I don’t get it.
Science does a lot of stuff, people use that stuff and they don’t feel the need to argue about it. It’s working, it does what the science says it should be doing, end of story.
So when the science says quite overwhelmingly that the climate is at risk, why are we still arguing about it?
Time for another analogy. Maybe I’ll eventually find one that sticks.
A bunch of people have mobile phones. They work, nobody claims that the science they are based on might be faulty. However at any given time you can take a bunch of phones and they will all report slightly different measurments for signal strength. They are all overwhelmingly in the “working” rather than “not working” camp, just at slightly different levels from each other.
So we have the science of climate change. There are lots of different ways the effects have been measured or presented, and quite often they have variations or differences between them. The point though is that they are all on the “happening” side of the line rather than the “not happening” side. The fact they all don’t agree exactly is *NOT* a valid reason to dismiss them all.
When you have all those phones showing different signal strength, you can’t argue that because they don’t “agree” that none of them are working.
There may be discussions about the relative call quality of all of those *working* phones, and there may be discussions about the best way to fix the signal and quality issues (better phone antenna, more mobile towers, higher tranmission power).
So if we must argue, let’s stop arguing over *IF* it’s happening and bloody well just start fixing the problem. Try a bit of all the solutions, see which ones get more traction or prove to be more effective than others. Yes all the solutions will cost money, but it only gets harder to fix the longer we try to pretend we don’t need to do anything about it.