In criminal court, if one affirms something about someone else to be true, he will need to prove it. The defendant can sit smug and do nothing and if the accuser cannot prove his claim, the defendant is presumed innocent. That’s not very legalese but I hope you get the point. It’s the Climate Alarmists who want to make us believe that the current path leads to disaster. They are the ones who claim this to be true, they should have to prove it. Everyone else who asks questions about it should be entitled to at least have a very solid position that should be taken serious and as true. In reality, it’s the alarmists who claim something and then the rest of the world must run to prove that its not true. That’s a weird world. Prove what you claim to be true, or live with the fact that we simply don’t buy your horsecrap on faith.
We rely on science to solve problems. We use it everywhere, from big problems like earthquakes to small problems like what the weather will be. But when it comes to issues like climate change, could it be that our quest for more and more data is actually making things worse?