EckerNet.Com

It\’s a debate tactic that probably goes back further than the concept of debate.  If you have two variations of a concept, one of which is universally acceptable and one which is universally opposed, and you are arguing in favor of the latter, blur the line between the two.

This concept got used ad nauseum during the immigration debate a couple years ago.  Most of the public is opposed to illegal immigration but is generally in favor of legal immigration.  If you\’re supporting illegal immigration how do you win the public debate? Blur the line.  Never refer to \”illegal aliens\” or \”illegal immigrants\”, just \”immigrants\”.  Accuse your opponent of hating immigrants.  Nobody listens to them stammer about how they don\’t hate immigrants, they love immigrants, they just don\’t like illegal immigration because blah blah blah.  It\’s lazy, it\’s disingenuous and it\’s false, but it works and it\’s the last defense of those that have no other recourse.

And it\’s being put to great use in the climate change debate, this time by no other than the Obama White House.

Despite the incident, which rocked international headlines last week, climate science is sound, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs stressed this afternoon, and the White House nonetheless believes \”climate change is happening.\”

\”I don\’t think that\’s anything that is, quite frankly, among most people, in dispute anymore,\” he said during Monday\’s press briefing.

Did you catch it?  It\’s just climate change, not man-made climate change, or anthromorphic climate change.

Sure I think most people accept that climate change is happening.  In the sense that it\’s happened for millions of years, and will continue happening for millions of years, whether we like it or not.  And more importantly even if we make an attempt to stop it, should we so desire.

When your science is exposed as bunk and your leading minds have been revealed to be fraudulent, blur the line.  Take that which is completely defensible and absorb it to defend that which has no defense.

It\’s especially transparent in this situation, because part of the reason why the Climate Research Unit (CRU) was fudging/hiding data in the first place, is because there is an awful lot of it which indicates that climate change may not necessarily by due to mankind\’s activities.

By why invent new hypotheses? Why see if the data supports that hypothesis? Why see if other minds can\’t poke holes in your ideas?  Why see if your results are repeatable? Why….well, follow the scientific method….when you can just blur the line and be done with it.

The science is far from settled, because what you\’re doing isn\’t science.  And at least parts of it are manufactured.

[Crossposted at True North]