Recent Prairie graduate and Columbia University student Maria Zahn has penned a commentary for the Journal Times, which you can read here, calling for "moral action to develop renewable energy sources."
It seems Maria's parents have been denied a request to build a 54 foot wind turbine in their Racine neighborhood. I might be inclined to support Maria's argument if it were based on property rights, but it was not. Rather, it concerned our moral responsibility to fight global warming.
Rather than get bogged down in the pro and con arguments of global warming, Maria opts for the tried and true method of simply claiming to be correct, citing science and Al Gore as proof. Science of course involves replicating experiments rather than inserting assumptions into computer models, but that point tends to escape many proofers.
I am most intrigued by the following quote from Maria's commentary. "Experts in moral reasoning have concluded that our inherent moral sense results in emotional responses that prompt our actions. When will we feel an emotional connection to the global warming cause and feel inspired to take moral action?"
Assuming that the unnamed experts are correct, we will have little choice in the matter. Since our "moral sense" is "inherent," ie a "permanent characteristic," according to Webster's, we will know, inherently, when moral action is required.
I can't speak for other humans similarly equipped with a moral sense, but mine is unconvinced that global warming should prompt us to fight for backyard wind turbines. That said, my moral sense is aroused concerning the threat posed by the warmist, now climate changist, agenda. The appeals to emotion and the pseudo science underpinning the argument are detrimental to the intellect of young people like Maria, and the movement threatens to destroy our economy and ultimately our freedom. Other than that, it is a great idea.
Sorry for the emotional outburst readers. My inherent moral sense made me do it.