Any doubts I might have entertained regarding man's certain involvement in global warming ended long ago. Instead, every new finding is just an "oh, mercy!" moment to me.
I've seen two repeated routes folks take to throw mud in the face of accepted science.
The legal approach: As the Earth's most litigious nation, we expect a good lawyer can fix anything, but how do you sue Mother Nature? How can you even serve her with a writ? While distraught with human-engineered problems, do you think she's going to hire a legal staff to answer the wrongs done her? Do you expect her to understand your Constitutional right to drive three Humvees?
But no one takes legal maneuvers seriously, do they? How many of us see them as bullfights without all that blood and gore?
Never miss a local story.
The second route is really rich: "I don't understand it, so it can't be true."
Even though my background is as an engineer, I could never build an internal-combustion engine. Could you? But I can't say they don't work, because I've benefited from their use in every car and bike I've owned. And I've been warned about the dangers of their misuse. Do I really have to survive a flaming wreck before I "believe"?
We're each entitled to our own opinions, but I don't think it's helpful to use the law or selected ignorance to "prove" them.
HAROLD L. IVEY