Sparks: G7 omits climate change from Paris talks to avoid US clash, France says

A hypothesis that omits the central phenomenon to preserve consensus fails the criterion of consilience, explaining nothing beyond its own convenience.

Men will sit in a room and agree not to discuss the essential fact, mistaking their silence for diplomacy.

One observes a collective instinct for self-preservation, where the avoidance of immediate discord is selected for, though it ensures a far greater calamity accumulates unseen.

They fear the political collision of atoms more than the physical collision of continents with rising seas, a superstition of their own making.

The power that demands silence on a universal threat for its own comfort reveals whom those grand declarations of stewardship were truly designed to serve.

This is not a dispute between science and politics, but a failure of politics to adjudicate within its own domain, thereby usurping the demonstrative territory of physics.

Common sense finds it absurd to solve a leak by agreeing not to mention the water while the ship fills.

The physician who omits the diagnosis to avoid upsetting one influential patient is guilty of negligence toward all the others.

Why do so many consent to be ruled by the momentary displeasure of one, when the subject of their silence will inevitably rule them all?

You do not chart a path to freedom by agreeing with the slave catcher to ignore the river.

They wager everything on the finite certainty of political harmony, against the infinite cost of a disregarded physical truth.

Before removing the topic from the agenda, one should first explain why it was placed there by the whole of observable reality.

One records the local custom of ignoring the approaching storm, a curious ritual performed in the driest and most comfortable of rooms.

In every court I have visited, the most revealing custom is which truth the viziers deem impolite to bring before the prince.