re: #865 SixDegrees

My argument is with taking the debate on climate completely outside the realm of science and placing it squarely within the realm of faith and absolutism, as Ludwig has done. And my position is that this is stupid and wrong.

I would also argue that, once the debate has been relegated to the realm of faith, constantly invoking science to shore up your position is hypocritical. If you’re going to return the problem to the realm of science, then you have to play by science’s rules, and falsifiability of hypotheses is central to the scientific method.

Asserting that debate simply isn’t allowable is the most anti-scientific position I can imagine. It rankles and it’s odious and it’s the position of a mountebank when espoused by someone who claims elsewhere to uphold science.

Except it’s not faith. Debate isn’t allowable when one side has taken up the position of being contrarians and obstructionists.