Chuck, is it at all possible that you have dogma and science confused?
Because the references to incontrovertible authorities that cannot be questioned rather than scientific evidence which is supposed to be questioned, the way you describe climate change sounds exactly like dogma, and not at all like science.
Yet you continually refer to the terms credible and scientific.
How many of those politicians you defer to are either credible or scientific?
Because the references to incontrovertible authorities that cannot be questioned rather than scientific evidence which is supposed to be questioned, the way you describe climate change sounds exactly like dogma, and not at all like science.
Yet you continually refer to the terms credible and scientific.
How many of those politicians you defer to are either credible or scientific?
Comment