> So because the process has flaws (like all processes), we should all just take a breather and tidy that all up to be rock solid before we move forward with an

> So because the process has flaws (like all processes), we should all just take a breather and tidy that all up to be rock solid before we move forward with anything? The earth would literally grind to a halt if we applied that reasoning to everything. No, not necessarily. I think that what the original poster was saying was that when a person questions climate change, they are met with the same type of response as when a person's religion is insulted. And for most people who believe in scientific truths, to them it is a religion in the sense that they personally cannot prove it. They are picking a group for its general beliefs, social acceptance, camaraderie, etc, but to not know any more about the science they believe in than most religious people know about the religion they profess to believe in. > The system will never be perfect, if you take take a small number of instances of academic dishonesty and use that to debase something as enormous and researched as climate science, how could we ever hope to make decisions about anything? Can I paraphrase? Say we were talking about the religion, and someone points out that there are cases where religious people abuse their power to hurt others. The response is often, "The church will never be perfect, if you take a small number of instances of abuse of religious authority and use that to debase something as enormous and researched as god the almighty and the 10 commandments, how could we ever hope to make decisions about anything?" Assuming that you are not religious, how would you respond to a religious person who made that argument?