I'm happier to talk on HN. Listen, I'm not saying to reject the studies about climate change, I'm saying that to accept the studies about climate change and le

I'm happier to talk on HN. Listen, I'm not saying to reject the studies about climate change, I'm saying that to accept the studies about climate change and let them affect your morals you have to implicitly accept that falsifiable science can't tell us everything we need to know to create our morals. The point is that absolutism insists on yes or no answers to moral questions - that's what absolute means, there is only one answer - but only falsifiable hypotheses can give yes or no answers, and often our morals need to come from sources that are not falsifiable, e.g. climate change studies. That's why I reject scientific moral absolutism; not because falsifiable science is bad - it's extremely important - but because it's not enough.