Science Friction Heats up D.C. Debate
By Tony Perkins
Family Research Council — Liberals must like their science the way they like their ideology: full of inconsistencies. For years, the Left has treated truth like an endless buffet, picking and choosing what they want based on the debate du jour. They use “science” to prop up their environmental straw man — but when it comes to human personhood or fetal pain, they’re suddenly allergic to the facts.
It’s the kind of hypocrisy that conservatives like Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) might find funny if it weren’t so destructive to the debates on abortion or global warming. The Florida leader couldn’t help but point out the incongruity of the Left when he started taking heat for views on the environment that a majority of Americans share. “I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it,” Sen. Rubio told reporters, “and I do not believe that the laws that they propose we pass will do anything about it, except it will destroy our economy…”
Of course, that’s hardly a radical opinion these days. Even the co-founder of Greenpeace admits there’s “no scientific proof” that humans are causing global warming. And with a record-setting winter in the rearview, fewer Americans are worried about climate change than ever. In fact, as Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) pointed out on Washington Watch yesterday, the issue ranks almost dead last on voters’ political priorities. And it’s not about to rebound with ridiculous claims like this blogger’s, who suggested that even Boko Haram’s kidnapping could be blamed on global warming.
On Sean Hannity’s show yesterday, Senator Rubio couldn’t help but point out the Left’s double standard. “Here’s what I always get a kick out of,” he said. “…All these people always wag their finger at me about science and settled science. Let me give you a bit of settled science that they’ll never admit to,” Rubio went on. “The science is settled, it’s not even a consensus — it is a unanimity — that human life beings at conception. So I hope the next time someone wags their finger about science, they’ll ask one of these leaders on the Left: ‘Do you agree with the consensus of scientists that say that human life begins at conception?’ I’d like to see someone ask that question… That’s not even a debatable thing,” Rubio explained. “It’s a proven fact. That’s a scientific consensus they conveniently choose to ignore.”
Watch Senator Rubio’s interview with Jonathan Karl as he discusses global warming:
Another thing they choose to ignore? Public opinion. In one of the more ridiculous statements of her career (and that’s saying something), Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) took to the Senate floor Tuesday and suggested that the abortion debate is over (a belief that one trip to the March for Life would cure). “Why would we want to go back to the last century and open up battles that have long been fought? Those battles were fought in 1973 when Roe v. Wade was the decision of the Supreme Court.”
If the debate is over, then conservatives must have won it — because even Gallup concedes America is pro-life. As we’re starting to see on marriage, a court ruling on deeply moral issues — no matter how sweeping — only intensifies the debate. Fortunately, conservatives like Marco Rubio don’t operate from a “truth-optional” perspective. While others can only make excuses for not highlighting these issues, we appreciate his leadership in the cause to defend human life.
Tony Perkins is president of the Washington, D.C.-based Family Research Council. He is a former member of the Louisiana legislature where he served for eight years, and he is recognized as a legislative pioneer for authoring measures like the nation’s first Covenant Marriage law.
(Via FRC’s Washington Update. Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.)
Top 6 on BarbWire.com
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.