Quote:
|
The anti global warming side isn't allowed to voice skepticism without being dismissed as ignorant, religious radicals
|
Or victims. Can't forget to play the victim card.
If the "anti-" global warming side wants to voice skepticism, the way to do so is to show the overwhelmingly fatal flaws in the reams of science that's already been done, and how the conclusions made cannot possibly be validated or logically derived from that accumulated information.
Politics doesn't enter into that conversation. It's completely extraneous.
Now, that wealth of information has already stood up to years (a couple decades) of peer review, and is being further validated on an ongoing basis by new information, how predictions are indeed working out, so much so that the vast majority of scientific disciplines fully support it.
It is rare, a small minority, that voice skepticism of the reality of global warming. Sort of like the Flat Earth Society members, and those that think the moon walk occured in Arizona.
See, the thing about science is that one doesn't form an opinion, then try to find stuff to justify it. Rather, one goes in with no opinion, and the reality and facts steer you to logical conclusions.