Parts of it absolutely are. Parts are not as "settled" in the sense that some predictions have error bars around them. And the layman when confronted with the noise the anti-science community puts out has a hard time understanding the difference. That community has certainly been able to get people not well versed in science to question the issue.6ftstick wrote: ↑Sun May 03, 2020 12:09 pmBut climate change supposedly is settled science. If you don't believe it you're a flat earther.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun May 03, 2020 12:05 pm ok, very different answer from PB's.
What YOU are saying is that alarmists have been getting it wrong since Nostradamus...probably earlier.
Chicken Little dilemma.
I'm willing to engage on those grounds.
Indeed, predictions of the future need to be examined, and re-examined. Again and again.
But avoidance of Chicken Little needn't mean reverting to Ostrich behavior.
Like I said, this issue of the political partisanship, with Dems thinking they are allied with science and facts and R's thinking that scientists and experts have little or no value, did NOT start with Trump. But that divide has clearly heightened in the past 4 years.
And clearly there's never been a President in the modern age so prone to believe/promote blatant false hoods and conspiracy theories, and so prone to reject science and expertise, favoring his own self-annointed "genius".
In this crisis, that matters.
But the science says humans, because of their use of certain fuels, have raised the level of CO2 and other chemicals into the atmosphere that have raised the concentration to a point where the effects on temperature are clear and convincing. And to continue to behave in the same way has demonstrable and predictable consequences - some of which are already seen.
The ultimate question is - confronted with a problem (like what happened with the ozone layer) - are we going to do something about it? The more quickly and comprehensively we act the less of a problem we will have. The longer we wait - the worse the problem.