nodoginnafight
No Party Affiliation
Read my post and you will see that I responded to your demand for honesty in debate. The science is not settled, and the deniers are not anti-science. They are practical.
Otherwise, I have no disagreement with your argument.
Ok, then show me my post where I said Climate Change is "settled science" as you claimed.
Ya know, just for HONESTY'S sake ...
When you stated earlier, "If the naysayers would stop the ignorant denials...", one could take away that you thought the science was settled. Clarity means everything when we have to define what the word "is", is these days.
LOL - well put. And thanks for the opportunity to clarify. I understand how one could logically draw that conclusion - I should have been more clear but I didn't know it was going to become an issue.
I believe that there is really no such thing as "settled science." We have explanations that work and explanations that don't work - it doesn't account for what the wealth of information that we do not have will tell us.
The denials that I feel are ignorant are "international scientific conspiracy", "the consensus is a myth", "it was unseasonably cold here yesterday - so much for global warming", and "real science doesn't deal in probabilities" type stuff. I do believe there is room for legitimate debate, but that is largely debate on magnitude, remediation, the proportion of human impact, etc ...
I realize that intelligent, honest people can look at the same set of facts and draw a different conclusion. But I also understand that those who are living handsomely off the status quo are doing everything they can to try to muddy the waters and create a disproportionate level doubt just because they don't to get thrown off the gravy train.