Fishel: Civility is possible in climate change debate
Posted October 24, 2015
Well, the past two weeks have been interesting. Not only because of my beloved Mets, but also because of the unexpected attention I have received after my climate change post on Oct. 11.
The Washington Post's Capital Weather Gang was nice enough to summarize and link to my post on their page. They did a wonderful job, but I do believe a couple of clarifications are needed.
First, "Ex-Republican" does not mean "New-Democrat." I became "Unaffiliated" back in March, and have no plans to alter my political status anytime soon. As I have stated, I am disgusted with the current state of our political system, and until some of our representatives have the guts to think outside the box, I will continue on my current path.
Second, I have stated for months now that one of my goals was to help promote a civil discussion between those who accept man-made global warming based on the evidence and those who do not. In the past two weeks, as much as I hate to admit it, I have gotten sucked into the fray. The political and ideological nastiness of this public debate leads to ridicule and accusations, which then induce a response. And those that initiate these kind of exchanges want nothing more than that nasty response, in order to perpetuate the conflict.
I have been accused of having an agenda, as well as being a member of a climate "cult." Well, I can waste my time sparring back and forth, or I can take the high road and simply pursue the truth as best as I know how.
I know some of you don't think science and religion are compatible, and that is certainly your right. For me, science is the discovery of God's creation, and that He sees nothing wrong with humans using their minds to learn more and more about that creation.
For those that say global warming is not based on science, I do have to say as respectfully but boldly as I can, you're wrong.
But in fairness, I have an advantage. My degree is in a science field, and I have access to those who have published hundreds of peer-reviewed papers on this subject. I can't be bothered by what Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and others say about the science.
Now if you have a valid scientific argument that challenges ides that have been accepted for almost 200 years, I and the rest of the scientific community are all ears. You would truly be the Galileo of the modern age.
So in closing, I will continue my climate change "quest." I will share with you from time to time scientific evidence as well as some more personal thoughts. For those of you who in large part agree with me, that's great. For those who disagree but are able to express that disagreement in a civil and respectful manner, that is great as well. For those of you who choose to attack me and make all sorts of assumptions about my motives, your comments will fall on deaf ears. I cannot say I believe in one approach and then engage in another.