The fine art of debate- liberal style

Anyone who has ever debated someone of the liberal persuasion is aware that in those debates certain rules apply. Take the (non)debate over global warming, or climate change, as more prescient liberals have begun to call it.

---

The rules governing this debate are that all evidence supporting the reality of anthropogenic climate change is admissible in argument, while no evidence that supports the opposite view is valid or admissible. Hence during years that hurricane activity is particularly strong, such as 2005, the increase in that activity is evidence of man-made global warming. Conversely, years during which hurricane activity is particularly mild are also evidence of man-made global warming. Seasons such as the current winter, when China is experiencing the coldest temperatures recorded in over a century, are also to be considered evidence of man-made global warming. Recently solar scientists discovered that solar flares appear to have ceased just over a year ago and have predicted a period of global cooling as a result. This fact may not be used in arguments with anthropogenic climate change proponents because it would be contrary to their worldview. Planetary scientists have established that during the same period in which the earth has shown a small increase in its average mean temperature most of the planets in our solar system have shown similar increases. The suggestion that the sun might have something to do with the increase in average mean temperature of other planets in our solar system is preposterous when used in a debate with a global warming proponent, as it does not fit into the narrative of humanity’s rash and careless actions against the environment. Unless, of course, there’s some way to prove that human activity is responsible for the gradual shrinking of the Martian ice cap. The fact that climate historians have documented numerous periods of cyclical global warming and cooling over earth’s history is also irrelevant unless it can be proven that the said warming and cooling is the direct result of mankind’s mismanagement. The issue of man-made climate change has become so prickly and hysterical that there are individuals who advocate punishing anyone who denies that climate change is anthropogenic in nature. That’s usually the clincher in any debate with a liberal; in the absence of sufficient scientific evidence or when screaming at one’s debate opponents no longer works, then silence them with the threat of punishment, as in the case of U.S. Meteorologist Heidi Cullen, who advocates decertification of any meteorologist who denies that climate change is man-made. Heidi has a buddy who’s willing to go one further. Dave Roberts, a so-called “eco-expert” and columnist for Grist Magazine advocates Nuremberg-style trials for scientists who are skeptical about global warming. He even went so far as to publicly call for what would amount to the death penalty of those who are convicted. Roberts wants to nail the “bastards” who belong to the global warming “denial industry”. Canada’s own Dr. David Suzuki, the geneticist turned Yoda is calling for the punishment of politicians who disgree with the anthropogenic global warming theory. On several speaking engagements at Canadian Universities the would-be Jedi knight has called for the imprisonment of politicians (spelled S-T-E-P-#-N-H-A-R-P-E-R) who refuse to abide by the Kyoto wealth redistribution scheme. The fact that jailing people involves having a law in place that has presumably been broken isn’t that big a deal to liberals of Suzuki’s ilk. Disagreeing with him is enough of a crime to warrant a long stretch alongside the mother stabbers and the father rapers. This is just one subject that liberals have strong feelings about. You should hear what they have to say about the “root causes” of terrorism. But that’s fodder for another column. My advice for anyone planning to debate a liberal is to wear body armor and get your affairs in order in case your disagreement lands you in a prison camp in Nunavut.