If someone challenges you: "so you don't accept The Science", and you offer a 'scientific' answer in reply, you have been fooled.
They offered no scientific proposition, and yet you replied with one. And you probably made yourself look stupid.
They offered no scientific proposition, and yet you replied with one. And you probably made yourself look stupid.
In every case, you should ask or think, what you are being required to assent TO, before you state what it is that you dissent FROM.
Very few climate alarmists of any kind know what it is that they are proposing. "Do you accept The Science?" does not ask you about your assent to a scientific hypothesis or theory; it asks you for your obedience and deference.
NB: you do not need to know ANY science at all to ask "do you accept The Science?".
It is a demand for an intellectual blank cheque.
It is a demand for an intellectual blank cheque.
It's a trick. It doesn't matter after that what you say. You will waste your time, waste the bandwidth, you will make no progress, and you'll bore onlookers, who will mute the conversation.
The same is true of requirements to state "do you think climate change is real?".
"Climate change is real" is not a scientific proposition. It's an inconsequential factoid.
"Climate change is real" is not a scientific proposition. It's an inconsequential factoid.
The climate change debate *descends* to science.
Sceptics who don't get this will waste their time forever.
Sceptics who don't get this will waste their time forever.
