Doctrine vs Debate

It is a basic of religion. Things are told to us that defy logic or credibility. They are, in the terminology of the Catholic church, "mysteries" of faith. The core of our belief is suspension of disbelief. We take it as doctrine and debate is not tolerated. We can contemplate the core values, but we must start with the assumption that they are true.

That is all well and good for religions, but it isn't a good way to practice either science or government. Major issues which are going to trigger major policy decisions require objective study of all sides before moving on. Yet, we are seeing continual evidence of doctrinal embrace of core values of the left without tolerance of debate. The parliamentary gavel slams down to silence those who would challenge the foundations of their faith.

Global climate change has morphed out of global warming. The shift was required to allow the theory to fit the reality of changeable weather. There is a body of evidence to support the contention of cyclic weather patterns of global heating and cooling. There are supporters of the theory that man's impact on the weather is not as significant as we are sometimes told it is. There is data that indicates we are currently in a cooling period after a decade or two of heating. There is reasonable basis for a fair and equitable debate.

Unless, of course, you are an Academy Award winning Nobel laureate and former Vice-President of the US. Then you can testify before the friendly Congress despite absolutely no credentials in the field of climatology without fear of challenge:

Because We Said So

That's right. A recognized expert has been requested by the minority party in our government to come and engage in challenging dialogue. He might be right or he might be wrong, but the same can be said of the VP. The difference is that this guy is credentialed in the field.

Why can't the public see the arguments pro and con, expressed in the hallowed halls of government? Why can't we weigh the evidence ourselves after seeing a point-by-point refutation of the argument? What are they afraid of?

Could it be truth? Could it be derailing of their agenda to build a subservient Third-World class America?