[jgys]

Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, two things: 1) that your assertion that environmentalists and public figures in media, politics, and (what we'll call, with marginal disrespect, "pop") science are lacking in humility and unwilling to admit any flaw in their predictions or assertions is a fair assertion, and 2) that they are generally correct in their concern about pollution in general and the effect of carbon emissions on global temperatures and weather patterns in particular, and that this is a risk to the welfare of many people around the world.

Do you suppose that environmental activists are more likely to achieve their important objective of dramatically reducing carbon emissions by admitting even mild uncertainties in the rationale for their position in effort to appeal to educated, reasoned people like you, or by adhering to a steadfast narrative, increasingly accepted by the masses, that anthropogenic climate change is creating a severe risk to the welfare of people the world around?

[credit_guy]

there's another thread of articles currently high up on Hacker News about Baltimore cops planting evidence. I don't like police doing that, and I don't like climate scientists being cavalier with the science "for the greater good".