It’s election season, so you know what that means.
That equates to typically seemingly intelligent people screaming over one another, each attempting to make their point most emphatically, hoping they are able to somehow at least appear to respectfully drain out the point and attention paid to the other. That’s part of America’s biggest pollution problem — not emissions nor exhaust — sadly, rather, elections. While still clinging to our threads of democracy, we pierce the purity of the process by not only the amounts of lobbyist money infused (as some will be quick to claim) but also by all the dirty and dishonest tactics (as still more will claim). Claim both. Call it out in both parties. Wise leadership cannot turn a hypocritical eye by calling out a lack of integrity in an opponent while justifying it in the politically likeminded.
One of the more contemporary arguments, no less, where each tends to drown out the point of another is climate change. Yes, here we go again…
Democrats say “the debate is over” (thank you, Pres. Obama) and Republicans say “I’m not a scientist.” Ok, ok… I get it… both of you will net lobbyist monies by emphatically stating your point. P.S. We know you like money.
I am thus sensing it’s again time for the Intramuralist to put forth the most significant point in the climate change/global warming/whatever’s-most-convenient-to-call-it-now debate. It’s a point that all those in leadership — Democrats and Republicans, Republicans and Democrats — even those who like to claim it’s over — always omit. The glaring omission fascinates me.
Climate change adherents say the Earth is warming and man is responsible. Earth’s warming is responsible for everything from hurricanes to snowfall to tornadoes and typhoons; throw in, too, maybe Ebola and my mama’s kitchen sink (ok, maybe not the sink). The point is that the politically likeminded and talking point repeaters seemingly blame all they can’t explain on climate change.
Climate change deniers simply say it’s not true. There’s no proof. No conclusive change. “I am not a scientist,” was Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) most recent claim. Note: skeptics can’t explain all they believe either.
Here’s my point: no one can prove with certainty that climate change exists or not; no one can definitively prove man’s role or responsibility — regardless of the intensity of their emphatic expression. Despite the wanting attempts of a clearly declining-in-influence President wishing to appear in charge, a wanting attempt cannot be equated with scientific proof. So acknowledging that point, let me then add the number one problem that no candidate wishes to acknowledge this close to election day…
The problem with the climate change argument is that it omits any acknowledgement of God. No Creator of the universe is considered in most stereotypical, scientific arguments. God is left out. That’s a problem.
It’s not a problem simply because acknowledgement is a preferred practice of religious people; it’s a problem because of what the historical scriptures actually say. The authenticated scriptures speak of a world that will one day end… a world marked by war and famine (as happening now), earthquakes and turmoil (also happening now), and a time in which persons become incredibly self-important, ungrateful, and arrogant in their own thinking (again — yikes — happening now). The scriptures say there will be a time the Earth will end.
The end of the Earth, however, is not correlated to plastic bag usage nor any influx of aerosol cans. There’s nothing about light bulbs, coal, or gas-guzzling vehicles. While God certainly calls us to be good stewards of our planet’s vast resources, the world’s end — according to those historical passages — comes as a direct result of man’s unwillingness to acknowledge and thank God. I would think it’d thus be wise to at least include him in the debate… even this close to the election.
Respectfully…
AR