I prefer to hear both sides of an issue, when I can.
The left, and mainstream media, tend to lie vigorously (with honesty and other methods) about their ideological opponents.
It only makes sense that the same would be true in the sciences. It's pretty easy to identify a weak argument when it is dismissive of any alternate viewpoint.
Climate science isn't that way. Climate scientists ARE. (being that they are human)
I use the permafrost research example because, while I can participate in that (I hope to help him place a monitoring location on one of my regular run routes, which has unusual seasonal flow) and understand a little of it (I don't have hydrology/geology language skills, and THAT is just the price of 'entry' into his published work) it doesn't lead to any grand conclusions about anything.
So I can go along, see how science is done in the field, help out (if I'm LUCKY!) and try to understand what is being learned.
It takes a long time to really understand any small piece of what is going on. I have a strong suspicion that politicians (who are normally setting policies about these issues) don't have the time, so are just believing their favourite experts.
Believe me, you can choose experts to tell you almost anything you want to hear.
So for me, nothing beats a real exchange of ideas. That's why I like some of those who are labelled 'alt-right'. Seems they are more willing to discuss, rather than just deride.
Of course, there are many who simply CANNOT ABIDE treating the other side respectfully. Unfortunately, it's like labeling themselves as idiots (though I understand they are not).
When I ask about racists, I'm pointed at someone criticising religion and claiming that is racist. When I ask about the subtleties of law around climate change, I'm told that (another example) Steven Crowder is a 'CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER'. By someone who won't listen to him when he takes the time to explain himself.
Crowder is a hilarious example of the left failing at every turn. He has a bit called 'change my mind', where he puts a contentious position on a sign, then invites people to sit and discuss the issue with him, posting unedited interviews. Funny thing about that - noone who sat with him even tried to change his mind. Not one made a good case for the new gender theories. You would think someone could make a strong case pretty neatly, but it turns out there is little beyond vitriol. Check out Caitlyn Jenner grabbing and threatening the little Jew boy when he wouldn't call him 'she'. Should be embarrassing. (it was, hilariously, a very 'toxic masculinity' moment for Mr. Jenner)
No surprise, lots of leftie bullshit relies on suppressing discussion. All those in favour of hate speech laws should simply shut up and let the grown-ups talk.
useful exercise
Yes, Forty Two it is. I first was challenged to prove the earth was round by a SUPER intelligent man, who would have probably been able to make a case for multiple genders, good enough to set Crowder crying, if he chose to.
It is a great exercise to do that with any idea, I think. Harder to make a subtle case to people though, so I understand why he used the 'flat earth' example.
