&gt; <i>What betrays the rejection of science even more, is making blanket statements or taking strong standpoints, especially on controversial topics.</i><p>The controversy-value of a statement has no bearing on its truth-value, and to think so is <i>deeply</i> unscientific. Belief in the supernatural is unscientific <i>by definition</i>: once something crosses into the natural realm it comes under the dominion of science. In the meantime, God will not pop into existence if enough people believe in him. Even if I am so persuasive that I can convince every living physicist that I&#x27;m immune to the laws of gravity, when I jump off a tall enough bridge I will still plummet to my death. If the fate of our species should we continue on the path we&#x27;re on, is the collapse of our civilization and binding to this one planet until our eventual extinction, then that is what will happen regardless of whatever clever arguments against climate change you can conjure up. The combined willpower of every living human being could not so much as change the spin of a single electron. The universe is indifferent, and it is hard to overstate just how <i>dangerous</i> it is to ignore this basic fact.<p>Moreover, taking a strong standpoint is absolutely justified based on the strength of the evidence. To do otherwise implies that the evidence is not so strong. And again, controversy-value has no bearing on this, either.