I have a hard time convincing people I care about the environment, especially since I don't buy into the Church of Global Warming (Praise Gaia and her anointed prophets Al Gore (the Goreacle) and Tom Brokaw. Hah-men!), which preaches that Americans are responsible for destroying the planet.

Let's face it, the Goreacle has found the best political platform from which to make his next move. Oppose him or his views, and you are against clean air or water, and are quite possibly the kind of person who would beat puppies with kittens. This is how political debate is conducted these days: a person who disagrees with you is obviously of lower moral character, they should be insulted, scorn should be heaped upon them and their sexuality questioned for daring to hold a different opinion.

The Goreacle embraces scientific consensus when he preaches on the evils of American society. It is what gives his movement a way to defend charges that they are politically motivated. But they do not accept all instances of scientific consensus, as described in a great article in Reason Magazine. The environmentalists do not accept the scientific consensus that genetically modified (GM) plants are safe to grow and to eat. A large number of peer reviewed studies, the kind they want from detractors of Global Warming, are ignored or belittled to conform to their point of view.

So the next time you want to attack me on Global Warming using scientific consensus, be prepared to accept that same consensus on GM foods.

For the record, I believe GM foods to be harmful on both the environment and the animal that eats it (including us). I'm just trying to point out the hypocrisy of the Church of Global Warming.