Thoughts, essays, and writings on Liberty. Written by the heirs of Patrick Henry.

“There's no such thing as a free lunch.”     Milton Friedman

February 9, 2007

The Debate is Over

by Stephen Littau

Global warming alarmists have cleverly come up with a term for those who are skeptical of their position as ‘global warming deniers.’ Because, as they say, ‘the debate is over,’ anyone who disagrees is a denier by definition. And what about scientists who disagree? They are of course being compensated by either the Bush administration, BIG OIL or both. Scientists who believe global warming is man made who receive government grants and funds from environmental activist groups on the other hand, well their motivations are pure.

Those who are promoting the global warming agenda may be onto something. Why bother debating your position when you know your position is right? This is brilliant! After all, there are several issues I know I am right about. Ending the war on (some) drugs: the debate is over. The war on drugs is completely ineffective, un-winnable, and a threat to personal liberty. I shall henceforth call anyone who supports the war on drugs a ‘war on drugs failure denier.’ The debate over capitalism vs. socialism, communism, and other competing economic systems has also been settled once and for all. I shall henceforth call those who disagree with the moral superiority of capitalism over these inferior systems as ‘free market deniers’ or better yet, ‘economics deniers.’

There are so many other debates I could, perhaps with ‘consensus’ of my fellow contributors here at The Liberty Papers, declare as over. We don’t need to waste our time with ‘deniers’ here. We are right, you are wrong, and the debate is over.

TrackBack URI: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/02/09/the-debate-is-over/trackback/
Read more posts from
• • •

5 Comments

  1. I love thinking for yourself. Bravo on this post. The PR campaign around global warming is a political campaign. The war on drugs too. Declaring war on inanimate things or ideas effectively ends rational thought. War on Terror! War on Drugs! War on Poverty! War on reality! Aaaarrrgh.

    However, I have a science background. The idea that science serves politics is wrong. Dead wrong. And wrong with occasionally problematic consequences. Global warming does appear to be happening and does appear to be a man made phenomenon. I take some flack for this occasionally but dammit, science is science.

    It’s like Intelligent design. Nowhere do we have a shred of evidence even casting doubt on the evidence for evolution and common descent. Not one experiment. Nowhere. Zero. And yet we hear occasional reports of the “maverick” scientists who are “challenging the dogmatist paradigm of darwinian materialism”. Hooey. You may say, “sure, but how is that like global warming?”

    Well, it’s like this. The way science works is not the way politics works. When the idea that our climate can be affected by our behavior was introduced, it was a relatively fringe concept. The claims of the “maverick” scientists were subject to the scrutiny of other scientists. If the claims would have fallen apart, the entire scientific community would have abandoned the idea. But they haven’t. The science is becoming conclusive. But to a non-scientist, especially while the actual science is still so complex and esoteric, it looks hard to believe. This is especially true because of its implications for society.

    But in the end, the scientific process is where the answers will come from, not from commentary. The debate is not over. Not by a long shot. But the public debate is moot. The scientific debate is still happening. But it is true that most of the debate has shifted to extrapolation, consequenses and mitigation. It appears to be actually correct that man’s activity has created this modern phenomenon and that it is indeed happening. And I’m sorry that I am arguing an appeal to expertise rather than doing a point by point of the merits. If you want, I am prepared to do that.

    In no way should we accept “War on _” where _=anything other than a country or the political leadership of a country.

    [/sermonizing]

    Comment by BWE — February 9, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
  2. Stephen,

    I’m sorry, but you are obviously a “superiority of the intelligence of the masses” denier. I think that thoroughly refutes any argument you can ever make about anything. You might as well stop blogging and stop dicussing anything of any importance to anyone…ever.

    This is a fun game,

    Nick

    Comment by Nick M. — February 9, 2007 @ 5:00 pm
  3. born -> Live (fun game) ->die
    ~~~
    0.0
    \=/
    .|.

    Comment by BWE — February 9, 2007 @ 5:19 pm
  4. BWE,

    Dude, you flippin’ me the bird? Cuz, that was a joke. You know, calling Stephen a “denier” end of discussion.

    So, if you are flippin’ me the bird, I’ll see it and raise you a SUPERFINGER!!

    .||.

    If not, Peace.

    Nick

    Comment by Nick — February 9, 2007 @ 7:50 pm
  5. Ha!The superfinger wins. It’s s’posed to be a face. But you win the prize. :)

    Comment by BWE — February 10, 2007 @ 2:39 am

Comments RSS

Subscribe without commenting

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by: WordPress • Template by: Eric • Banner #1, #3, #4 by Stephen Macklin • Banner #2 by Mark RaynerXML