By CW | April 1, 2014 - 5:17 pm http://hardnoxandfriends....
“…the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact,” loudly scolded an angry Barack Obama in the last State of the Union Address.
Welcome to the new reality in which we live, where scientific debates are “settled” by imperial decree. Ironically the very fact that Obama felt the need to proclaim the matter settled is the clearest proof of all that the debate isn’t settled, as a settled debate would require no need for despotic fist pounding. In any event, would someone please tell me when these imaginary “debates” took place? Oh I know you can go to websites and lectures that argue either side of the debate, but where are the actual debates where the two sides convene to present their arguments and rebut the points made by their opponents? Where is the face to face interaction where “scientists” have to stand up and defend their theories and conclusions rather than simply label the opposition as “deniers?” For a debate that’s supposedly “settled” there’s a strange absence of, well, debate; or should we even be surprised that an issue conveniently re-cast as the inarguable “climate change” when “global warming” became problematic has avoided any real debate?
For the sake of curiosity I did an internet search on “climate change debate” and the closest thing I found to an advertised, televised “debate” was a ridiculous exchange between Bill Nye “The Science Guy” and Representative Marsha Blackburn moderated by David Gregory. You can watch the “debate” here if you want to waste 13 minutes of your life but if you’d like the abbreviated version I can sum it up for you as follows: Nye, as if on cue, referred to skeptics as “deniers;” David Gregory pretended to be impartial while suggesting that the science is settled; and Blackburn’s best point was when she said that Nye is “an engineer and actor” and she’s a politician so this “debate” shouldn’t be taken seriously (that’s my paraphrasing).
What was far more important than the “debate” itself was the outrage that the prospect of an actual debate engendered from the Left. In a National Journal article titled, “Democrat, Green Fume Over NBC’s Global Warming ‘Debate,’” the subheading was, “Senators had angled for stronger coverage of climate change, but NBC’s planned climate-science tussle is ruffling feathers in the environmental movement.”
Apparently the “debate” is so settled that democrats felt compelled to lobby the “news” outlets to help advance the narrative, and this was NOT supposed to include holding debates. Here’s a sampling of what passes for the Left’s open-mindedness:
“’Seriously? Hosting a debate on the science of climate change? Shame on [Meet the Press],’ tweeted Becky Bond, political director of Credo Mobile.”
“’Next week’s debate: Do cigarettes cause cancer? An oncologist debates a tobacco executive!,’ writes environmentalist Miles Grant on his blog.”
“’Climate change is a public health threat. Giving scientists and climate change deniers equal time is like having tobacco executives debate doctors on the safety of cigarettes,’ Schatz said. ‘It’s time to move on from treating climate change as a debate and talk about what we can do about it for people’s lives and businesses.’”
So there you have it. The very same people who insist that the “debate is settled” balk at the very idea of actual debate. They’re even afraid of a silly pretense of a debate where the moderator is clearly in their camp, and that can only lead a rational person to one conclusion: they lack faith in their own cause, because no person on this Earth shies from a debate that he’s confident he’ll win.
So instead of science by theory and proof we have science by decree. The declaration that the science is “settled” is simply the Left’s way of saying that they are going to do what they want whether we agree or not, and the pretense .....
Read more at: http://hardnoxandfriends....
They have an excerpt from Forbes On-line that is worth the read...
