What’s true and what’s practical-to-consider-true are sometimes similar enough to be indistinguishable.
Consider the nature of the sciences themselves.
A fact in the Sciences is not “cold hard fact” in the same way that one might consider a “cold hard fact” in, say, the Court systems.
In the Sciences, facts are malleable, changeable, falsifiable, debatable.
Such is the nature of the beast.
They are not absolute, hard, handed-down-from-above in any way.
The Sciences are pragmatic, practical things. They are “true enough as best we know” but always Subject To Change Without Prior Notice.
This is their very nature. They are always “True Enough To Run With It”.
In schools (and in media), we get the impression that “Science Says Thus and Therefore It Is So.”
But there is no Science. There are the Sciences. All similar but distinct. No singular simple set of rules, despite what we’re taught. Each field has its strengths and weaknesses, it’s pluses and minuses. There are many Sciences. There are non-Sciences which intersect with the Sciences well, such as mathematics, engineering, technology, NONE of which are “Science” but they are supported by and also support the Sciences.
But also, you have something called Public Policy.
Public Policy is its own complicated thing.
True enough is also true but it has a somewhat different set of criteria for “true enough”, pragmatic and practical.
In controversial cases where the debatable reaches the public sphere, decisions sometimes have to be made.
They’re not without controversy.
Evidence is also required but there’s more involved than mathematics and many more factors are required than what are required in the sciences.
Is it agreement? Belief? Compromise? Depends. It’s messy.
The Sciences are each messy fields as well. There are politics both within and outside of the Sciences and practical matters such as funding, publish or perish culture, dogma within each of the scientific disciplines…
Belief? You want pure belief? It’s good when you can find it, my friend but even the most strident _appearance_ of religious adherence is not without deep skepticism and doubt, uncertainty and questioning, whether that be within the Sciences, politics, religions, mathematics, economics, take your pick.
When decisions are made at whatever levels, “Is This Good Enough To Present?” is the main question. “Can We Stand Behind This?”
Practical. Pragmatic. Good enough.
There’s always gaps.
We’re probably on the same page, just expressing it differently. I keep the room-for-doubt because there’s always room-for-doubt. But I believe it to be true enough to say “Yes, it’s true”. It’s not lying to have smidgeons of doubt while saying something is true.
I believe AGW is true enough. I can stand behind it as true.
I don’t how much closer you would like me to get.