Climate change deniers are the bane of my existence. And as it happens, one of them is running for governor of Virginia this term.
I won’t claim to be an expert on politics, the creation of jobs or health insurance, but when someone in power doesn’t even acknowledge the existence of a worldwide problem, I feel an obligation to say something.
Even though 99 percent of scientists agree that climate change is real and caused by humans, Ken Cuccinelli still disagrees.
The climate problem can absolutely be the subject of political conversation and would be a welcome topic in debates — but the fact that its existence is still being debated is just ridiculous.
In 2011, Cuccinelli attempted to force a professor at the University of Virginia to turn over his research on climate change, claiming that the research was fraudulent. That same professor has now left the commonwealth and does his research at Penn State. Cuccinelli also sued the Environmental Protection Agency for ruling that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions were a threat to the health of humans and animals.
In his defense, it is the job of the Attorney General to investigate these claims and to make inquiries into research that will affect the public; however, after the amount of research done by our country and others, Cuccinelli would do well to accept the inevitable truth that he fought so hard to deny — climate change is science, not politics.
Even so, at the debate on Thursday, climate change was briefly touched on and neither candidate gave a definitive plan on what they wanted done about it. So, not only is climate change being denied by one candidate, the other candidate didn’t know how to approach it either.
Walking into the debate, members of the student body were holding up signs that demanded conversation about climate change, so I ask: what’s the point of holding a debate at a school when candidates don’t address what the students want to hear?
This is not a pro-McAuliffe view. It’s an anti-climate-denier assertion.
It seems that McAuliffe is ahead in the polls because his opponent is so radical that many refuse to vote for him, not because they necessarily support the Democrat.
But when presented with two evils, why not vote for the lesser?
While McAullife is a goof that took advantage of a situation, he’s better than another dirty, climate-denying politician.
I’ve got a few days though; maybe I’ll just vote for Sarvis. He seems harmless.