On the topic of global warming, almost all scientists agree that there are changes going on in the environment. And many scientists and important political figures, such as Al Gore, believe that these changes are man-made, and require a drastic change in our attitude towards the environment. However, there are important scientists who believe otherwise, such as Dr. Patrick J Michaels, a former professor at UVA and former state climatologist of the state of Virginia, who believes that the climate change is caused less by humans than we thought, and that the changes caused could help the earth ecologically, rather than hurting it. Since he has made his position on global warming clear, Dr. Michaels' reports have been discredited by other scientists, and he has been under enormous pressure to change his views from scientists and politicians. Regardless of whether Dr. Michaels' view on global warming is the popular opinion, he should have free will to express his opinion on the topic, without having to fear repercussions from other scientists and politicians. This privelige is extended only to people who hold the majority view when it comes to global warming, not those who disagree.
This anecdote relates to a discussion we had in class recently, about whether poeple opposed to gay-marriage should have the right to sign a petition, without fear of their name becoming public knowledge. The fear of these people is that they will be bullied and intimidated because of their views, and they want to be able to express their views without fear of repercussions. However, people who don't support privacy in the matter believe that these people should stand by their opinions, and be willing to undergo bullying in order for their opinion to be heard. In my opinion, however, this view is extremely one sided. Just because people have a different opinion than yours doesn't mean you should be entitled to heckle, insult, and even bully them. If the names were being released just to encourage "civil conversations", I would have no problem with the names being released, and I doubt the petition-signers would either. However, there is evidence of people being harassed because of their opinions, which is unnacceptable and innapropriate. As a result, the names shouldn't be released, so people can express their opinions in safety, which should always be the case.
I can definitely see where you are coming from. I always thought that the point of a petition was to get as many names as possible, that the numbers were the key focus. Why should a petition of 50 people who feel strongly for their opinion differ from a petition of 50 who are, as mentioned in class before, "wishy-washy" about it ? The fact is that it was signed - I can see why the names go public sometimes, but maybe that shouldn't be the first step. The first step should probably be providing some change, seeing as 50 (or however many) people want it. The people you are petitioning to probably aren't looking for a petition-aftermath within the community.
ReplyDelete