> If these are undermined, the democratic process is undermined Assuming it's being undermined, I need an explanation of how. > and that their political oppon

> If these are undermined, the democratic process is undermined Assuming it's being undermined, I need an explanation of how. > and that their political opponents are unworthy of participating in the democratic process When was ever suggested the opponents are unworthy of participating? They will hear the fight for climate change and they can react appropriately. Either joining the cause or explaining why it shouldn't be joined. The kind of dialog the political system needs. > Science is based on beliefs as well. Last I checked, it was based on proofs and data. Belief may be a catalyst to start the process and elaborate a hypothesis, but just that. If one gets stuck on belief, it's not science. > Maybe by "beliefs" you mean "religion," in which case you should use that word. I mean beliefs, like climate change being a hoax. That's not a conclusion of any study. That's a lie someone made up for political gain. > The scientific process is not a competition, That's what I mean. People don't decide what's the truth. Or at least they shouldn't, because the truth doesn't change when you change your beliefs. There may be competitions against teams for a specific goal. But science is inherently non partisan, and the goal benefits us all. > It is up to the practitioner to apply it in a useful, ethical way. And what is unethical about preparing for a likely event that affects us all? What is ethical about preventing it? > Again, not following you. By what means does this happen? People believing Trump when he said climate change is a hoax. > Do you actually not understand how corrupting the democratic process hurts everyone? We have different meanings for "corruption". In my definition, it involves favoring a candidate for hidden interests. HIDDEN interests. Because the people wouldn't approve. Dishonesty. But if I go and tell everyone what I think about climate change, how is that dishonesty? How is that lying? You see my point? Yes, I do agree honesty is important. But also subjective and I don't think this would be remotely dishonest. And then you dare to talk about corruption, which caused this very issue we want to solve! > casually dismissing my arguments as "feelings," Because it's a subjective interpretation. Dishonesty implies lying. And it would be a "lie" that offsets actual damaging lies wildly spreading around. In any case, assuming it's unethical, we might be facing a dilemma, where we have to choose to deviate a train to kill one person (a very bad one and condemned to death, but a person after all), or not to touch the lever and kill 100 innocent people. I think you're doing the latter by inaction, and condemning the former because it's unethical. Vote is secret for a reason.