You’re correct. Again, I’m not referring to the hot button topics here but rather the everyday science that’s not very well done.
And, to go back to climate change here, I believe it is practical and pragmatic and good and right to _do something_ about it. There is enough evidence that such an effort is worthy and worthwhile to pursue.
That’s all that matters to me.
I believe good science was done and we should pursue a course of action.
Efforts on local, regional and federal, legal and corporate and ethical and educational efforts are a good thing and worthy of pursuit.
I’m not sure what extra you would like me to give in this case.
The criteria in this paper is a gold standard; I don’t expect much of research science to pass this very high standard. Discussion and raising of questions is not a bad thing. But WHILE discussion and raising of questions takes place, it’s _also possible_, simultaneously, to take actions to improve the situation.
How much action is in the realm of the political.
Now at the same time, is it important to combat those who wholesale deny any of it?
Yes. But how?
You find points of agreement. Diplomacy. Diplomacy doesn’t mean making 100% believers out of people.
Diplomacy means taking steps to for enough connections so that positive efforts can go forward.
But as long as either party takes a hardline stance of “all or nothing”, each side bats head with the other, getting nowhere.
And like in this case: Consider you and I here:
I’m not asking change not to take place.
I want change to take place.
I want steps to go forward.
So: Why are you wasting time debating me? I’m 99% there. That should be enough.
Go after people who are far on the other side of the spectrum, bring them closer to common meeting ground.
Can you see my point here? 100% agreement is very difficult in any situation; in fact, nearly impossible.
So, can you work with 95% agreement? 90% agreement? 60% agreement?
How much can get accomplished with 51% agreement?