I’ve heard a (very intelligent) friend of mine rail against a third party; because the party in question has, in the past, allegedly denied that climate change is real.
I say ‘allegedly’, because I wasn’t invited to attended that particular feté fatále.
Which is proof enough for me that there is, indeed, grace in the world.
Have at it.
Impugn this person.
Take them into a court of law, and charge them with intellectual malfeasance – with ‘gross indecency’.
You might as well – given how incensed you became, at how ‘wrong’ this person is.
Lay your ‘facts’ before me.
Convince me – right here, right now.
Show me your charts and your graphs; your long-term research into the subject.
Show me the geological data for your conclusions.
Lay out the math before the bench, in such a way that you convince this extremely un-scientific court you are the climate change expert your tirade would lead us to believe you are.
And where is this evidence?
I see no hard analytical data, for all your heat of the moment.
All I see is someone parroting the currently ascendant party line.
If you cannot produce corroboration, by yourself, then you have no ‘evidence’ for climate change – other than what the media has told you; what some scientist/s would have you believe.
Why can you not see this?
The Defendant, as it came out in further conversation, certainly seems to be without evidence for their view that climate change is a hoax. But then, you are likewise suffering from a paucity of proof.
All you have is an inflexible preference, for you chosen propaganda over their vehemently held spin.
Your view may very well be the correct view – I happen to believe that it is.
That doesn’t excuse my own intellectual laziness; nor does it absolve us of our anger, against those who can’t even defend themselves… because they’re not even aware they’re being discussed in such heated and dismissive tones.
That’s not the way to resolve disputes; nor is it an effective method for convincing those who would disagree with you, of the logical and factual strengths of your arguments. Merely returning their venom, with an equal amount of your own, home-grown hatred, does nothing to move us further along in deciding the issue. The question before the court of public opinion remains unresolved, while the resultant emotions will continue to rise higher, and ever higher – until they eventually explode.
You, my dear friend, of all people, should know the difference between an evidence-based position, and an example of simply repeating what someone else said, because you ‘believe’ they are right.
You, a lawyer; and supposedly a damn good one…
… you should know better.