no more debate?

Why do people keep telling us the debate is over?

Why can they not talk about it?

Why don’t they want us talking about it?

As has been expressed here on multiple occasions, I am not a rocket scientist (… shocking, I know).  I am no scientist whatsoever.  I don’t know exactly how the inconvenient or convenient truths specifically apply to the legitimacy of global warming/climate change.  What I do know, however, is that for some reason there are a growing number of other non-scientists who seem to be telling us to quit talking about it… quit questioning.  They know what’s right… they in their infinite wisdom know best…

 

From Pres. Obama’s January State of the Union:

“The debate is settled. Climate change is a fact.”

 

From Sec. of State John Kerry, over the weekend:

“We should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists and science and extreme ideologues to compete with scientific facts, nor should we allow any room for those who think that the costs associated with doing the right thing outweigh the benefits.  The science is unequivocal, and those who refuse to believe it are simply burying their heads in the sand.”

 

Why is it we chastise those who question?  Why, too, must we insult?  But better yet, why are some now saying we can’t even question it?

 

Again, I don’t know whether the Earth is warming due to man’s behavior.  I am not a scientist.  Most of the people attempting to silence the skeptics are also not scientists.  But I do know that the climate has always changed.  As respected author George Will said, too, over the weekend, “Of course the climate is changing.  It’s always changing.  That’s what gave us the medieval warm period.  That’s what gave us subsequent to that for centuries, the brutal Ice Age.  Of course it’s changing.  But when a politician on a subject implicating science, hard science, economic science, social science says the debate is over, you may be sure of two things. The debate is raging and he’s losing it.”

 

I don’t claim to know that the debate is raging nor that anyone’s losing it.  The Intramuralist’s long-stated stance has been that no accurate discussion of the Earth’s trends can be logically had without including a study of the Earth’s Creator.

 

What the Intramuralist also believes is that many, many people stand to profit politically and monetarily by convincing us that man is responsible for a disastrous warming of the Earth.  My question today is whether or not that potential profit is what’s ratcheting up the rhetoric in regard to this debate — or desired lack of it.

 

Note the claims of Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) who proposed a congressional resolution last month, encouraging Congress and the White House to combat climate change due to its adverse affects on women.  She wrote:  “Insecure women with limited socioeconomic resources may be vulnerable to situations such as sex work, transactional sex, and early marriage that put them at risk for HIV, STIs, unplanned pregnancy, and poor reproductive health.  More broadly, the resolution says climate change will hurt ‘marginalized’ women, such as refugees, sexual minorities, adolescent girls, and women and girls with HIV.”  Lee tied climate change to prostitution, omitting any discussion of poverty, choice, or other factors.

 

Friends, there is no need to stop a debate unless a debate cannot continue logically and respectfully.  I am thus assuming other motives are in play.  Granted, it we actually did stop the debate, some of the unique, emotionally-charged, ratcheted-up rhetoric would cease, as well.

 

Respectfully,

AR