To call the global discussion over climate change a “debate” is actually quite generous. It’s kind of like describing the interactions that one has with one’s first grader over the value of an early bedtime or a cupcakes-only diet as a “debate.” Yeah, it’s true that there are two different “sides” with strongly held views, but the notion that “the debate” should continue (and that the first grader should be taken seriously) long after the facts have been thoroughly and repeatedly explained to him or her by someone who knows a hell of a lot more about the subject is obviously ridiculous.
With this as background, consider the following competing “sides” that have taken the stage this week in the global “debate” over C02 pollution and climate change:
On one side: 97 actual, peer-reviewed climate scientists from around the world who are each posting a paragraph over the course four days this week under the banner “97 hours of consensus.”
And on the other: this week’s featured speaker at the John Locke Foundation’s Shaftsbury Society luncheon who claimed yesterday (we’re not making this up) that the climate scientists are all a part of a “carbon cult” that is wrongfully maligning carbon dioxide — a substance that he claims is actually helping to beneficially “green the planet.”
Lord help us.