EPA: Pruitt will launch program to 'critique' climate science
Kind of an open question here. I am not a climatologist and  neither are most people. Climate science is subtle and easy to misinterpret (and hence, spin) on the mater of anthropogenic climate change, or ACC.<p>To the average person, myself included, the arguments made by both &quot;sides&quot; (ACC exists, ACC does not exist) are equally convincing. That is, both seem logical and well-argued at the superficial level we can understand without training.<p>To the average person, myself included, both &quot;sides&quot; have a profit motive in fudging the numbers. (If ACC exists, the energy industry will fight because it ultimately harms their profits. If ACC doesn&#x27;t exist, the academic lobby will fight for their prestige and grants)<p>Both sides are, ultimately, dirty, due to politicization if nothing else.<p>Both sides, ultimately, cannot be simultaneously correct.<p>And so I ask: Who should be trusted, why, and how, given the limited number of hours in the day available to people who aren&#x27;t directly involved in climatology as their day job?<p>For bonus points, do any of the answers to those questions not boil down to the genetic or appeal to authority fallacies?<p>(The snark below in response to a legitimate, good-faith question is leading me to believe this topic cannot be discussed among reasonable people)