Canadian Politics Today

Ok.  Ignore and move on then ?

Maybe. I guess the only thing you can do is address the reasons why they are so susceptible to conspiracy theories in general. I spent most of my working life depending on the earth being a sphere for me to get from A to B. Do you think that getting one of these people  to plot a great circle route from Auckland or Melbourne to Santiago on a globe would convince them why such a track doesn't go over the Antarctic? I'm not sure it would.

A flight from Auckland to Capetown would cover a bit of the Antarctic but I don't think anyone flies direct.

Maybe. I guess the only thing you can do is address the reasons why they are so susceptible to conspiracy theories in general. I spent most of my working life depending on the earth being a sphere for me to get from A to B. Do you think that getting one of these people  to plot a great circle route from Auckland or Melbourne to Santiago on a globe would convince them why such a track doesn't go over the Antarctic? I'm not sure it would.

A flight from Auckland to Capetown would cover a bit of the Antarctic but I don't think anyone flies direct.

I know that SFO-Dubai goes right over the arctic (North Pole actually) So you take off heading north and end up headingf south without ther slightest of banked turns. How the hell is that? Maybe it's the Coriolis Effect. 

The question is not whether we should do something but whether we can do something. The latter question is where the disagreement is. The opinion of individual scientists on questions of political choices is not useful or helpful. In fact, when individual scientists choose to engage in politics they undermine the credibility of the process that led to their initial findings. Not unlike a judge wearing a MAGA hat in court.

I fail to see any real substance to your attempt to conflate scientists and politicians. I suppose you may be talking about David Suzuki butr the fact I point out once again is it's the resounding majority of scientists who have come to similar peer reviewed conclusions. So there's not really any "judge in a MAGA hat" in this court.

I know that SFO-Dubai goes right over the arctic (North Pole actually) So you take off heading north and end up headingf south without ther slightest of banked turns. How the hell is that? Maybe it's the Coriolis Effect.

Went over the NP twice between ANC and FRA. Unusual to be that far north but even on a normal flight we would be looking at the north coast of Greenland off in the distance. NP was a reporting point. Summer of course, in the winter it was hours of black with no lights on the ground. As you say N would be on the compass for hours as you flew up a meridian and at the Pole it would make a small turn onto it's new track and fly down another meridian. The old electro mechanical instruments would have a bit of a fit because they couldn't go from north to south instantaneously and the instrument warnings would go off till they sorted themselves out, but the INS didn't care.

Trusting the process would mean going with the majority of evidence and experts, not the minority.

My complaint about climate science is the process has been corrupted by politics and ideology. If anyone expects me to take climate science serious then the process needs to fixed. The trouble, of course, are ideologues who refuse to acknowledge the clearly evident problems with process and instead prefer to label people criticizing the process as "deniers".

This link from a neutral source that clearly shares my view on the problems with the process:
https://thebestschools.org/features/top-climate-change-scientists/

Simply stated, we maintain that appeals to authority and scurrilous ad hominem attacks are no substitute for rational argument. We also hold that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. This means, among other things, that mainstream climate scientists who roundly condemn climate skeptics for seeking support from private industry ought to be a bit more circumspect, seeing that they themselves receive millions in financial backing from government agencies. The tacit assumption behind their indignation  — that only private actors have material interests, while public actors are by definition impartial seekers after truth  — simply won’t wash. We strongly suspect that in, say, 100 years’ time, when (we hope!) scholars will be in a position to investigate this whole disgraceful episode in the history of science more objectively, they will find plenty of blame to go around.

Our position is simple. It is the classical liberal one. Drumroll. Cue the shade of Voltaire (channeled by Evelyn Beatrice Hall): “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Why should I defend someone else’s freedom to say what I myself believe to be wrong? Because the truth is one thing, my knowledge of it is something else. And because this means that the essence of rational inquiry is intellectual humility. And also because the slow and painful advance towards truth is best served by the open and honest airing of disagreement. For all of these reasons, we deplore all attempts to use political muscle to shut down academic debate. Perhaps our liberal take on the ethics of inquiry has become unfashionable in this postmodern age. To which we respond: So much the worse for intellectual fashion.

My complaint about climate science is the process has been corrupted by politics and ideology. If anyone expects me to take climate science serious then the process needs to fixed. The trouble, of course, are ideologues who refuse to acknowledge the clearly evident problems with process and instead prefer to label people criticizing the process as "deniers".

This link from a neutral source that clearly shares my view on the problems with the process:
https://thebestschools.org/features/top-climate-change-scientists/

I doubt anyone really cares if you take climate science seriously. And you call this a "neutral source"? Hilarious. It's laced with politics.

Right. I get it. Its not neutral because it says things you don't agree with. The only "neutral" sources are those that say exactly what you want to hear. I find it amazing that you can so completely lacking in self awareness while hurling accusations at me. I suggest you do some reading:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Oh I've done my share of reading on the topic which is why I understand why the majority of climate scientists have reached the conclusions they have. They are certainly not the ones I or any sensible person would "want" as you seem to suggest. We are damaging the planet we live on, so we need to alter our ways so as not to continue to do that.