, Energy Education Project of the Ethan Allen Institute
- Most Popular
- Most Emailed