[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I'm with Rubecube on this one.

Frankly, I know nothing about climate science and it's an area I'm utterly unequipped to deal with. There are simply some topics, important as they may be, where one must resign oneself to the miniscule risk that there's some grand conspiracy of experts who are all misleading us, and trust those experts. Obviously, the current state of climate science is defeasible, and any real scientist would accept the possibility, however remote it seems, that what appears scientifically certain may turn out not to be. But demands for further discussion on an issue we simply cannot adequately discuss without specific expertise are just an exercise in chasing our tails.

99% of experts believe X. I am prepared to take their word. This is in my view the only rational thing to do.

Separate from that, and more controversially I suppose I also have little doubt that the obfuscation on this topic, aided by its opacity to lay people, is being exploited by those whose interests are served by public uncertainty. It worked with cigarettes.

Now, all of that said, asking for more detailed explanations and trying to understand the nuance of what is apparently a nuanced issue should not result in one being branded anti-science, as that's clearly dogmatic thinking. If we're really headed down that path, we might as well ignore global warming, as we'll all probably destroy ourselves long before it becomes anything resembling an existential threat.